Genetic Selection Involves Killing

The Telegraph reports on an article in the UK Reader’s Digest by Julian Savulescu, the editor in chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics:

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.

"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.

"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.”

The Telegraph article is unclear about whether Savelescu was promoting genetic selection (screening embryos and choosing the desired one), or genetic manipulation (correcting or replacing undesirable genes), or both. But a look through Savulescu’s article shows he was referring to the first. He speaks only of the type of screening currently being done to determine if certain abnormalities are present, recommending we expand that practice into other characteristics.

I’ve talked about this before: When discussing designer babies, the wording is usually crafted to make it sound like they are trying to make sure your child is better off than he would have been (see for example, the subtitle of the Telegraph article: “Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people...” [emphasis mine])—as if they’re improving the traits of your child. But they are not. What they are actually doing is choosing which one of your many already-created children looks the best. They let him live and kill the rest.

In other words, they’re not actually improving anyone or giving anyone a better “opportunity for a great life.” They’re creating many children and consigning all but one to death.

Whenever people start talking about “designer babies,” watch for this linguistic sleight of hand. Though they try to hide all of those other embryonic humans behind the curtain, hoping you won’t notice the part those human beings are playing in this grotesque experiment, always remember that this process is about more than one child.

Prof Savulescu goes on to say in his article that eugenics is a “moral obligation” to society:

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and dispositions to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others. That doesn’t necessarily imply that people should be coerced into making a choice, but we should encourage them.

When I wrote about designer babies earlier this year, it was in the context of individuals narcissistically fulfilling their personal preferences, but notice how the Reader’s Digest article is moving the discussion from personal preference to “moral obligation,” which lays the groundwork for possible future legal obligation—or at the very least, community pressure.

As bioethicist Wesley J. Smith warns:

Eugenics originated as a “moral obligation,” moved from there to legal coercion, and ultimately crescendoed into the worst evils of human history.  And now many of those same ideas have regained sufficient respectability the Reader’s Digest editors think them worthy of respectable presentation.  This won’t end well.

Comments

[RonH]

Suppose we discover a strong genetic predictor of psychopathy.

The OP would obligate us to implant embryos with this trait rather than discard them.

Good plan!

RonH

[The Watcher]

The only difference between this and something like selective breeding and culling is that in the latter they eliminate the undesirable animals after they're born.

[David]

RonH,

I wonder what personality flaws Julian Savulescu has in the opinions of his parents?

Good plan indeed!

-David

[Darth Dutch]

RonH,

Yes, you are right. But that's the point of the article. That all human life created is worthy of life outside of the womb rather than to be selectively destroyed.

Let's assume the situation you outlined actually happened - the reason they should not be discarded has nothing to do with what the indicators say; they are worthy of life regardless. Moot point.

Darth Dutch

[brianehunt]

RonH,

Your particular supposition regards genetic predictors. As you may know, genes are not very good predictors of disease or disability because genes rarely work in isolation, but in clusters of dozens or even hundreds of genes. There are a few single genes that are predictive. For example, mutations to the BRAC1 or BRAC2 gene in women is predictive of developing breast cancer over their life span. However, if one does not have other risk factors, such as jewish decent, previous cancer, ovarian cancer, etc) even a mutation in one of these genes increases the risk about 40%. But which 40/100 embryos will develop breast cancer over their lifespan? If we abort all, then we abort 60/100 that likely will not develop breast cancer. Another consideration is that of those 60 embryos that will most likely not develop breast cancer, some will develop cardiovascular disease, or be raped, or be battered. Why don't we just abort the whole lot to insure no one will endure hardship, or cause society to bear any burden associated with the hardship.

So all things considered, I think the more ill conceived plan is yours.

[Sam]

Suppose it is possible to determine from somebody's genes that they would grow up to be a sociopath. Would that justify taking their life?

Suppose we didn't discover somebody had the sociopath gene until they were five years old. Would that justify taking their life? If not, then it wouldn't justify taking the life of an embryo either as long as the embryo is just as much a member of the human family as the five year old.

I think that's the real issue here. Screening embryos would sound like a good idea if embryos were not human beings. After all, nobody thinks there's anything immoral about factoring in genetics when choosing a spouse to be the mother or father of your future children because nobody dies in the process. The reason these people think screening embryos is a good idea is because they don't think embryos are valuable living people like the rest of us are.

[RonH]

brianehunt,

It's called a supposition. That's why I started with Suppose. Furthermore, I'm aware that there are genes that are perfect good predictors of disease or disability.

Sam,

I point out the implication the 'personhood' position. I know that there are those who will dig in.

Others might be persuadable.

RonH

[kpolo]

Sam,
Suppose by the time we perfect such genetic trait identification, the US Govt with Obamacare had grown to a monstrosity and at that point the govt run hospitals decide to eliminate those with a trait to disagree with the govt on anything and everything. Would that be beneficial?

[brianehunt]

RonH,

I also referred to your supposition as a supposition, so I'm not sure I get your point. Can you help me understand why both of us referring to your hypothetical as a supposition is a problem for me but not for you?

As for the purported genes that you "know are perfect good predictors of disease or disability", can you share one with me as I did with you in my earlier comment?

[Sam]

kpolo, it would be beneficial to the government, but it wouldn't be beneficial to the people who get eliminated. Why do you ask?

[RonH]

brianehunt,

For many of the disorders listed here, having the genetic trait means you (certainly) have the condition. Have a look.

RonH

[brianehunt]

RonH

Thanks for your direct response, but have you looked carefully at the list? For example, a specific mutation of the X chromosome is linked to the occurrence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. While males with this mutation almost always have DMD, females rarely develop the disease. So again, as I said before, genes rarely act alone.

So you are correct that "many" of the extremely few conditions listed are linked with a single gene mutation. So I still believe my initial point is correct, that your supposition is so unlikely as to be pointless.

But let me ask my question again using DMD as our example. If you were to find that a preborn male has the Xp mutation do you believe that the most moral response would be to destroy him before implantation? I would guess that if one surveyed many individuals with DMD, that most are thankful that they had a life to live at all.

[squallybimbadine]

So how many perfect people are there in the world? Who gets to decide which traits are acceptable and what might be the outcome of a power struggle spawned by desire to hold that scepter? The assumption that the body is not controlled by the spirit is behind the beliefs fueling the push for genetic selection. Should this whole issue be considered without viewing it from a Christian worldview?

[2oldstroke]

RonH,
You were born too late. They could have used you in the Third Reich.

[Philobite]

"Suppose we discover a strong genetic predictor of psychopathy."

And what would lead us to think we're not all psychopathic in some meaningful sense anyway?

[RonH]

brianehunt,

Angelman syndrome is defined by one of four mechanisms and 100% of those who have it have some of the symptoms.

How did I find this? I started at the top of the Wikipedia list. Angelman syndrome is the second disorder listed.

RonH

[squallybimbadine]

How do we know that scientists aren't lying?

[Louis Kuhelj]

It has just dawned on me that this is nothing more than in utero hunger games, with Mother as president Coin and the doctor as president Snow and the womb as the arena. It fits... and may the odds be ever in your favor for there can be only one victor and to him go the riches of life and all others die in the arena.

Stop this barbaric gladiatorial game!

[Jim Pemberton]

It's interesting how the fertility goddess demands the sacrifice of many children for the one(s) we believe will serve our gratification the best. Interestingly, countless studies, like this one, indicate that it's parental attitudes far more than genetics that produce desirable children. Parents who seek self-gratification in their children will be disappointed. Parents who help a child learn to deal with his or her inevitable flaws and love them anyway are far more likely to produce children who are stable and achieve reasonably well according to their potential.

[Carolyn]

Well said, Jim!