Ethics
Essay Preview: Ethics
Report this essay
Eugenics and the four Principles of Bioethics
In chapter two of “From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice” the authors describe a brief history of eugenics atrocities, discuss the doctrine of eugenics, and question societal values regarding eugenics. The authors provide an intuitive analysis of the morality of the science of Eugenics and propose the notion that, within strict ethical guidelines, the science of eugenics could provide valuable benefits to society (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 60). The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the authors views regarding Eugenics with the four principles of Bioethics to capture the prevalent and varied views of society.
Background
Eugenics is defined by Francis Galton (cousin of Charles Darwin) as the “science of improving stock Ð- not only by judicious mating, but whatever tends to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had” (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 30). The Eugenics movement combined the science of genetics with a Social Darwinism. “almost all eugenicists believed that social problems had both a biological basis and, to some degree, a potential biological remedy” (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 41). As with many controversial issues, the application of the eugenics theory varied from the conservative to the liberal. The term positive eugenics referred to programs which encouraged successful members of society to procreate. Fitter family contests were encouraged and special monetary allowances were given to families who were deemed “valuable” to society. Another application of eugenics, negative eugenics, infringed upon the rights of others. Proponents believed in sexual segregation, restrictions on immigration, forbidding interracial marriages, involuntary sterilization, and even euthanasia for the “unfit.” It was an extreme form of negative eugenics that led to the events of the Holocaust. Currently, eugenics is practiced throughout the world, but under a different premise. When analyzed, programs such as world population control, prevention of birth defects, genetics and molecular biology all contains aspects of the eugenics movement (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 39). The authors fear new developments within these programs could eventually lead to future atrocities if a policy regarding eugenics is not implemented. The criteria that should be used to determine an ethical eugenics policy are the four bioethical principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice.
Autonomy
The Bioethical principle of Autonomy can best be described as “self rule.” The authors believe that eugenics is problematic because it places race, population and the gene pool above the rights of individuals and their families (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 52). Additionally, Autonomists are concerned with privacy and consent. The authors give numerous examples of how this had been violated through the use of negative eugenics. The authors believe that For an autonomist to agree to a eugenics policy, there would need to be an assurance that genetic information would not be used in a detrimental manner. There is a fear that genetic information could limit patient confidentiality and eventually lead to an increase of insurance rates, or even denial of insurance and employment. Violated reproductive freedomw
Nonmaleficence
The authors continue their discussion by discussing genetic screening. The authors question whether – Nonmaleficent people would not object to genetic screening in order to prevent babies with substandard genes from being born. The true ethical question is who determines the traits of babies conceived and born. families may feel pressured, even obligated, to prevent a baby from being born that may have a disease which does not promote a good quality of life. If a baby were born with a disease, it could be possible that discrimination against the child and the parents could occur. (Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wilker, 2002, p. 47)? An individual who believes in this principle, believes that individuals should refrain from actions which may thwart, defeat, or set back a parties interest or place them at risk of harm. Nonmaleficence also involves two intuitions: life is a fundamental good, not an absolute good.
Benficence
Perhaps the most controversial issues which the authors discuss relate to the principle of beneficence. The bioethical principle of beneficence is defined as a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others, with the obligation to do the most good for the most people, even if harm comes to some of them. The authors showed that one of the moral problems of eugenics was who and what determined which traits were beneficial. In the past, criteria were determined and then distributed and/or applied against the population using the beneficence concept. Without determining this criteria, For a beneficent person to agree with idea of the value pluralism of eugenics an accurate definition of ideal traits would need to be addressed, additionally it would have to be proven that heritability of behavioral traits does not exist. For a beneficent person to agree with idea of genetic research of eugenics several of the same definitions need to be addressed. Would genetic screening be mandated? Eventually scientific improvements in genetic research may allow parents to possibly remove conditions that will cause harm to others (their babies). If genetic research is not continued on the basis of the fact that all eugenics is bad, undue harm could come to others, thus violating beneficence. Would parents who do not screen for “bad genes”