Talk:Eugenics
Eugenics still exists, it is not a past tense thing. Nancy Sculerati 18:43, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
This article is worded in a very U.S.-centric way, while eugenics laws were passed in Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia as well as the U.S. and Canada. Also, some eugenicists, including Margaret Sanger, encouraged "superior" people to have more children, contrary to the statement in the article That families with more children dispersed and diluted the "moral force" of each offspring. "More children from the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief issue of birth control," according to Sanger.
As Nancy points out, eugenics is still embodied in government policy, in Singapore and China. Anthony Argyriou 19:40, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- I'd just say, as I would with any CZ entry, that if there is more to be told, go ahead and tell it! I don't think that the article in its current form is all that U.S.-centric -- if there is more to be said about other countries, let's add it (though perhaps nationality per se may not be the best organizing principle, if there's strong evidence for Eugenics as an international phenomenon).
- The ideas in the bulleted list are not meant to be a list of common beliefs, just examples of some of the beliefs of different followers of this idea (the idea of more children diluting 'moral force', interestingly enough, was espoused by Thomas Edison!
- And again, if eugenicist ideas are still embodied in law (I know some of the U.S. laws were never removed from the books) in some places, let's mention and document that. I'll tweak the tense so as to set the stage for such materials. Russell Potter 20:15, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I only point it out because I'm going to add stuff about human diseases. You see, Eugenics can be a terrible thing, but on the other hand- for example with inherited diseases like Huntington's chorea or phenyketonuria or Tay sachs disease, the diseases are inherited and are a terrible thing and how you go about preventing it is not clearly a wrong thing to do-to give you an example- i can't think of the name, it's Hebrew, it means "The passing of the generations" in New York among the Hassidic communities where most of the marriages are arranged, or at least discussed between the rabbi and couple and most often a match maker, there is a system of eugenics that I think is rather smart and kind. Since there is a fairly high chance of a couple of Ashkenazi Jews having a baby with that dreadful disease- in which the baby is born normal and then deteriotes neurolgicxaly and dies- and worse than that, if both parents are carriers- and follow the traditions, they may have many children and many such babies, this is how it works. All the young men and women of marriagble age have gene testing to see if they are carriers. The rabbi and only the rabbi gets the results. When the matchmaker goes to the Rabbi and says Boy A and Girl B? The Rabbi may say, it's a match, but if he knows they are both carriers he will say- it's not a match. And the matchmaker keeps looking. Now I myself am not saying that arranged marriages are the best way, or that a Hassidic lifestyle is the best way- but if you have arranged marriages, and if you have a lifestyle and religious traditions that by and large end up with big families, and there are known recessive genes in te population that are horrible if homozygous, then I think that this is a briliant system. But it is eugenics, no matter how you look at it. Yet it is a voluntary and humane way to avoid a tragic death for a child. Now, on the other hand, much of Eugenics in social history wasn't actual eugenics in this sense, it involved genocide and forced sterilization and all sorts of things- but on a misplaced idea that the people involved were going to pass on their genes and somehow destroy humanity. I'm just saying that - although this may still go on, unfortunately, there is also a "real" eugenics (not without its controversies) where people control reprduction according to deleterious genes. Nancy Sculerati 20:22, 1 June 2007 (CDT) P.S look at Eugenics and sterilization another one I had started . Link it?Nancy Sculerati 20:24, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
For example: Authors Scott R. Authors Full Name Scott, Rosamund. Institution School of Law and Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, King's College London, UK. Title Choosing between possible lives: legal and ethical issues in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Source Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 26(1):153-78, 2006. Abstract This article critically appraises the current legal scope of the principal applications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This relatively new technique, which is available to some parents undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, aims to ensure that a child is not born with a seemingly undesirable genetic condition. The question addressed here is whether there should be serious reasons to test for genetic conditions in embryos in order to be able to select between them. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Commission have decided that there should be such reasons by broadly aligning the criteria for PGD with those for selective abortion. This stance is critically explored, as are its implications for the possible use of PGD to select either against or for marginal features or for significant traits. The government is currently reviewing the legal scope and regulation of PGD. Publication Type Journal Article.
- Nancy, I take your points; thanks for the heads-up about Eugenics and sterilization. I don't mean the article to imply that there are never any sound genetic reasons that certain couples ought not have biological children, or ought to be tested and receive genetic counselling; I simply take the term "Eugenics" as a now-obsolete historical word, fuelled by these *false* genetic anxieties, referring to movement from the 1890's through to the 1950's only. If the word is still used in some more accurate way today, feel free to move this entry to History of Eugenics and we can take it from there. I would not want to add anything to this entry about actual genetic diseases and their prevention, because it would lead some readers to assume some sort of link or legitimacy, but would rather see that new material under "Prevention of genetic diseases" or some such Russell Potter 20:48, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not sure. I see the occaisional article, for example recently there is a movement to do genetic testing on all embryos in assisted reporduction before implantation, and it is often called eugenics - bit it is also hotly debated as maybe an unethical thing to do. In other words, you may be right that eugenics is not literally genetic counseling but only the social travesty. By the way, I started that other article , Eugenics and sterilization,while reading about contraception and sugical sterilization. I try to make use of good sources when I find them. Thanks for this one Russell. Nancy Sculerati 21:02, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Nancy, many thanks. I have linked up Eugenics and sterilization at a couple of likely places in this current entry. Looking around in social science texts, I do think that the word "eugenics," with its implication of "good genes" (the eu- stem in Greek means "good") has passed from all but historical usage. A google around MedLine and some other sites suggests that "Genetic counselling" might be an appropriate and common term for these kinds of genetic issues today. I appreciate being able to co-ordinate these efforts with you! Russell Potter 08:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Can I note the genetic testing for (thallasemis ?) disorder in the Catholic communities in the Mediterranean (Sardinia? from memory). This testing and marriage counseling occurs despite its conflict with Catholic religious teaching. I note also Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories past association with Eugenics, despite it current position as a center of research excellence. Its pleasing to see a "controversial" article progress in a scholastic and civil way.David Tribe 22:08, 2 June 2007 (CDT)