Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
If an evil of the eugenics movement was its use of compulsion, the
obvious lesson would seem to be the need for freedom from interference
with reproductive decisions. The moral that people should be free to
reach their own reproductive goals in whatever ways they want is fre-
quently drawn. This use of history is clearly illustrated by the Swedish
libertarian philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö, who writes,
The important thing to learn from history is that society should not meddle with
our reproductive decisions. This does not only imply that no one should be com-
pelled to have an abortion or become sterilized. It implies too that no one should
be stopped from becoming a parent in the way he or she sees fit. The use of tech-
niques for assisted reproduction should not be regulated by political authorities
(nor by doctors). The decisions about prenatal diagnosis, in vitro fertilization,
egg donation, preimplanatory diagnosis, and so forth, should be placed in the
hands of prospective parents. The doctors should serve the needs of those
prospective parents. The politicians should allow the doctors to do so.
65
As Jean Bethke Elshtain notes, the world of human reproductive tech-
nology has “been surrounded by the halo of 'rights.' ”
66
Boosters and
skeptics both invoke them. For instance, the skeptical Council on
Responsible Genetics believes that “all people have the right to have been
conceived, gestated, and born without genetic manipulation.”
67
At the
same time, such enthusiasts for the new technologies as John Robertson,
Leroy Hood, and Lee Silver argue that we all have the right to seek to
achieve our reproductive goals, however we define them (which usually
translates to the claim that we have the right to any procedure we can
afford).
68
The new and prospective technologies are said to allow not just
infertile couples but also gay couples and single adults to reproduce chil-
dren that share their genes—thereby fulfilling their reproductive desires.
69
The principle of respect for autonomy is seen to demarcate today's repro-
ductive opportunities from the bad coercive eugenics of the past. For
example, Gregory Pence writes that allowing parents virtually unfettered
choice in relation to their future children through the insertion of artifi-
cial chromosomes to extend their life span or in utero therapy to improve
their memory, is exactly the opposite of the bad, state-controlled eugen-
ics of the past, which aimed to deny parents such choices. Pence notes
that he himself would feel obliged to give his future child such advan-
tages, adding that while he would respect others' decisions not to do the
same (as though he had a choice!), he was baffled by how others could
possibly think it just to prevent him from providing his future children
