Week 8 – Eugenics

Name: Yohan Dale Iñigo C. Miranda

Section: FBHHM2

The advancement of Science and Technology has always had its fair share of
pros and cons, and the field of Eugenics is anything but an exception. The thirst for a
carefree life has led to so many discoveries that our yearning for comfort has led to
some dark times in human history. In this module, the history of Eugenics was
presented to you from the days of Plato to modern times. While justified for its advocacy
throughout the ages, Eugenics will always be tied to ethical implications because of the
nature of its practice. Using the knowledge that you have gained (if you have not yet
read the module in BigSky, STOP HERE and read it first), answer the questions below
and justify your answers using the provided information in the module, your own points
of view, your ethical compass as well as the internet. Make sure to cite your
references properly (APA format)

1. Enumerate some positive and negative aspects of the practice of Eugenics.

(10pts)
Positive Negative
1. Reduced Prevalence of Genetic 1. Raises serious ethical questions
Diseases about who gets to define
"desirable" traits
2. Enhanced Physical and Mental 2. Unintended Consequences
Traits
3. Improved Public Health 3. This could easily escalate into
forced sterilization or abortions,
leading to human rights abuses
4. This could lead to greater 4. This could lead to a
advancements in science, homogenization of the human
technology, and other fields population, reducing valuable
genetic diversity that could be
crucial for future adaptation.
5. Individuals might choose to 5. This could exacerbate social
eliminate genetic diseases from inequalities, with the wealthy
their offspring having access to enhance their
offspring while the poor are left
behind.

2. Do you think Galton and all the other intellectuals were right in their crusade to
purge humanity of negative traits? Explain your stand. (5pts)
 Galton's ambitious vision of perfecting humanity through Eugenics indeed
possesses a captivating allure. The notion of cultivating a populace characterized
by enhanced health and intelligence is unquestionably enticing. However, I
believe that it is misguided upon further inspection. Eugenics relies on an
incomplete comprehension of genetics, leading to a fundamentally shaky
foundation (Caplan et al., 1999). The definition of "undesirable" traits is also
highly subjective and prone to discriminatory biases. Our focus should be on
nurturing a society that champions inclusivity and harnesses advancements in
healthcare to enhance the well-being of all individuals. We can aspire to a future
where every person is valued and empowered to thrive by fostering an
environment that celebrates diversity and prioritizes equitable access to
healthcare.
3. Despite the negative connotations, why is it still necessary to pursue studies in
Human Genetic Engineering? (5pts)
Human Genetic Engineering, though fraught with ethical considerations, I
believe remains an essential field of study due to its potential to revolutionize
healthcare (Chin, 2019). The ability to eradicate diseases embedded in our
genes, like cystic fibrosis, offers a future free from the burden of inherited
illnesses. Furthermore, gene therapy holds immense promise for correcting the
very blueprint of diseases, potentially curing conditions like sickle cell anemia.
Studying this field isn't just about eradicating disease; it's about unlocking a
deeper understanding of complex illnesses and paving the way for personalized
medicine. By tailoring treatments to individual genetic profiles, we can maximize
effectiveness and minimize side effects. Ultimately, research in Human Genetic
Engineering offers a glimpse into a future where healthcare is proactive and
preventive, and the potential benefits far outweigh the ethical challenges,
pushing us to navigate this field with both caution and ambition.
4. Suppose that you are part of the Ethics review board for a hospital and you are
presented with the following cases, you must decide on whether you will allow
the patients to undergo Prenatal Genetic Testing: (10pts)
(Prenatal Genetic Testing – tests that are done DURING PREGNANCY to either
screen for a specific trait or diagnose a birth defect. This can provide parents with
information to make informed choices regarding a pregnancy)

a. A couple with a genetic disease wants to avoid passing the disease to the
child
I would likely grant approval for prenatal genetic testing for this
couple, recognizing the importance of understanding the risk of passing on
a genetic disease. Such knowledge empowers individuals to make
informed choices about their pregnancy journey. Prenatal testing facilitates
a thorough assessment of the situation, allowing the couple to explore
various options such as continuing the pregnancy, considering adoption,
or utilizing egg/sperm donation, if applicable, depending on the test
results. Moreover, the potential benefits of prenatal testing far outweigh
the minimal risks involved. Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS)
presents minimal risk to the fetus while offering crucial insights. This
information can significantly alleviate the anxiety associated with the
uncertainty of the child inheriting the disease.
b. The couple wants to bear a second child with compatible bone marrow for
their first child, who is suffering from Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
As a member of the Ethics Review Board, this case presents a
challenging situation. The couple's desire to help their child battling
leukemia is heartwarming. However, my primary concern is ensuring the
ethical treatment of all involved. Testing the fetus solely to find a
compatible bone marrow donor raises a red flag. We wouldn't want the
second child to feel like they're just a "savior sibling," created for a specific
purpose. As a member of the Ethics Review Board, this case presents a
challenging situation. The couple's desire to help their child battling
leukemia is heartwarming. However, my primary concern is ensuring the
ethical treatment of all involved. Testing the fetus solely to find a
compatible bone marrow donor raises a red flag. We wouldn't want the
second child to feel like they're just a "savior sibling," created for a specific
purpose. If, after counseling, the couple still desires testing, I would
advocate for strict guidelines. First, we'd prioritize non-invasive prenatal
screening (NIPS) to minimize risks to the fetus. Second, exploring
alternative options like searching bone marrow registries or cord blood
banking at birth would be crucial.
Ultimately, my decision would hinge on prioritizing the well-being
and future of both children. Honesty and open communication with the
second child, when they're old enough to understand, would be essential.
They should be raised knowing their potential role as a donor, but also
valued and loved for themselves. This is a complex case, and I would
carefully consider all factors before making a recommendation to the
Board.
c. To help a short couple produce a tall child
I would strongly advise against approving this prenatal test. There
are significant concerns here. On one hand, pressuring a child to be tall
based on parental preference could negatively impact their self-esteem.
On the other hand, focusing solely on height disregards other important
aspects of health and well-being. Instead, I'd recommend encouraging the
couple to focus on fostering a healthy lifestyle for their child, which
naturally promotes optimal growth. This includes a balanced diet, regular
exercise, and sufficient sleep – all factors that contribute to healthy
development, regardless of height.
d. Couple wants to select the sex of the child because they want a baby girl
Couple wants to select the sex of the child because they want a
baby girl. My primary concern would be the potential reinforcement of
gender biases and the perpetuation of gender inequality. Allowing
selective abortion based on the sex of the fetus could contribute to
societal preferences for one gender over another, leading to discrimination
and harm to individuals of the undesired gender. As an advocate for equity
and fairness, I would be hesitant to support a practice that could fuel such
disparities. Additionally, granting approval for prenatal genetic testing for
non-medical reasons could set a precedent for future requests for similarly
non-essential purposes, potentially leading to slippery slope situations
where testing is used for increasingly frivolous reasons.
e. A celebrity wants to choose the traits of her potential offspring (she has a
LOT of money)
As an Ethics Review Board, it is our responsibility to prioritize the
well-being and dignity of all individuals involved, including the potential
children. Therefore, I would be inclined to reject the request for trait
selection in this case, emphasizing the importance of valuing children for
who they are rather than for predetermined traits. As an Ethics Review
Board, it is our responsibility to prioritize the well-being and dignity of all
individuals involved, including the potential children. Therefore, I would be
inclined to reject the request for trait selection in this case, emphasizing
the importance of valuing children for who they are rather than for
predetermined traits. Furthermore, there are concerns about the potential
for harm to the children who may be born as a result of such selective
practices. Children should not be treated as commodities or products to be
customized according to parental preferences. Allowing trait selection
could also lead to unintended consequences, such as unforeseen health
risks or psychological impacts on the children.
References:
Caplan, A., McGee, G., & Magnus, D. (1999, November 13). What is immoral about
Eugenics?. National Library of Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129063/
Chin, J. L. (2019). Eugenics in the 21st Century. City University of New York.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4450&context=gc_et
ds

Once you are done, upload this to the designated Dropbox in BigSky