Monday, December 04, 2006
Good books inspire deep thoughts
I just finished a book by Jodi Picoult called Second Glances. It was really interesting and I recommend it. It discussed the interesting and controversial blight on American history. In the 1920's and 30's thirty-three states passed bills that in some form or another that paved the way for the sterilization of "inferior" persons. It discussed eugenincs, which usually refers to the selective breeding of certain animals (cows, etc.) to ensure that any inferior genes were weeded out. Doctors, professors, and politicians decided to apply this to humans which usually lead to racial discrimination as well as dicrimination against any who were indigent, feebleminded, insane, blind, deaf, criminally inclined, or transient becuase it was decided these people were inferior and so should not be allowed to procreate. These people were "voluntarily" sterilized. This was then tied to modern day gene selection to get rid of things like inherited disorders such as sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, etc. This is something that scientifically, we are very close to accomplishing. The question at hand is who decides how far to take something like this. Anyway, my point is this: I have to write a research paper for my internet class and I thought this would be an interesting topic. Without turning this into a family debate, I would love to hear any opinions or points of view or even stories that I can work into my paper. It is always good to challenge the mind so let me know what you all think. If you don't want to post something you can email me at aksechrest@gmail.com. I would really appreciate any help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting topic. I think it is one that will come front and center soon. I heard a woman call the Dr. Laura show once asking her opinion on something similar. She was recently pregnant with her first, and through amnio discovered the baby had some sort of genetic problem. She and her husband aborted the baby and talked to a genetic counselor, who told them they had a 1 in 4 chance of conceiving a healthy child. This woman was really planning on concieving and aborting until she had concieved a healthy child. Why she thought to call Dr. Laura of all people is a mystery. Dr. Laura said she couldn't help her becuase she saw way too many things wrong with her personal attitudes and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI personally know how with each child you hope for health and strength, if only for the fact you want your baby to have the best possible chance at happiness and security in life. Unfortunately, the disablities do make for a complicated life that can be very isolating. I guess what I am saying is I can understand why people would be tempted to ensure a healthy strong baby. I also know so many people who are stronger and better for the difficulties associated with disabilities, as a disabled person, or a family member. As a society we are so focused on physical perfection, health, and safety, we have come to fear anything deviating from it.
Would we be sorrowful if there were a scientific advancement that allowed all deaf people to hear? That would probably win a nobel prize. If you select healthy egg and sperm for conception, rather than allow for chance, is that different? If you look at it from the 1920's perspective. I think that sterilizing vast groups is definitely morally wrong, and scientifically silly. There is no guarantee with two very healthy people that a genetic variation causing such an issue wouldn't show up. The questions I would ask are: "what would our society lose if all genetic illness and disability were gone?" And "What would our society gain if they were lost?" "What would we lose in our spiritual development?" "What would we gain?" "What new moral issues could arise?" I don't know if this helps. I assume you probably have some more coherent grasp on the debate after reading the book you read. Let me know what you think. I will keep digesting my thoughts. I may change them completely. Good luck!
We saw a movie a while back that touched on this idea. You may have seen it...it was called "Gattaca". Here is a brief description from the Blockbuster site:
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand screenwriter Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show) made his feature directorial debut with this science fiction drama, set in a future when one's life is determined by genetic engineering rather than education or experience. The wealthy can choose the genetic makeup of their descendants. People are designed to fit into whatever role is decided before birth. But what happens when someone desires another way of life? Citizens in this impersonal future-world are fashioned as perfect specimens, so those in the natural-born minority are viewed as inferior to the pre-planned perfect specimens (aka "Valids") who dominate. One of the natural-borns (aka "In-Valids"), Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke), has several defects (poor vision, emotional problems, and short 30-year life expectancy), but he also develops a different outlook on his pre-ordained fate. He yearns to break free from society's constraints, and he dreams of a journey into space as a Gattaca Corp. navigator. To accomplish his goal, he enlists the aid of DNA broker German (Tony Shalhoub) and makes contact with Jerome Morrow (Jude Law), who was paralyzed in an accident and is willing to sell his superior genetic materials. Vincent assumes Jerome's identity and is scheduled for a flying mission. However, a week before his flight, a Gattaca mission director is murdered, and all members of the program are the suspects. Meanwhile, he develops a romantic interest in a beautiful Valid, Irene (Uma Thurman), prevented from going into space because of her heart defect. Tracked by a relentless investigator who is methodically jigsawing all the pieces together, Jerome finds his aspirations dissolving into stardust. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Thanks guys. It is hard for me to think from the perspective of a parent so it is good to hear insight. I haven't decided which side I come out on for my paper but I will keep you updated. Lisa, I loved the pictures of the kids. I miss them! And you!
ReplyDeleteThe other side of this is, of course, that people who shouldnt be arre living longer and longer. Don't jump on my back about the "shouldn't be" i'm not trying to make any kind of moral statement but we see kids evrey day at the hospital who wouldn't be alive if not for the surgeries they've had.
ReplyDeleteit's one thing to pin a broken arm but we're putting kids on bypass and correcting congenital heart defects defects that could potentially be passed on to their children requiring the same or possibly more extensive care.
basically through medical care we as the human race have all but wiped out natural selection. Let's not let this digress into a "evolution resulting in humans" debate the fact is that you have to aknowledge that there is such a thing as natural selection, animals who are stronger and smarter survive and pass on their genes and those who aren't don't but these days we're keeping people with genetic problems that would normally result in death, alive long enough that procreation is a possiblity. we're allowing, even helping the weak to survive. is that a good thing? doesn't it weaken us all as a species?
I know how this post sounds and really i'm mostly playing devil's advocate. i can't really bring myself to have an opinion one way or another. i have plenty of anecdotes, a girl who has an incredibly painful genetic disorder that prevents her various layers of skin from adhearing to one another resulting in the top layer sloughing right off when anything rubs against it. She has, basically rug burns over her entire body all the time, and when she heals things like fingers and toes fuse. we then surgically seperate them. If not for the amazing care and patience of her mother this girl would have died of infection resulting from so many open sores long ago. would that really be worse? i don't know. And then there's the premies that we see kids who were born so early that with 99% assurity they'll never be normal, most won't see many won't hear, the vast majority will never be of "normal" inteligence. Should we maybe just wrap them up in a blanket and tell the mother we're sorry?
But if she were my daughter or if it were my baby i'd probably say "do everything you can."
This is long and rambling, just like this topic but it's more to think about.
-Allison
PS. I love Jodi Picoult and if youliked that one you may want to check out "My Sister's Keeper" , another of her's. It's another tangent on the same topic.
I read "my sisters keeper" and loved it too. I agree about the natural selection thing. We may be advancing in science but should we really be? How much effort and expense should be exerted to keep someone alive who, chances are, may not want to be? On the other side how many people in the world have made incredible contributions but have a disability? I personally don't think it makes you less of a human being and, waxing religious, it certainly doesn't make you less of a child of God. Thank you for your insight.
ReplyDeleteSo I finished my paper and am more conflicted than ever on the subject. I will let you know how it went when I get my grade back.
ReplyDeleteWell I got a decent grade and an A in the class. I learned a ton but still cannot say for sure what I would do in this situation. That is probably why my teacher told be to take a harder stance in my paper. I guess I wasn't ready to take it on. I'm sure I will form an opinion someday and then probably change it. Lesson learned.
ReplyDelete