« In Which I Praise David Brooks | Main | New ARG Polls »
July 31, 2007
More on "Eugenics"
Ross Douthat questions whether I'm right to term Down's Syndrome "medically disastrous." Brian replies:
Between the amount of money spent on supervisory care for a baby with Down's Syndrome, the amount of money spent on associated medical ailments for a baby with Down's Syndrome, the extreme mental retardation and physical disabilities of a baby with Down's syndrome, and the very early deaths of a very large percentage children with Down's syndrome, I'd say that Down's Syndrome is extraordinarily medically disastrous unless you're very heavily invested in the idea that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics.
In any case, Ross believes it's perfectly correct to term parents aborting fetuses with significant genetic abnormalities -- many of which would be fatal -- "eugenics." He writes that the ends are the same: "the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process." Suggesting that a couple who terminates their pregnancy because their son exhibits the marker for Tay-Sachs disease -- which will render their child blind, deaf, and unable to swallow, and then kill him around the age of 5 -- is seeking the "the genetic improvement of the human species" seems, again, a real stretch.
In any case, were Ross a biologist, or were he writing a scientific blog about genetics, I wouldn't quibble with his invocation of the word "eugenics." But he isn't. He's a political commentator writing for an august, mainstream magazine. Within that context, using the term "eugenics" is misleading as to what's actually being discussed. Even the definition Ross uses -- "the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process" -- suggests a sort of societal engineering project aimed at enhancement, rather than families individually deciding to abort fetuses whose genetic mutations will cause great hardship, pain, and, in many cases, early death.
July 31, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It seems relevant that we're talking about--I believe--individual decisions, not a government (or otherwise) program. Not fucking your sibling and getting her pregnant? Also eugenics on his account, I think.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 31, 2007 12:55:16 PM
"that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics. "
Nobody aborts babies. the word is fetus.
Posted by: yep | Jul 31, 2007 1:02:43 PM
Ross missing a key fact:
"Eugenics" has always referred to grand top-down schemes in which the government or "society", had the power to decide who gets to reproduce and who gets to be born -- for the benefit of the collective.
No eugenics scheme, real or imagined, has ever allowed the parents to make their own decision, motivated by their own interests, regarding whether or not they want to have children.
When individual people make their own individual reproductive choices for their own individual reasons, regardless of the final effect, it is NOT EUGENICS!!!
Posted by: r4d20 | Jul 31, 2007 1:06:18 PM
It can not be "genetic improvement" anyway if there would be no reproduction because of an early death.
Posted by: RJ | Jul 31, 2007 1:29:18 PM
Would Ross call it eugenics if a person who knows she is at great risk of conceiving a fetus with Tay-Sachs or Downs declined to attempt a pregnancy at all? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: nolo | Jul 31, 2007 1:29:50 PM
It seems straightforwardly false that a mother will abort a fetus with Tay-Sachs or Downs syndrome out of a desire to improve the genetic profile of the human species. Preventing unnecessary and pointless pain and suffering is a much more likely and--completely defensible--reason for doing it.
So even under his tendentious definition of eugenics, it still isn't eugenics.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 31, 2007 1:34:06 PM
First of all, it's Down Syndrome, not Down's Syndrome.
Secondly, I'm appalled by Brian's ignorance about Down Syndrome, and the not-very-enlightened attitudes his post exhibits. Yes, Down Syndrome is a serious disability, but to call it "medically disastrous" and harp on how "costly" it is is a very loaded and problematic value judgment.
The fact is, most people with Down Syndrome have IQs in the mild to moderately retarded range -- very few are in the severe or profound range. People with Down Syndrome are at higher risk for a range of physical problems, but proper physical therapy, medical care, and education at an early age has dramatically improved their health, life span, and cognitive functioning.
In a former life I was a social worker with people with developmental disabilities so I know something about this condition and about disability in general. My clients with Down Syndrome were actually among the healthiest and highest-functioning of the developmentally disabled population I worked with. Many of them held jobs and some were even able to live independently.
Really, Brian should take some care to learn a little about this subject before posting about it -- otherwise he's just spreading ignorance and adding to he already heavy social stigma that disabled people and their families have to bear in this society. Reading Michael Berube's wonderful book and essays about his son, who has Down Syndrome, would be a good start.
Finally, for the record I support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy for any reason including disability such as Down Syndrome, and I don't think that doing so amounts to eugenics. But I fear that too many people who choose to abort Down Syndrome fetuses act out of fear and ignorance about the condition.
No doubt about it, raising a developmentally disabled kid is rough, and believe me, I saw that very clearly with the families I worked with. But Down Syndrome is not a tragedy, nor is it a death sentence, and raising a Down Syndrome kid can have very great rewards. And personally I found it a joy to work with them. I left social work only because I saw how screwed up the system was and thought I could do more by working on things at a policy level, rather than with individuals.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 31, 2007 1:39:33 PM
Nolo raises an excellent point: I have heard of couples who choose to adopt or to use donor sperm because they know they carry the same recessive, and I've heard of Huntingtin's carriers who choose not to have children (Huntingtin's is that rare thing, a dominant-lethal, and is not lost from the gene pool because it causes lethality long after the onset of fertility). Technically, these people are making 'eugenic' decisions.
On the other side of the argument, Downs and other spontaneous defects often aren't inheritable genetic conditions, and so aborting affected fetuses technically isn't 'eugenics'. Curiously, aborting a Tay-Sachs homozygous fetus also isn't 'eugenics', as this victim of inherited disease cannot reach adulthood and thus will not transmit the condition to the next generation (aborting a Tay-Sachs heterozygous fetus, which is not an event I've heard of, would be 'eugenics').
The point is that in the context of a political/ideological debate, 'eugenics' doesn't mean exerting decisions about your own reproduction on the basis of knowledge that your offspring will suffer from serious disabilities. It means a massive, usually state-led, movement to discriminate children, teenagers, and adults, and to sterilize and murder those of whom it disapproves. Genetics - and even the technical meaning of 'eugenics' - has little or nothing to do with it.
Allegations of 'eugenics' are just another Godwin's law violation, and deserved to be treated as such.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Jul 31, 2007 1:50:00 PM
Brian said,
I'd say that Down's Syndrome is extraordinarily medically disastrous unless you're very heavily invested in the idea that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics.
Most parents who choose to have babies with Down Syndrome don't have a single thought about eugenics. They make their decisions on other grounds, and often don't view it as a medical disaster (though it certainly is in some cases--there's a lot a variability). Kathy explained much of the reality of this.
Suggesting that a couple who terminates their pregnancy because their son exhibits the marker for Tay-Sachs disease -- which will render their child blind, deaf, and unable to swallow, and then kill him around the age of 5 -- is seeking the "the genetic improvement of the human species" seems, again, a real stretch.
I agree, but this again raises the question of function vs. intent. Those who want to speak of functional racism seem to be in a position that would warrant also speaking of functional eugenics, at least in some cases (Down Syndrome not being a prime case, though one might try to make it fit less directly).
Within that context, using the term "eugenics" is misleading as to what's actually being discussed.
Which is also an objection to speaking of racism as a functional matter.
I noticed that Megan used the term "eugenetics," perhaps to try to reach some middle ground.
R4D20, not all eugenics was about top-down programs, but to distinguish those the term "personal functional eugenics" could be used.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 1:50:12 PM
yep
Having had a personal experience with this, I can assure you that everyone in the room used the term "baby" - my wife and doctors included . It personalized the process and made it much more difficult, but I think it added the necessary weight to the decision process.
Posted by: DM | Jul 31, 2007 1:55:40 PM
I said it in the earlier thread (as have others) and I'll say it again: the critical distinction is between central planning of human reproduction (by someone) and individual choice. I thought this was a basic, important distinction for conservatives like Ross! Planning bad, personal choice good!
No one's trying to 'improve the species' in the situations we're talking about. They're trying to avoid having personally to raise a genetically damaged child.
As SCMT points out, if this is eugenics then so is literally *any* reproduction-related choice. Mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person? Clearly you're seeking "the genetic improvement of the human species". Decline to have kids because some bad hereditary disease runs in your family? Same thing. Abort a pregnancy that's the product of incest? Ditto. Heck, malformed fetuses often abort on their own. God's a eugenicist!
By this logic, for a woman to prove to Ross she's not a eugenicist she would have to carry to full term any unwanted fetus -- unwanted for any reason -- and give the baby up for adoption. It reads like an attempt to construct a back-door argument for forced pregnancy.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 31, 2007 1:57:18 PM
Look, whether or not a pregnant couple (ok, pregnant woman and her partner, if she has one) wishes to abort a fetus which has down syndrome is a difficult and heartbreaking issue. My good friend's younger brother has down syndrome. He's a wonderful young man. Full of life and energy. He's competed in the special olympics in swimming. He's great. On the other hand, his life and the life of his parents has been very difficult. Medication after medication, struggling to get him adequate education from a public school system, constant worries about medical issues that are associated with down syndrome, and, of course, having to watch lots of pro-wrestling with him (ok kidding, but seriously the kid was and is nuts about it).
I know there is NO WAY they would have it any other way, but I wouldn't tell others what to do if they were faced with such a decision. It has been a rewarding struggle for the whole family, but a very tough one.
As for Ross, again, it's silly to argue this is not eugenics. Of course it's not. If all parents were REQUIRED to abort fetuses that tested positive for down syndrome, then it would be akin to eugenics. But engaging this argument is fruitless. If you want to engage this argument you should do so by "mock and attack." Saying "I'm not a eugenicist" just moves the debate to "Is Ezra a Nazi?" Of course it's absurd, but you're not debating the merits of safe and legal abortions anymore, so problem solved!
Posted by: IMU | Jul 31, 2007 1:57:21 PM
I just read over Ezra's post from yesterday and realized that he was the first person to use the "medically disastrous" epithet. So sorry Ez, but what I said to Brian above applies to you, too.
And to elucidate further -- I think it's the height of asininity to tar a woman who aborts a fetus with Down syndrome with the eugenics brush. Just put yourself in the situation of a woman whose fetus has just been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The reason you might consider abortion in this case is because you harbor grave doubts about your ability to care for a Down Syndrome kid. Being the parent of a disabled kid can be a huge challenge. Compared to a non-disabled kid, that child will require more one-on-one care, more medical attention, and certainly more money, and that's just for starters. You also have to learn to navigate the special ed system and the social service system for kids with disabilities. All that can be extremely stressful and time-consuming.
So you'd have an abortion if you thought that would all be too much to deal with, emotionally and financially. But Jesus H. Christ, you're going to have an abortion because you think: "Ah! It is incumbent upon me to purify the master race of mental defectives!" I mean, okay, if you're a Nazi you'd think that. But everyone else who would consider abortion in this situation would do so purely for personal reasons, not ideology. Douthat is quite the asshat if he imagines otherwise.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 31, 2007 2:03:17 PM
Here's the point: Douthat is objectively pro-incest. I'm uncomfortable with that, and even strongly support government efforts to prevent such. But I'm a Democrat. That said, as an American, I absolutely believe in Douthat's right to argue to advance his sibling-fucking agenda. I just oppose that agenda myself.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 31, 2007 2:29:19 PM
The Douthat idea is a weird way to describe eugenics. The whole idea to reproduce the "best" humans who have the "best" genes. So why does this have any bearing on kids with Tay Sachs or other disorders where those children will not be able to reproduce. Abortion or no abortion those genes aren't translated across generation. It would be eugenics if the parental gene carriers were not allowed to reproduce, forced to undergo screening, etc.
While Down's patients can live long enough to reach sexual maturity the concept still holds as it's vanishingly rare for Down's patients to have children of there own. Again with or without the abortion the same thing occurs as the "faulty" genes aren't transcribed. Totally different from the Nazi eliminating adults/children etc who could reproduce and pass there genes along.
Posted by: pioneer10 | Jul 31, 2007 2:44:44 PM
you can't *improve* a society's gene pool by preventing the births of individuals who will never contribute to the gene pool in any case.
Posted by: Cody | Jul 31, 2007 2:52:20 PM
The reason you might consider abortion in this case is because you harbor grave doubts about your ability to care for a Down Syndrome kid. Being the parent of a disabled kid can be a huge challenge.
Bingo... I'm not at all philosophically in favor of aborting a Down-Syndrome fetus, but it's becoming increasingly likely that I might in fact do so, were I faced with that painful decision. Nothing to do with eugenics (and I though DS was congenital, not genetic), but I have to be realistic about my own mental, emotional, and financial resources, factoring in likely support from family and friends, not to mention the fact that my own expected lifespan could be a problem given that DS kids live much longer than they used to. Really, the questions of capability are the same as they are for healthy pregnancies, but the term is much longer and the challenges much greater.
Posted by: latts | Jul 31, 2007 2:53:22 PM
The Douthat idea is a weird way to describe eugenics.
I don't know if it's been said yet, but here's what's going on. Douthat used an asinine wingnut talking point to bolster a shitty argument about "progressives" being evil. Then he got called out on it. Now he's looking for crumbs in every nook and cranny possible to support his ridiculous statement instead of just saying "boy, it was really stupid to equate modern progressives with eugenicists".
I think the discussion has been interesting, and I've learned a thing or two about both Down's Syndrome and eugenics, but this whole thing started because Douthat was an asshat, and is too embarrassed to admit it.
Posted by: Seitz | Jul 31, 2007 2:54:35 PM
Sorry, when we do invoke Godwin in this discussion? Isn't Eugenics just dog whistle for Nazi?
This is why "arguing" with "mainstream conservatives" is usually as pointless as arguing with any republican. And I think if Godwin isn't enough the phrase, "aborting babies" should have been the next clue this was wasted effort.
Posted by: ice weasel | Jul 31, 2007 2:54:37 PM
Sorry, one more thing.
"I'm not at all philosophically in favor of aborting a Down-Syndrome fetus,"
or variations of it.
I don't get it? Can we get over the fuzzy, "I know a great kid with Down Syndrome" crap and move into the reality we're discussing? Who would choose to have a child afflicted with Down, Tay-Sachs or something of that order? No matter how nice the kid you know with it may be, truth is, it's not a life anyone I know would *choose* for their child. So if they get a choice, finding out about it early in pregnancy, why not abort fetuses with such problems and try again? Or not?
Forced pregnancy, no matter how you dress it up, is a nasty proposition.
Posted by: ice weasel | Jul 31, 2007 3:05:08 PM
"Mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person? Clearly you're seeking 'the genetic improvement of the human species'."
Actually, not really. In order for the choice to mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person to improve the genetics of the species as a whole, your choice of attractive person A over ugly person B would need to have a meaningful impact on the likelihood of person B getting to mate at all, and it doesn't. Most people who want to reproduce end up doing so. What you're actually doing is attempting to improve the genetic profile of your _own_ descendants, which is very different.
Similarly, given that most Downs syndrome people don't reproduce, a governmental program to abort Downs syndrome fetuses won't effect the genetics of the population as a whole, although it may result in removing a certain small amount of burden on the overall economy. On the other hand, an individual's choice to abort a Downs syndrome fetus _does_ have an impact on the viability of his or her own genetic line since (in cold genetic terms) a Downs syndrome child is less likely to reproduce, probably takes the place of a child who would reproduce (since most families have a fixed number of children), and uses resources that could have otherwise been invested in the wellbeing of children who would reproduce.
Eugenics must, by definition, prevent reproduction by people whose reproduction would be likely to spread undesireable genetic traits due to the likelihood of the offspring also reproducing.
Posted by: Galen | Jul 31, 2007 3:07:55 PM
ice_weasel, I just meant that I didn't think Down fetuses should be aborted, for 'eugenic' reasons, economic ones, or anything else. Generally no one would prefer that their child be born disabled, impaired, relegated to lower social status (by way of race, gender, religion, economics, etc.), or have his/her options limited in any way: we want their possibilities to be endless. But we all have different levels of personal tolerance, and what we consider to be unavoidable problems are still subjective judgments. Some people (and until I approached my mid-thirties, I was one) would consider DS to be a manageable disability, in that it wouldn't be difficult enough for them to prefer termination. The same goes for any other obstacle that our offspring might face, really... every reproductive calculation is highly individual.
Posted by: latts | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:09 PM
Here's the point: Douthat is objectively pro-incest.
The most important reasons not to allow incest between adults have nothing to do with birth defects and genetics. They relate to the need for family relationships in which sex isn't a complication. Using birth control doesn't render adult incest much less problematic. Which isn't to disagree with the point you're trying to make. What do you think of racism construed functionally, without regard to intention, though?
you can't *improve* a society's gene pool by preventing the births of individuals who will never contribute to the gene pool in any case.
There are other conditions, such as cleft palate, where the genes are passed on. There are abortions and other reproductive selections made on the basis of such conditions.
Isn't Eugenics just dog whistle for Nazi?
No, or it certainly shouldn't be.
No matter how nice the kid you know with it may be, truth is, it's not a life anyone I know would *choose* for their child.
Probably not. Neither is being 5'4" as an adult male. I'm not sure that's a good way to draw the line.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:13 PM
ice weasel, the argument at hand is that if people educated themselves they weren't learn that parents of Down Syndrome kids tend to be no less "satisfied" with their parenting experience as others--but that, thanks to attitudes like yours, people assume that to be impossible. People who would ignorantly class Down Syndrom and Tay-Sachs in the same "order."
And that these facts are entirely consistent with a willing to fight to the uttermost against forced pregnancy.
Posted by: Ykcir | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:48 PM
i think tarring all down syndrome kids with the same brush as tay sachs is an overreach (after all, life expec. of DS is now 40-50 from what i recall). that being said, i suspect most couples wouldn't carry a DS fetus to term (that seems to be what the numbers suggest).
p.s. TS is an autosomal recessive. that means you need to have two copies of the gene, which is why marriage between carriers (1 in 25 ashk. jews) is discouraged in the hasidic community. carriers who are secular jews and want a family can always use reproductive technology and abortion to weed out the 1/4 of fertilizations which are problematic.
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 3:39:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
