I’m with @Jay313 on this one. The decision to abort after such a diagnosis has more to do with the commitment that comes with raising a handicapped child and supporting them throughout their life.
If eugenics does enter the picture, it is when those with Down syndrome are discouraged from having children.
True. I hadn’t thought of that.
Hostile environments? Down’s syndrome and genetic screening in contemporary culture - PMC is one perspective on whether current genetic testing is unduly promoting abortion as an option. Of course, that gets into multiple ethical issues. Does caring for my cousin’s grandson with Down syndrome pose some challenges? Certainly. But he’s generally a happy kid, especially around his grandfather.
Thanks for linking the article. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but I did find at least one paragraph that caught my interest:
If this is indeed how these genetic tests are administered, then I do think it is time for a rethink. Having worked in human research, I was trained to be exceedingly sensitive to the ethics of consent, so I do agree with the potential ethical issues the author brings up. The results of that test aren’t a small thing, and there needs to be some counseling involved before the test is even given.
Oregon actually made things worse on this issue by requiring a degree in a subject to teach high school STEM courses. Things had been going along with many teachers having at least a minor in a subject, but moving the bar higher meant far fewer potential teachers could meet the standard. I worked with a teacher who had his degree in chemistry but with minors in geology, math, and physics who warned of this outcome, comparing it to the situation with homelessness increasing due to raised standards in codes for constructing housing: raising standards always decreases supply.
A pastor I know has successfully convinced more than one couple to adopt or, in one case, to use in vitro to exclude the possibility of carrying the gene over. He laments that so far it isn’t possible to repair a potential parent’s DNA.
Maybe not doctors, but social workers . . . . some seem to think like the ancient Spartans.
It’s one perspective, but there are a lot of problems with it.
First, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) doesn’t just test for Down’s Syndrome; it tests for several genetic conditions, including trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome). Most children with the former die in the first year of life, while children with the latter typically die within a week of birth. Doctors make it clear that such results aren’t a diagnosis, and I guarantee you they don’t advise or “promote” abortion. They provide information and the parents go home and decide what to do. Some ultra-religious parents may decide to have the child even if the baby will die a painful death before its first birthday. I wouldn’t choose that option. Some, like my wife, will be told the child likely has Down’s Syndrome and give birth to a perfectly healthy baby.
Second, genetic counseling usually comes after an unexpected test result or diagnosis, not before, especially when the test is routine and 98-99% come back normal and only tell the parents the sex. Genetic counseling for prospective parents usually involves a discussion of the risks associated with having children once there is a known issue. The exception is when one or both partners carry a genetic disease or defect, so they seek counseling before trying to have a child.
Third, the article is an international journal of “medicine and the humanities,” which is a strange mix, and the article dives deeply into an Icelandic novel about Down’s Syndrome to make its point. I recognize there are some European countries where they routinely abort fetuses that exhibit the signature of Down’s Syndrome, but that’s not the culture of the United States. Doctors here are not “promoting” abortion. They provide information and the parents decide how to proceed. At least, that’s how it works where a woman still has the right to choose.
I could go on, but I’ll just say this article doesn’t prove your case. No health care provider promotes abortion. That’s a Pro-life fantasy.
That’s some bullshit right there. It doesn’t reflect reality at all.
Addendum: I should note that for more than a decade 85% of OB/GYN residents in the US have been women. We’re not talking about male doctors strong-arming women into accepting a screening they don’t want. We’re talking about women talking to other women about a choice they share. Female doctors aren’t interested in using their power to force other women into a choice to have a test they don’t want or need. The “power imbalance” is a radical feminist reading.
I would agree that the article linked has appreciable weaknesses in the argument; I found it interesting rather than highly credible. While claims about “innate power imbalances” are generally suspect, there is usually a genuine problem behind the exaggerated rhetoric. Innate risks of power imbalances are quite common. In reality, there are a range of attitudes from medical providers, whether female or male, and a range in attitudes from patients. This creates the potential for a patient to feel pressured to choose a particular option. Of course, there is also the complication that many would view saying that abortion is just a “choice” is unduly promoting abortion; there are ethical assumptions embedded in claims to present the options fairly. In reality, all medical decisions carry certain physical and psychological risks, in addition to any ethical considerations. Particular medical providers are likely to reflect their biases in how they communicate, even if they are trying to be neutral. It’s also quite difficult to quantify medical benefit and harm. Is the death due to the genetic disease more painful than the death due to an abortion? How can we tell? What are the relative emotional effects on the parents? Even ethically investigating the questions can often be quite difficult, much less drawing firm conclusions.
The promotion of abortion as a means of eugenics tends to be not in patient counseling but in popular rhetoric. Transhumanism’s vision of “improving humans” disparages those that it thinks do not measure up, for example. Certainly my fellow student did not appreciate a professor saying that her younger sister’s condition was widely considered an acceptable reason for abortion.
Genetic technology is reaching the point of making genetic changes possible. But there are major practical and ethical challenges. Is the technology safe across not just an entire human lifespan but also for the descendants? What genetic variants should be “corrected”? Some people with mental variations (e.g., autism spectrum) don’t want to change. “Flowers for Algernon” is a short story, later expanded into a novel, movie, etc. that explores some of the challenges of treating mental issues; similarly, Oliver Sacks reported some instances of not accepting the results of a procedure to repair a disability. What is a disability versus a different ability???
We agree then.
True, but providers undergo training in how to present sensitive information, whether problems with pregnancy or a cancer diagnosis, and treatment options. There’s also the constant risk of litigation, so regardless of their predispositions, they keep their ethical opinions to themselves unless they’re part of the lunatic fringe.
Abortion is only one of the choices that would be presented by a competent physician in a state that still allowed women a choice in the matter. States that pass strict anti-abortion laws aren’t just making an ethical assumption – they’re forcing everyone to choose a particular option. That’s not pressure; that’s force.
They literally have to practice that stuff.
Science tells us quite a bit. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is usually done between 10-12 weeks. An abortion can be scheduled within a week or two, unless the woman has to travel out of state, so we’re talking about a 12-14 week-old fetus.
Does it feel pain? No. It’s physically impossible at that stage of development.
Rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerves to the brain, as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals, do not develop until at or after 24 weeks of gestation. Because it lacks these connections and structures, a fetus or embryo does not have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least this gestational age.
From the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
I suppose it’s similar to experiencing a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), but I don’t know.
Okay. I can agree with that if you can agree abortion isn’t promoted in doctor’s offices.
When I was pregnant, I simply declined the test, understanding that any results would place an ethical dilema on me and my husband that we were unwilling to act on. My doctor gave absolutely no pressure. My word was taken as the final word with no expectation of explanation.
The way the matter is handled in the doctor’s office is an essential part of the discussion.
Additionally, there are enormous questions raised when societies dictate whether women may terminate the preganacy of a disabled child they may not have the resources to care for. Particularly when such societies - even the wealtiest in the world - are not willing to provide the needed supports for such parents and families.
Pregnant women alone, or expectant couples who decide they don’t have the required resources to raise such a child are not practicing eugenics. Often they are practicing survival.
Abortion and eugenics are sensitive topics. I like to broaden such questions to more general topics that may bring wider perspective.
As a biologist, I see the current life as an arc that spans from fertilization to death. Practically all cultures have written or unwritten rules telling when it is acceptable to end the life a human being. In most cultures, defensive wars are counted as morally acceptable situations to end the life of an attacking soldier. Opinions about the other acceptable situations vary a lot between cultures. For example, some are strongly against abortion but accept death sentence. In other cultures, the situation is the opposite. Another example is the question of euthanasia - is it acceptable to end the life of an individual with an incurable condition that causes severe suffering, with or without the conscious acceptance of the person himself?
In the ‘mild’ forms of eugenics, the welfare of the other people are weighed against the welfare of the individual with an unwanted condition. The mildest form is to advice potential mothers to not try to get pregnant if the risk of a genetically inherited defect or unwanted condition is high. Abortion of a small fetus with the defect, or the sterilisation of a person with a potential to spread the unwanted condition, is the next step along that road. Is it right or wrong?
The answers are not always strictly black-or-white. Quite often, the answer is ‘depends…’. Persons with differing roles have differing interests and much depends on which viewpoint gets more weight than the others. Faith brings with itself an ethical ballast that may weigh more than the interests of an individual.
In such cases as the Scopes Trial, opinions about matters like eugenics is a multifaceted question where the dividing lines do not necessarily reflect the faith or lack of it. Much depends on the social and cultural feedback the persons have received and who is telling and coloring the story.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.