OTTAWA, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) The Trudeau Liberal governments euthanasia bill tabled earlier this week will give Canada the most permissive euthanasia law in the world, its critics are unanimously warning.

Introduced February 24 by Justice Minister David Lametti, Bill C-7 is the Liberal response to the Quebec court decision last September striking down the requirement that a persons natural death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for death by lethal injection.

But the federal bill expands euthanasia legal in Canada since June 2016 far beyond dispensing with the terminal illness criterion the Quebec Truchon-Gladu ruling declared unconstitutional.

Any way you look at it, its a minefield, said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The language of the bill is just simply, absolutely confusing and ridiculous. If they do pass Bill C-7, we will become the most wide-open euthanasia regime in the world.

Schadenberg is joined by Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Physicians for Life, Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia, Living With Dignity, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others, in fiercely denouncing the bill.

Notably, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto issued a strongly worded statement the day after the bill was tabled urging Canadians to oppose it.

This is a new chapter of death on demand, he wrote.

Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia. (See Cardinal Collins full statement below.)

Bill C-7 will allow lethal injection of individuals who are no longer competent to consent, such as persons with dementia, if they have issued an advance directive asking to be euthanized at a future date, Schadenberg noted in an analysis of the legislation.

This amendment to the law contravenes the Carter decision which required that a person be capable of consenting to die, he said, referring to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canadas prohibition of euthanasia as unconstitutional.

The Trudeau government appears to be working closely with the euthanasia lobby which has the goal of amending the law to allow advanced consent for euthanasia, he observed.

Allowing euthanasia by prior consent can lead to such horrific scenarios as an elderly Dutch woman being lethally injected forcibly in 2016 as family members held her down.

In that case, the doctor was ultimately exonerated when a court ruled in September 2019 that not euthanizing the patient would have undermined the wishes she expressed four years earlier when first diagnosed with Alzheimers.

Bill C-7 specifies individuals must not be euthanized if they show they dont want to be by words, sounds or gestures, but states they can be killed if these signals are deemed involuntary.

The bill allows the medical practitioner who is killing the patient to be one of the two required witnesses which is an insane conflict of interest, noted Schadenberg.

Bill C-7 waives the current 10-day waiting period for individuals deemed terminally ill so they can be lethally injected the same day they request euthanasia.

It implements a 90-day waiting period for individuals seeking euthanasia for a non-terminal condition, creatng a two-tier law that Schadenberg predicts is open invitation for a Charter challenge.

A future court decision will likely strike down the 90-day waiting period for people who are not terminally ill because this provision represents an inequality within the law, he says.

As for the bills purported ban on euthanasia for mental illness, its a smokescreen, at best, to say that mental illness is not allowed because, in fact, it is, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

When Liberals legalized euthanasia four years ago, its Bill C-14 allowed euthanasia for persons at least 18 years of age who were capable of giving consent and who suffered from a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

The 2016 bill defined the latter as a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability resulting in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability and causing enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable (emphasis added).

Bill C-7 is explicit that for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.

But this does not prevent euthanasia for psychological reasons, since the law specifically allows it, Schadenberg pointed out.

Moreover, with Bill C-7, the Liberals havent defined mental illness and they havent amended psychological suffering to exclude mental illness, he said.

Schadenberg argues that the Liberals should set aside Bill C-7 and concentrate on the planned June 2020 review of the current law.

David Cooke of Campaign Life Coalition also excoriated the bill as a how-to manual on killing Canadians in a detailed analysis here.

Among actions opposing the bill, Campaign Life has launched a petition to MPs against Bill C-7 here. The EPC has a petition to Justice Minister Lametti and Health Minister Patty Hadju asking the Liberals to nix the bill here.

The CCCB joined Cardinal Collins in asking Canadians to oppose the bill. To find who your MP is, go here.

***

Cardinal Collins full statement:

The federal government has introduced new legislation expanding the eligibility criteria for euthanasia. The inaccurate term, medical assistance in dying (MAiD), is currently used to describe what this law would allow, but this process is more accurately called euthanasia or assisted suicide. Pain medication and other resources and procedures can be used effectively to medically assist people who are dying, but that is not what MAiD means. It means giving a lethal injection to people who are not dying, so that they will die.

Those who oppose euthanasia expressed concern in 2016, when it was first legalized, that once the state legally provided death for some, it would only be a matter of time before the criteria for that would be expanded. This was dismissed as a slippery slope argument; we were told that safeguards would protect the most vulnerable. Now, less than four years later, we are far down the slope, and the criteria for euthanasia have been radically expanded.

There is no longer a requirement that the person receiving euthanasia be terminally ill. Under this legislation, any serious incurable illness, disease, or disability would render one eligible for euthanasia. Additionally, without any further study or direction from the courts, the new legislation would legalize euthanasia where consent is obtained by an advance directive. This is a new chapter of death on demand. Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia.

As our legislators and country consider the legislation presented this week in Parliament, we should be mindful of the following:

In 2016, the government indicated that before any new legislation would be introduced, there would be a thorough five-year review of the impact of euthanasia in Canada no such review has taken place. Yet the government moves forward without such critical analysis, even though it is reported that since 2016 at least 13,000 people have died from lethal injection.

Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30 per cent of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues. If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. Instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand. The same doctors who are trying to care for their patients will now be called on to endorse euthanasia for them.

Under the proposed legislation, disabled Canadians with no terminal illness will now be eligible for lethal injection. People with disabilities already face substantial challenges relating to employment, housing, appropriate medical care and support. Their lives matter. They should never be seen as a burden to our society. We should be alarmed that those who have struggled for decades to be treated with equality may well be pressured, whether from family, friends or even their own health care professionals, to ease their burden and end their lives. These people need assisted living, not assisted death.

I invite all Canadians concerned about this legislation to contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns. We should also take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community. Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.

It is up to every Canadian to foster a culture of care and love for one another. The answer is not assisted death in its many forms; it is accompanying our family, our friends and even strangers to assist them in life, recognizing the inherent dignity of every person.

Cardinal Thomas CollinsArchbishop of TorontoFebruary 25, 2020

Link:

Trudeau moves to make Canada most permissive euthanasia regime in the world - Lifesite

Bedside gatherings at a Canadian euthanasia are normally an adults-only affair. But one doctor suggests that young children would benefit from becoming involved.

In a blog entry at a University of British Columbia site, Dr Susan Woolhouse, who has been involved in some 70 assisted deaths, says My past experiences during my palliative care rotations reassured me that children could benefit from bearing witness to a loved ones death. Why would MAID be any different?

She gives some tips about how to explain the process of dying to young children:

Assuming that children are given honest, compassionate and non-judgmental information about MAID, there is no reason to think that witnessing a medically assisted death cannot be integrate as a normal part of the end of life journey for their loved one. If the adults surrounding them normalize MAID, so will the children.

These conversations can easily be had with children as young as 4, she says.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Follow this link:

Involve the kids in euthanasia, advises Canadian doctor - BioEdge

FEBRUARY 28, 2020 Updated February 28, 2020

Comment

The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when Vision NZ, the political party associated with the Destiny Church, made an unexpected policy announcement. It appeared that Vision NZ supported voluntary euthanasia, but just for one person, co-host of TV3s The Project, Kanoa Lloyd.

The now former campaign manager of Vision NZ, Jevan Goulter, posted an ugly Facebook rant directed at Kanoa, including references to pigs and blood and a direction that she should show us what voluntary euthanasia looks like. This was in response to Kanoas objection to the rumoured inclusion of Vision NZs leader, Hannah Tamaki, as a contestant in the next series of Dancing With The Stars.

Apparently Goulter was triggered to assault his keyboard by herdescribing Hannah Tamakis xenophobic and homophobic views as properly dangerous. In fact, Goulter was so triggered he went straight for the pigs, blood and euthanasia without denying that Hannah Tamaki has xenophobic and homophobic views.

When Goulters social media rant went viral, drawing criticism from all quarters, Vision NZ acted quickly. Goulter was terminated, and given the context of euthanasia I should clarify that Im fairly confident it wasnt Devan himself, but rather his role as campaign manager for Vision NZ, that was terminated.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly.

Vision NZ and Hannah Tamaki made it very clear that it was unacceptable for Goulter to engage in such unhinged social media ranting, presumably because unhinged social media ranting is Brian Tamakis role. And its a role that (open air quotes) Bishop (close air quotes) Brian takes very seriously, as evidenced by his contribution to the issue in a since-deleted tweet decrying venomous, dirty liberal left, sexually confused, effeminate, booze drenched, antichrist, false wannabes, relationally messed up insecure people. According to Brian, the media and entertainment industries are full of them, which is patently untrue as to at least four of those characteristics.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly. All of which was entirely avoidable if only TV execs had done the logical thing and invited Hannah Tamaki to host her own TV show Donation, Donation, Donation.

If nothing else, the whole unsavoury episode was a reminder that Vision NZ is a political party that will be contesting this years election, provided it can find a new campaign manager who can spell, punctuate and cut out references to pigs blood.

And for a party that has 'Vision'in its title, its noteworthy that, this weeks debacle aside, Vision NZ is not particularly visible in the New Zealand political landscape. If Vision NZ does, as it claims, represent the silent majority, then its going about it in a fairly silent way.

Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

For starters, Vision NZ doesnt have a website. Visionnz.co.nz belongs to an AV company that is the largest Sky and aerial installation provider in Otago and Southland, and whose corporate values are listen and understand, make it easy and Im not making this up, its right there on the website guarantee happy endings. And now you know why Sky TV has marketed itself as your happy place.Youre welcome.

If you want to find out more about Vision NZ the political party, youll have to go its Facebook page.Im assuming you probably dont want to know more about Vision NZ the political party, particularly if you live in the Deep South and have just decided to get Sky TV installed, so Ive been to Vision NZs Facebook page for you. Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

If you dig a little deeper youll find that Vision NZ has announced a few policies and indeed this week wasnt the only time the party has referenced euthanasia.Last November, Hannah Tamaki did an interview at Magic Talk, which is a radio station and also a handy description of Brians sermons. In the interview, Hannah Tamaki said that Vision NZ wascommitted to get a mandate from voters in 2020 and follow it through, achieving what NZ First bark about every election, before rolling on their back with their legs in the air like they have just been euthanised.

I think shes confusing euthanasia with tummy tickling, but theres no confusion about the fact that Vision NZ is going to target disaffected NZ First voters. Im not sure thats a sound strategy given NZ First voters tend to be fairly disaffected to start with.

In other news this week, Jacinda Ardern was in Fiji, Winston Peters was in India and youre not going to win Lottos $50m jackpot tomorrow night.

Have a peaceful weekend.

See more here:

Comment Yesterdaze: An unexpected policy announcement The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when - Newsroom

LADNER, British Columbia, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) British Columbias NDP government is pulling $1.5 million in public funding from a palliative care hospice and threatening to seize the facility because it refuses to allow doctors to kill sick patients by lethal injection onsite through medically-assisted death, or euthanasia.

Health Minister Adrian Dix said in a press conference Tuesday hes instructed Fraser Health Authority to stop funding the Delta Hospice Society by February 2021.

That allows for the required 365-days notice to end the service agreement between Fraser Health and the non-profit society without cause, and thus avoid the dispute ending up in court, he said, as reported in the Vancouver Sun.

Dix also said that at the end of the year the government may seize the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner that is now run by the Delta Hospice Society.

We may take over the existing site, which is on Fraser Health Authority land and rented for $1 a year to the society, said Dix, according to the Sun.

We may find another site. These beds will not move out of Delta.

But the government seizing the hospice building would be a scandalous appropriation of private assets, fired back Delta Hospice Society board chair Angelina Ireland.

The society built the Irene Thomas Hospice without taxpayer funds, at the cost of approximately $9,000,000, she said in a press release.

Moreover, it has operated the hospice for 10 years, providing more than 700,000 hours of volunteer labour and $30 million to the public health care system, she added.

You know, we havent been a bad partner. But for some reason, were being treated with absolute disdain, Ireland told LifeSiteNews.

Dixs decision is the latest blow to the society in a bitter long-running battle over its refusal to allow patients to be lethally injected onsite in the wake of Canadas legalization of euthanasia, or Medical assistance in dying, (MAiD), in June 2016.

The hospice society is arguing that allowing euthanasia violates its constitution, which promises not to hasten a patients death, and that palliative care and euthanasia are not compatible.

Both the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) are backing the society.

But Dix claimed Tuesday that the hospice is violating federal law and B.C. government policy that non-denominational health care institutions that receive more than half their funding from the province must provide euthanasia, the Vancouver Sun reported.

However, the minister and the health authority have completely ignored the societys January offer to forego $750,000 in public funding in order to fall below the benchmark of 50 percent of public funding for its beds, which are now funded 94 percent by the government, Ireland said.

Indeed, Dix was dismissive when the Delta Optimist asked him if hed considered Irelands proposal.

Its not her deal to cut, he said.

Ireland said she only heard Dixs decision when the media started calling her.

She responded in a press release the next day that the society is shocked and outraged this week by the Fraser Health Authoritys blatant move to cut off all discussions.

The hospice is willing to transfer patients out for euthanasia, which is readily available in the lower mainland, while palliative care beds are becoming scarce, she told Canadian Press.

Three people at the hospice in the last three years requested euthanasia, Ireland said.

"All I can say is they were transferred out to their preferred location two went home and one went next door to the Delta Hospital, one minute away," she said.

All this makes Dixs decision not only baffling, but clearly agenda-driven, Ireland said.

He is imposing his view by fiat on B.C. taxpayers, 90 percent of whom want access to palliative care, and only two percent of whom want access to euthanasia, she told LifeSiteNews.

Euthanasia is a separate public health care stream, distinct and apart from palliative care, she stressed.

If the government wants to open MAiD facilities thats their option, but they must not be allowed to download it onto the backs of private palliative care facilities, added Ireland.

And its all about dollars. It is easier and cheaper for the government to provide euthanasia rather than continue with palliative care. Basically, they are saying that no palliative care facility in B.C. has a right to exist unless it also provides euthanasia.

The hospice received support from Delta South Liberal MLA Ian Paton, who criticized the NDP for being heavy-handed, reported the CBC.

What I see is government literally stealing assets of the people of Delta that worked so hard for so many years to raise $8.5 million for this facility, said Paton, who did not say where he stood on euthanasia.

Ireland, who was elected chair in a turbulent meeting in December during which the new board reversed the former boards week-old decision to allow euthanasia at the hospice, told LifeSite she is looking at legal and other options.

Dix pulling $1.5 million would be essentially closing down the society, because thats not the kind of budget you could possibly fundraise, she said.

However, the battle is far from over, added Ireland, who began volunteering with the society after using its programs when diagnosed with cancer several years ago.

I'm a cancer survivor. Ive fought the war, she told LifeSiteNews.

And Im not afraid of Minister Dix because Ive already been against the biggest threat that I could have faced in my lifetime I will be there to challenge him every step of the way.

A noon rally on April 4 at the Victoria legislature to support the hospice will feature Margaret Cottle, Dr. Will Johnston, MP Tamara Jansen and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition as speakers.

Contact information:

Adrian Dix, BC Minister of HealthRoom 337 Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [emailprotected]Phone: (250) 953-3547

Ian Paton, MLA[emailprotected]Phone: (604) 940-7930

Contact BC MLAs here.

Sign the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition petition to Minister Dix and Fraser Health Authority CEO Dr. Victoria Lee here.

Go here to see the original:

Provincial govt to withhold $1.5M from Canadian hospice for refusing to kill sick patients - Lifesite

SPOKANE, Wash. If one thing is clear from the relationship between Bear and Bones, its that dogs have best friends, too.

The dogs were surrendered to an animal shelter in central Texas by their owner to find a new home.

Now, Bear and Bones are waiting for a new fur-ever home at the Spokane Humane Society.

The dogs were surrendered to a kill shelter, meaning they would be euthanized if they were not adopted. Nonprofit Hot-Paws pays to transport the dogs on euthanasia lists to partner shelters like the Spokane Humane Society.

On Saturday, a Hot-Paws transport of 30 dogs stopped for a bathroom break in Layton, Utah. During the stop, Bear broke free from a handler and was later hit by a car.

The Spokane Humane Society said Layton police and citizens rushed him into the clinic while the transport staff were searching for him. Staff later found out that Bear had a small bleed in his abdomen, a pin-sized hole in his lung and two teeth that were broken off.

Bear also suffered severe road rash but no broken bones. He was kept in the ICU for at least two days, the Humane Society said.

RELATED: Spokane Humane Society finds home for Dutch the dog

Transport staff later brought Bones to Bear while he was still unresponsive in the clinic. They said Bones began to cry and whine for Bear.

Bear heard Bones and slowly started to wake up.

It was obvious to everyone that they were best friends and so happy to be reunited, the Humane Society said, adding that the dogs made the remainder of their trip to Spokane together.

The Humane Society said everyone knew Bear and Bones sleep right next to each other at the Humane Society, with Bones sometimes resting his head on Bear.

As soon as Bear is healed, they will be moved to the adoption center as a bonded pair and will need a good home together.

A fundraiser for Bear's treatment has raised nearly $500 out of a $3,500 goal at last check.

The Humane Society accepts approximately 70 dogs a month from kill shelters in the southern United States from about five different transport agencies. The shelter accepted 886 dogs in 2019 alone.

RELATED: Man's best friend may also be an actual lifesaver, study suggests

Read more:

Two dogs who are best friends for life will soon need a home in Spokane - KREM.com

Sled dog fans have a few more days to wait until the official start of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. However, for Iditarod competitors, the race has already begun.

The food drops are done and gone. The majority of the teams have their ECG and bloodwork appointments completed. Some have done the prerace vet checks and the remainder will finish that step on Wednesday.

The race banquet and draw for the start order is Thursday. Nail-biting day is Friday. Saturday brings the ceremonial beginning of the Iditarod in downtown Anchorage. Come Sunday? The teams are on the trail.

For each team that leaves the starting line, the race is the culmination of at least seven months of intense training for both musher and dogs. Endless hours and considerable funding have been spent on readying 14 special animals for 1,000-mile trek.

Which dogs have made the cut? Races are won and lost by the fully-trained dog that is left at home.

There is the occasional dog that is cut from the team by ECG results or blood abnormalities that are only detectable by the Iditarods prerace checkup. Vet checks done by a private vet or by Iditarod veterinarians may also detect another issue. Normally, nothing serious is discovered, but once in awhile the vets may spot something the musher overlooked. Most teams, but not all, have talented extras who can jump into the team without a ripple.

Thursdays banquet and draw is something few mushers look forward to. It is a necessary encumbrance. The Iditarod, like every other sporting event, is entertainment that others participate in vicariously. Without funding from fans, the race could not survive.

There are some who wish to see the Iditarod and sled dog racing in general eliminated. Every Iditarod competitor hears from those who cry dog abuse! These folks are sadly misinformed.

PETA, aka People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the loudest of the dog racing detractors. In 2018, PETAs animal shelter in Norfolk, Virginia, euthanized 72% of the animals they took in. Thats 1,798 animals euthanized out of the 2,512 taken in. The numbers for the rest of Virginia shelters show a euthanasia rate of 12%, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. During the course of one season, the folks who cry that dogs are abused in the Iditarod destroy more dogs than will ever die in all the dog races combined over the next hundred years.

Animal-rights activists would have you turn all dogs into couch potatoes, which is the fate of many retired sled dogs. Sled dogs are born to run. Many older dogs, no longer able to stay with the team, pace restlessly, barking and whining with frustration as younger animals leave the yard without them.

The fact that dogs do best when they have a purpose is discounted by those who have only dealt with a single pet. Those of us who run dogs will never convince those who already have their minds made up, but occasionally we can have our say.

Meanwhile, Friday is not far away. This is supposed to be a day for racers to tie up loose ends. Some of that is already done, so mostly Friday is a day to say goodbyes and answer questions from friends and family. One year, I spent the day before the ceremonial start rebuilding my wifes sled, which was stomped by a moose while doing a last-minute exercise run on the Tozier Track in midtown Anchorage.

Saturdays ceremonial start is a valuable part of the Iditarod. It gives the public an opportunity to mingle with mushers in a fairly relaxed setting. The mushers can also work out some prerace butterflies. The 12-mile run from downtown Anchorage to Campbell Airstrip is a great shakedown cruise that carries no pressure.

Most drivers will actually be able to eat something that evening. Sunday morning the day of the real start in Willow will find many competitors skipping breakfast with uneasy stomachs.

But once the hook is pulled and the team exits Willow Lake, the butterflies are gone. The trail ahead is eagerly anticipated. The challenges are met with avidity. The teams of Alaskan huskies soon settle into a steady trot and surge forward with expectancy into the primeval wilderness ahead.

Read more:

If you're a fan, the Iditarod is coming. If you're a racer, the Iditarod is here. - Anchorage Daily News

Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins best known for his book The Selfish Gene provoked controversy when tweeting that, while eugenics is morally deplorable, it would work.

Eugenics can be described as the science and practice of improving the human race through the selection of good hereditary traits. Eugenics inevitably brings to mind the atrocities committed by the Nazis, who used eugenic ideology as the rationale for large-scale forced sterilisation, involuntary euthanasia and the Holocaust. Given this sinister history, its bound to be alarming when government officials endorse eugenic ideas.

The eugenics movement of the past has been thoroughly discredited on both moral and scientific grounds. But questions about the ethics of genetically improving humans remain relevant.

The emergence of new genetic technologies often prompts renewed debate. Can eugenic ideas about improving the human race be divorced from the evils of the past and pursued through benign means? Or is there something inherently morally problematic about the idea of genetically improving humans?

A new, morally responsible eugenics may well be defensible, and new genetic technologies must be assessed on their own terms. But we also need to consider the broader political context. If the betterment of individual traits were to be presented as a key strategy to improve human welfare, this would look very much like the individualisation of social problems that was such a central feature of the old eugenics.

The father of the eugenics movement was the English explorer and scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911). Influenced by his cousin Charles Darwins work The Origin of Species, Galton was interested in ideas about the heritability of different traits. He was particularly interested in the heritability of intelligence and how to increase societys diminished stock of talent and character. He also believed that social problems such as poverty, vagrancy and crime were ultimately caused by the inheritance of degenerate traits from parent to child.

Galton embarked on an ambitious research programme with the explicit goal to improve human stock through selective human breeding. In 1883 he named this research programme eugenics, meaning good in birth.

Galtons ideas quickly became influential and were widely embraced, first in Britain but subsequently in many other countries, including the US, Germany, Brazil and Scandinavia. At a time coloured by widespread concerns about the state of the nation, lack of social progress and the degeneration of the population, Galtons ideas inspired a popular movement for social reform through selective human reproduction.

The first half of the 20th century saw the enactment of a variety of eugenic policies. Positive eugenics focused on encouraging those of good stock to reproduce, such as through the fitter family contests put on across the US. Negative eugenics involved discouraging or preventing reproduction among those deemed unfit, such as the poor, criminals or the feeble-minded, predominantly by coercive means.

Eugenics is often equated with Nazi atrocities, but many other brutal acts were committed in its name, usually targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, such as the poor, disabled and ill. As part of the negative eugenic effort, forced sterilisation was conducted on a large scale, not only in Nazi Germany but also in the Scandinavian countries (in Sweden, this practice continued until the 1970s) and in the US (where it was revealed that involuntary sterilisation of female prisoners occurred as late as 2010). The US combined eugenic ideology with ideas about racial hierarchy and applied eugenic thinking to immigration. This led to the passing of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in order to curb the entry of inferior ethnic groups.

After the second world war and the exposure of the Nazi regimes atrocities, eugenics fell out of favour. But worries about eugenics often resurface with the introduction of new genetic technologies that allow us to improve humans in some way, most notably gene editing, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and reproductive technologies, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive technologies mainly help prospective parents to have children free from genetically based disabilities and disorders, but as our knowledge of the human genome advances, the range of traits we may be able to select away or select for will probably increase, prompting fears of designer babies.

Such technologies are sometimes labelled eugenic by sceptics as a means to discredit them. Arguments then ensue about whether these technologies represent a form of old eugenics and are therefore unethical, or whether they represent a new, benign form of eugenics. Questions about the ethics of genetic technologies and the new eugenics are far from settled.

But even if our ethical analysis should deem such new genetic technologies permissible, it would be disingenuous to present these technological advances as solutions to complex problems such as poverty, unemployment, or poor physical or mental health. We should be wary of biological determinist narratives that blame various forms of disadvantage on individual traits, without acknowledging the importance of social and political factors. This kind of thinking is very much in line with the old eugenics.

We are right to be worried when government officials endorse eugenic ideas. It is reassuring that Sabiskys comments provoked such outrage and that he was forced to resign. But in some respects, in the current age of austerity policies, the individualisation of social problems is an all too familiar theme.

Read the original here:

The eugenics debate isn't over but we should be wary of people who claim it can fix social problems - The Conversation UK