1. Eugenics

Category Archives: Eugenics

The Modern Eugenics Movement: Medical Ethics, Disability Justice, and Intersectionality – Video

Posted on by


The Modern Eugenics Movement: Medical Ethics, Disability Justice, and Intersectionality
Conversations on Social Issues: Winter 2014 The Modern Eugenics Movement: Medical Ethics, Disability Justice, and Intersectionality Moderator: Ann Luetzow, B...

By: SCCC Library

See more here:

The Modern Eugenics Movement: Medical Ethics, Disability Justice, and Intersectionality - Video

Three-person IVF has nothing to do with eugenics

Posted on by

March 12, 2014, 12:13 a.m.

A new technique looks set to soon allow consenting parents to have a child who will not suffer from a serious disability.

Parents in the UK look set to become the first in the world to use a radical IVF technique that some critics have condemned as eugenic engineering. If approved by parliament, so called "three person IVF" could be available on the National Health Service as early as next year.

Supporters hail the technique as a cure for the debilitating and incurable diseases caused by defective genetic material in a part of the mother's egg cell called the mitochondria. It involves implanting the nucleus of a woman's egg into another woman's egg cell which has healthy mitochondria and has had its nucleus removed. The process can take place before or after the egg is fertilised using a man's sperm.

Although the genetic contribution of the egg donor is very small (1 per cent) and won't be detectable in the child's appearance and psychological characteristics, the transfer of genetic material affects the genetic constitution of the egg and the embryo. This means that changes will not only affect the child but also the child's descendants, and there has been criticism of the risk of introducing bad traits through the generations though there have been government assurances that the process will be closely monitored in the UK.

One of the distinctions that ought to play a crucial role in this debate is between genetic engineering that aims to remove a serious disability and engineering designed to make people more intelligent, better looking, stronger or more assertive. And it is the latter that has raised the spectre of eugenics.

Eugenics, of course, is reviled because of the policies adopted by a number of states in the first part of the 20th century, most famously the Nazis, to build a more productive and healthy population by eliminating from the gene pool those regarded it regarded as unfit. And the debate over the ethical implications of mitochondrial transfer is very much alive.

In the Council of Europe, 34 member politicians declared that the creation of babies from the DNA of three parents was a form of eugenics "incompatible with human dignity and international law". They claimed it contravened a European Union human rights convention that forbids genetic interventions that affect the human germ-line by altering the genome of descendants.

The thinking behind this prohibition is that tampering of this kind is not only dangerous, but makes humans into a product of engineering. Even if intentions are good, the use of such techniques undermines the reasons we have for respecting human individuals. Humans are supposed to be valuable in themselves. Products are merely means to ends.

The bad history of eugenics is a good reason why a state should not be allowed to use genetic technology for its purposes. But the practice of mitochondrial transfer and the motivation behind it have nothing to do with eugenics as it was once practiced. It would allow consenting parents to have a child who will not suffer from a serious disability.

More:

Three-person IVF has nothing to do with eugenics

Australian Child Protection Accused of Repeating Sins of Stolen Generations

Posted on by

World Australia Members of Grandmothers Against Removals protesting against indigenous over-representation in child protection on the steps of the Parliament House of New South Wales in Sydney on Feb. 13, 2014. Ian Lloyd Neubauer

In 2008, then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made history when he issued a formal apology to the Stolen Generations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children forcefully removed from their families for placement in institutions and homes where they put to work as laborers, farmhands and servants.

The injustices of the past must never, never happen again, Rudd said of the 19th century policy born of the eugenics-based view that blacks were morally inferior and couldnt properly care for their offspring. Once removed, children could be brought up white and assimilated into broad society so that in time there would be no more indigenous people left in Australia.

On that account it failed. However, by the time forced removals were stamped out in the 1970s, the policy had extinguished the kingship connections, land titles, language, customs, spirituality and identity of an estimated 50,000 Aboriginals and islanders. Trapped between two cultures but fitting into neither, members of the Stolen Generations suffer poorer health, worse housing, shorter life spans, higher unemployment and higher incarceration rates than other indigenous Australians.

But now, child protective systems that err on the side of caution, coupled with the legacies of the Stolen Generations, are allegedly replicating the cruel dynamics of Australias colonial past. The situation is far from clear-cut, however, and many of those involved in child protection both non-indigenous and indigenous staff strenuously deny any such heavy-handedness exists today. Nevertheless, in the state of New South Wales nearly 6,300 or 10% of indigenous children are wards of the state. In comparison, only 1.6% of non-Indigenous children in NSW live in out-of-home care.

I cried on the day of the apology because my grandmother, who was taken to a Catholic mission when she was five, didnt get to hear it, and because my grandson was taken that same year, says Mary, an Aboriginal woman from the central coast of NSW whose real name cannot be revealed because of laws banning the identification of wards of state. Adds her daughter: They said sorry to Aboriginals for the Stolen Generations but they are still doing it today.

The court order authorizing the removal of her son cited lack of hygiene, the threat of domestic violence, based on the fathers protracted criminal record, and neglect. Defined by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) as a failure to provide things needed for proper growth a nutritious diet, dental care and supervision accusations of neglect are present in 40% of indigenous child removals, whereas sexual abuse and physical abuse are present in only 5 and 10% of cases respectively.

Depending on the degree, neglect certainly is a cause for removal as it impacts on a childs ability to attend school, to make friends, their health and general wellbeing, says Raeleen McKenzie, a psychologist working in child protection in the state of Victoria for more than 25 years. In NSW there have been several cases in the past where children who needed intervention werent removed and died. So when a child is severely at risk, something has to be done.

Yet critics argue FaCS assessments of neglect are often made on spurious grounds that fail to take Aboriginal culture into consideration. The classic example is the way Aboriginal children are raised not just by a nuclear family but collectively by grandparents, uncles and neighbors, says University of Technology Sydney senior researcher Paddy Gibson. Just because Aboriginal kids are on the streets at night doesnt mean they arent being watched.

Gibson says a lot of FaCS decisions are opinions based on hearsay or the assumption of neglect. And once those decisions are made, he adds, FaCS is under no obligation to prove it in court because the standards of evidence that apply in criminal court do not apply in childrens court. A severe lack of resources for families trying to get their children returned only compounds the issue. Either they dont have a lawyer or they get a public defender who doesnt have time to properly prepare their case, says Gibson.

Read more here:

Australian Child Protection Accused of Repeating Sins of Stolen Generations

Durham medic-turned-author explores Nazi eugenics in new thriller

Posted on by

Durham medic-turned-author explores Nazi eugenics in new thriller

1:50pm Friday 7th March 2014 in News By Mark Tallentire, Reporter (Durham)

Author Quentin Smith

A NORTH-EAST medic has published his second novel, exploring the horrors of Nazi eugenics.

Quentin Smith, a consultant anaesthetist at Sunderland Royal Hospital, set Hubers Tattoo in London in 2011.

Several loosely connected murders are gradually traced back to the Third Reichs attempts to produce a master race.

DCI Webber of Scotland Yard begins to uncover his own links to Himmlers Lebensborn birthing project and the murders themselves are closer than he could have imagined.

Mr Smith, who lives in Durham City, said: I have always been in awe of the history of the Second World War because it still feels very alive around us.

But he added: Its well recognised that were very fortunate to know the little that we do about the Nazis Lebensborn birthing programme.

In 1944 the retreating Germans hastily disbanded all operations and destroyed virtually every record. Only a few clandestine photographs and a handful of documents survived.

See the rest here:

Durham medic-turned-author explores Nazi eugenics in new thriller

FDA mulling 3-parent embryos

Posted on by

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 7:06 PM EST, Thu February 27, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

Read the rest here:

FDA mulling 3-parent embryos

FDA weighs 3-parent baby in vitro technique to prevent disease

Posted on by

Workers in a fertility clinic prepare to freeze an embryo.

(CNN) A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the powerhouses that drive cells.

The procedure is not without its risks, but its treating a disease, medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNNs New Day on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical as long as it proves to be safe, he said.

These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they cant make power. Youre giving them a new battery. Thats a therapy. I think thats a humane ethical thing to do, said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York Universitys Langone Medical Center.

Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, While were at it, why dont we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel concluded two days of hearings into the technique Wednesday. The panel discussed what controls might be used in trials, how a developing embryo might be monitored during those tests and who should oversee the trials, but no decisions were made at the end of the session.

Mitochondrial problems are inherited from the mother. In the procedure under discussion in Washington for the past two days, genetic material from the nucleus of a mothers egg or an embryo gets transferred to a donor egg or embryo thats had its nuclear DNA removed.

The new embryo will contain nuclear DNA from the intended father and mother, as well as healthy mitochondrial DNA from the donor embryo effectively creating a three-parent baby.

In June, Britain took a step toward becoming the first country to allow the technique. One in 6,500 babies in the United Kingdom is born with mitochondrial disorder, which can lead to serious health issues such as heart and liver disease.

View original post here:

FDA weighs 3-parent baby in vitro technique to prevent disease

FDA considers 3-parent embryos

Posted on by

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 7:06 PM EST, Thu February 27, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

Follow this link:

FDA considers 3-parent embryos

FDA considering 3-parent embryos

Posted on by

By Matt Smith, CNN

updated 7:06 PM EST, Thu February 27, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- A promising way to stop a deadly disease, or an uncomfortable step toward what one leading ethicist called eugenics?

U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells.

The procedure is "not without its risks, but it's treating a disease," medical ethicist Art Caplan told CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. Preventing a disease that can be passed down for generations would be ethical "as long as it proves to be safe," he said.

"These little embryos, these are people born with a disease, they can't make power. You're giving them a new battery. That's a therapy. I think that's a humane ethical thing to do," said Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center.

"Where we get into the sticky part is, what if you get past transplanting batteries and start to say, 'While we're at it, why don't we make you taller, stronger, faster or smarter?' "

But Susan Solomon, the director of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, said there are no changes to existing genes involved.

"There is no genetic engineering. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a way to allow these families to have healthy children," said Solomon, whose organization developed the technique along with Columbia University researchers.

Original post:

FDA considering 3-parent embryos

Petition objects to British IVF plans for three-parent babies

Posted on by

Genetic fix: scientists hope that mothers at risk of giving their children hereditary illnesses could have healthy children as a result of the controversial technique. Photo: AP

London: Allowing the creation of babies with DNA from three biological parents in Britain is "incompatible with human dignity" and tantamount to eugenics, members of the Council of Europe have claimed.

A group of 34 European politicians, including eight British MPs and peers, has signed a declaration attacking plans which will make Britain the first country in the world to permit the new IVF technique.

Under legislation being drawn up by ministers, the treatment will be offered to a handful of parents at high risk of having children with conditions such as muscular dystrophy, as early as next year.

The therapy can dramatically reduce the risk of children inheriting disorders of the heart, brain and muscle which are caused by faults in the mothers mitochondria, structures which supply power to cells.

Advertisement

But it has proved controversial because it involves substituting a small fraction of the mothers damaged DNA with that of a healthy female donor.

Because the swap takes place at the germ line, the third partys DNA would not only be passed on to the child, but also to any future generations down the female line.

The therapy was recommended to government by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) earlier this year after a public consultation revealed general support.

Doctors developing the treatment have emphasised that the DNA in question lies outside the nucleus of the cell and will have no bearing on the childs personality or appearance.

Go here to see the original:

Petition objects to British IVF plans for three-parent babies

Prometheus and Canada part 3: The Huxley/Trudeau Eugenics Revolution re-shackles Prometheus – Video

Posted on by


Prometheus and Canada part 3: The Huxley/Trudeau Eugenics Revolution re-shackles Prometheus
This third part of the Prometheus and Canada series begins with a political overview of the world in 2014. After situating the world dynamic as being shaped ...

By: Committee for the Republic of Canada

Read more here:

Prometheus and Canada part 3: The Huxley/Trudeau Eugenics Revolution re-shackles Prometheus - Video


  1. Eugenics