While
the U.S. eugenics movement has largely dispersed, ideas of genetic superiority
are still imbedded in our culture. Project Prevention, an organization run by Barbara
Harris, pays drug-users $300 to be sterilized (after criticism this was
expanded to include long acting reversible contraceptives as well).[3]
Harris, who is often quoted for saying, “We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay
them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet
these women are literally having litters of children”[4]
has been accused of practicing modern-day eugenics. Harris says that she is just trying to
protect the children, saying, “I don’t believe that anybody has the right to
force their addiction on another human being.” Martin Barnes, the chief
executive of DrugScope, worries, “who would be targeted next, people who smoke,
have mental health problems, or live in poverty?”[5] By using financial incentives to encourage a certain group to stop reproducing I believe Harris is discriminating against drug users and infringing on their rights to self-determination. Although not necessarily a strictly racial group, I believe this targeted discrimination could be genocidal if we consider the way Naimark defines genocide. By encouraging sterilization and using advertisements such as, “Don’t let pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit” Harris insinuates (and not so subtly) that these women are and will always be, incapable of being good mothers and of having healthy babies. I also wonder how "voluntary" the participation really is. As Helen Ubiñas said in an open letter through NAPW, “There's nothing
voluntary when you're waving $300 under a drug addict's nose.”
[1] Baer, Judith
A. Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women's Reproductive Rights in
the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002. Print.
[2] http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/report.cfm
[3] http://www.projectprevention.org/
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8071664/Drug-addict-sterilised-for-cash-but-can-Barbara-Harris-save-our-babies.html
[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8071664/Drug-addict-sterilised-for-cash-but-can-Barbara-Harris-save-our-babies.html
Sam makes a convincing argument; that the “science” of eugenics remains hauntingly present in American society. Despite the obvious negative association brought to mind by the term, Sam argues that movements like Project Prevention keep eugenics alive in the modern day. If we adhere to Lemkin’s original definition of genocide, which includes social and political groups, Project Prevention’s goals can be considered genocidal in it targets a specific social group with the intent to prevent births within that group.
ReplyDeleteYet I believe the eugenic movement continues to proliferate in the United States, especially in higher income areas. More and more couples who use in vitro fertilization screen the embryos for genes that code of undesirable diseases ie autism or down syndrome. Indeed, some couples choose the sex of their in vitro babies while some fertility doctors push this scientific advance even further. Indeed, Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg says his fertility clinic will soon offer a procedure that “allows couples to select the physical traits of their babies.” While doctor’s disagree on the practical reality of “designer babies,” the ability to choose a person’s physical appearance is eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s designs for a ideal race. If this technology becomes widely used, it may lead to the creation of a homogenous population, where minority groups are increasingly ostracized, creating conditions of “otherness” that an serve as precursor to genocide.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6998135&page=1#.T4dvpo5Gg7B
The role of medicine and science is one of the most disturbing aspects of modern genocide to me. The phrase "Nazi Doctor" is enough to conjure a plethora of nightmarish images. Perhaps most disturbing of all, is the fact that many of the medical practices and scientific theories utilized by Nazis originated here in the United States. Sam's example of eugenics is perhaps the most notable. In both the American and the Nazi programs, the practice of eugenics was deeply rooted in scientific ideas of biological superiority. As noted by Sam, these practices are still at play in the US today. I think the eugenics program is a symptom of a larger political trend of labeling certain citizens a burden on the state. If we look at today's debate over health care, there is a lot of language about burdening and deserving. This sort of rhetoric of worthy and unworthy played a significant role in justifying the abuses of human rights that occurred under the Nazi regime. Their program easily progressed from compulsory sterilization to all out euthanization. I am not saying that the US is necessary heading in the direction, but it is a dangerous game we are playing to target certain groups this way and effectively remove their reproductive autonomy as Sam has asserted.
ReplyDeleteRace and Reproduction
ReplyDeleteThe comment above by Sophie raised the concern that in the near future doctors may be able to, “allow couples to select the physical traits of their babies.” Is our world just steps away from Gattaca? I certainly hope not. The article mentioned above says that, "it isn't clear that Steinberg can safely deliver on his claims" and I think that, at least for the time being, we need to be more concerned about the implications of this race-thinking than the actual reality of "designer-babies." As Dorothy Roberts said during her recent visit, "race is an invented political system, not a natural biological division." The FDA, however, recently approved the first race-specific drug, Bidil. This drug was initially not race-specific, but when the FDA rejected it, the company changed the description. If people think of race as a biological category, meaning that there are differences between races on a genetic level, it could validate ideas that some races are inferior/superior to others, a short step from the language of ethnic cleansing.
Screening embryos in the hope of getting certain "desired" traits is not uncommon and egg and sperm donors have very different levels of demand based on their race alone. One family in New York went so far as to sue a clinic because their baby came out too dark. On a personal note, in choosing an anonymous sperm donor, my moms were very insistent that he be Jewish. Despite the anonymity (I would never meet him and his culture and beliefs therefore, would have little chance of influencing my own), it was important to them that he be Jewish; they wanted me to have those genes.
(Dorothy Robert's presentation and http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_GdYCVH0DRXQR7zVOBc8eHJ;jsessionid=C659503AED3DAB9614DD35273CDA1771)