In late 19th century, the term eugenics was coined to represent the notion that selective breeding could in time produce a superior race. On the other hand, the idea required that populations deemed unfit for any reason, should be restricted from procreating. This idea spread rapidly and by the early 20th century, eugenics activists were trying to prove the benefits of eugenics methods, such as sterilization and abortion. The target populations were in particular mentally disabled people, called “feebleminded”, who were considered a burden for the society, and who were believed to carry the genes of the disability and transmit it to their children. The practice further extended to include those with physical disabilities, to prison inmates, and other undesirable elements of the society, including poor African –American women, who were often sterilized without consent or knowledge. At the time, the eugenics movement was very popular, and had wide support from the government, which passed laws to legalize sterilization and other eugenics measures, in an attempt to eradicate diseases and have a healthier population. While it is true that it has the effect of radically stopping the transmission of defective genes, eugenics can itself have a negative impact on people’s health, and can cause physical and moral disease in the communities where it occurs.
In the early 19th century, the eugenics doctrines were supported by the scientific world as the best way to fight against genetically transmitted diseases. Much like a type of natural selection, where only the fittest is allowed to survive and many western societies adopted these measures. As Kevles (435) explains, these measures were promoted by health professionals, physicians and biologists, and were popularized in magazines, newspapers and books, as the picture shows:
Source: Those Who Can See
In particular feebleminded people were considered a threat to the well-being of the society by causing the dysfunctional genes to spread and by using the state’s resources. As a consequence, a program was developed to encourage people with healthy genes to give birth to children (positive eugenics), while denying the people with disabilities, the source of the problem (Kelves 436). Even today, there are voices in the academic world who promote the ideas of eugenics, as an efficient and easy way to eradicate genetic flaws, and allow people to bring healthy children to life. For example, one form of present-day eugenics, is screening for genetic diseases during pregnancy, and having abortion in cases where serious anomalies are detected. While currently, forced sterilization is no longer practiced, being a human rights abuse, voluntary sterilization and abortion are a form of ‘personal eugenics’ which is progressing. As Caplan, McGee and Magnus (2) show, as long as force and coercion are not used in order to influence people’s procreative choices there should be no moral border stopping parents from choosing to give birth to healthier, physically apt children. The authors further argue that already, humanity uses many ways to try an eradicate certain diseases and conditions, such as vaccines, and screening method, and who is to say, one may wonder, that a terrible disease such as malaria is more threatening than life-long suffering caused by different genetic conditions? These questions have deep moral underpinnings, particularly since eugenics may not stop at preventing diseases, but it could spread to stop the evolution to any fetus with any type of flaw whatsoever.
Moreover, one should not forget that sterilization means the affectation of a body’s system, with irreversible effects. Therefore, in a certain way, sterilization is as crippling as the conditions that caused it. In addition, the abortion or sterilization procedures are also dangerous for a person’s health. In the early 20th century, numerous persons would die of complications. In addition, as Kylaw-Soe shows, forced sterilization can indirectly lead to the spread of disease. First the patient may become depressive , and since they were already considered outcast based on social or economic status, or because of a condition, they were unlikely to benefit from proper counselling or medication (88). In addition, the distrust that can install as a result of being forcefully sterilized, resulted in women failing to seek medical advice in cases of need. For example, in developing countries such as Namibia, where HIV is a present concern, women who had been forcefully sterilized in order to prevent them from transmitting the disease to their newborns, stopped going to the doctor because of fear (Kylaw Saw 88). The American Life League also show that in case of female sterilization there is a mortality rate of 2.29 per 100, 000 for tubal ligation laparotomies, and 4.72 for other types of sterilization methods (par. 18). In addition, serious complications such as excessive bleeding may occur as a result of sterilization even today. Men also can suffer from the consequences of sterilixation, being likely to develop immunological problems or urinary tract stones (The America Life League par. 21). All these show that, while they may solve problems, eugenics can also cause diseases in many different ways.
Therefore, as shown throughout this paper, forced sterilization is inacceptable, and it must be assumed that any person who decides to have children is aware of the responsibilities it entails and is able to undertake this responsibility. However, eugenics is indeed able to eradicate certain serious diseases which cause pain and sufferance. This doctrine is still practiced today under less apparent forms, such as pregnancy screenings and abortions. Even when people decide to undergo sterilization, this is completely acceptable as long as it is their choice alone. On the other hand, everyone should be aware that eugenics, through its methods, sterilization and abortion, may cause various diseases, complications and even death, while trying to cure disease. In addition, there is a concern that this procedure may be taken too far thus creating an obsession for perfection, and a rejection of the ‘imperfect’ individuals. Overall, eugenics remains as controversial today as it was in late 19th century, when it first appeared.
Works Cited
American Life League. “Surgical Sterilization”. Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia. N.d. Web. 11 July, 2015. https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC102.HTM
Caplan, Arthur, McGee, Glenn and Magnus, David. “What is Immoral about Eugenics?” British Medical Journal 319.7220(1999): 1-2.
Kevles, Daniel. “Eugenics and Human Rights”. British Medical Journal 319.7207 (1999): 435-438.
Kylaw-Soe, Stella. “Ethics of Forced Sterilization”. Dialogues Journal 9.154 (2014):85-95. http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/all-journals/volume-9/154-ethics-of-forced-sterilization. 11 July, 2015.
Those Who Can See. “Being A Progressive, Yesterday: Eugenics”. Photograph, n.d. Web. 11 July, 2015. http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.ro/2012/04/being-progressive-yesterday.html
