From IVF to human trafficking, and how liberal bioethics led the way (actually, it followed)

 

Ross Douthat of The New York Times wrote recently of The Failure of Liberal Bioethics to provide any ethical guidance in the area of reproductive technologies. He recounts how liberal bioethicists, for all their eloquence about monitoring and controlling new reproductive technologies, really just act as a rubber stamp for whatever anybody wants to do, finding reasons “to embrace each new technological leap while promising to resist the next one . . . You can always count on them to worry, often perceptively, about hypothetical evils, potential slips down the bioethical slope.  But they’re either ineffectual or accommodating once an evil actually arrives. Tomorrow, they always say — tomorrow, we’ll draw the line. But tomorrow never comes.”

This marked failure in line-drawing in years past is bearing grim fruit today. In the August 4th New England Journal of Medicine, George Annas wrote of Canadian legal efforts to regulate the international trade in reproductive medicine. In order to bypass local regulations and expenses, people buy sperm from one country, ova harvested from women in another country, and rent a woman to act as a gestational surrogate from a third country, to try to have a child. These are just the sort of practices against which “conservative” bioethicists, those concerned with human dignity, the meaning of procreation, and the commodification of children, have warned; and about which “liberal” bioethicists have opined, “Well, there’s a theoretical risk here, we’ll have to watch that —” and then watched as theory became practice and practice became madness. Annas writes of the fear of many that reproductive medicine is “becoming a branch of international trafficking in women and children.”

This fear is reality. Last winter the Wall Street Journal ran an article featuring PlanetHospital.com LLC, a California company that scours the globe to find the “components” for its “business line” of internationally trafficked reproductive materiel and technology. ”PlanetHospital’s most affordable package, the ‘India bundle,’ buys an egg donor, four embryo transfers into four separate surrogate mothers, room and board for the surrogate, and a car and driver for the parents-to-be when they travel to India to pick up the baby.” The international nature of this enterprise places it under the radar of any governmental regulation that might interfere with the “business line,” and there does not appear to be much internal ethical regulation on the part of the company itself; anything goes, even when an apparent pedophile wants to have a child. As chief executive of PlanetHospital Mr. Rupak says, “Our ethics are agnostic. How do you prevent a pedophile from having a baby? If they’re a pedophile then I will leave that to the U.S. government to decide, not me.”

If liberal bioethicists continue to have their way, the unthinkable practices of today will become the commonplaces of next week. Annas bears disquieting witness to this when he writes of ”acts that were once thought to be so universally condemned that prohibitions against them could be incorporated in an international treaty.  These prohibitions include the knowing creation of a human clone, the creation of an embryo from the cell of a human fetus or from another embryo, the maintenance of an embryo ex utero for more than 14 days after fertilization, the use of sex-selection techniques for a reason other than the diagnosis of a sex-linked disorder, the performance of germline genetic engineering, the use of nonhuman life forms with human gametes, the creation of chimeras for any purpose, and the creation of hybrids for reproduction.”

How many of these “acts that were once thought to be so universally condemned” are already standard procedure today? If liberal bioethics continues to have its way, which of today’s unthinkables will be the next California company’s “business line?”

 

(If you have time, read all three articles.  They are very disturbing. If you think that the work of CBHD is unimportant, you may just change your mind.)

From Eugenics to Genocide (A Short Walk)

Last week I wrote about the practice of eugenics in modern American obstetrics:  induced abortion performed because prenatal testing shows a potential chromosomal abnormality or birth defect.  This past week, the BBC News Online ran a series of stories under the headline “India’s unwanted girls.”  These stories tell of the practice in India of induced abortion performed because prenatal testing shows a particular unwanted chromosomal “abnormality”:  the presence of the XX chromosome pair, i.e., aborting a baby simply because she is female.  Because of long-standing prejudices and practices, in many parts of Indian society a female child is considered undesirable.  There is widespread availability of prenatal ultrasound clinics for sex determination, and so many parents  avail themselves of  these clinics’ services to guide abortion decisions that in some areas of India there are less than 840 female children for every 1000 male children.  Some Indian activists use the word “genocide” to describe this selective killing of girls.  Lest anyone suspect that Indian families thought up this novel use of medical technology on their own, the following quote from the story provides chilling evidence to the contrary:  “In 1974, Delhi’s prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences came out with a study which said sex-determination tests were a boon for Indian women.  It said they no longer needed to produce endless children to have the right number of sons, and it encouraged the determination and elimination of female foetuses as an effective tool of population control.”

Three observations:  First, given the rationalizations for the unfettered right to abortion that pro-choice advocates have promulgated in this country, they would be have to be mute in the face of sex-selective abortion.  They cannot say that it is wrong to abort girls, because if it is wrong to abort girls, then it is wrong to abort boys.  If they admit that it is wrong to distinguish — and extinguish — foetuses on the basis of an arbitrary criterion such as gender, then they would have to admit that it is wrong to do so on the basis of any arbitrary criterion — such as the presence of a disability.

Second, the term “genocide” used by certain Indian activists seems extreme, but it may not be such a long walk from eugenics to genocide.  The justification used to commit foeticide on the basis of gender can be employed to commit foeticide, say, on the basis of  a genetic predisposition to obesity (A 1993 March of Dimes poll found that 11% of parents said they would abort a  fetus whose genome was predisposed to obesity), and is not far from the justification used to commit murder on the basis of whether one belongs to the Hutu or Tutsi tribe.

Third, this tragic story shows yet again what happens when medicine abandons its Hippocratic ethos of commitment to the patient and instead uses its considerable power to pursue goals such as “population control,” social stability — or eugenics.

 

Confession of a Eugenicist

 

I have a confession to make:  I am a eugenicist.

 

I am a family physician who provides obstetrical care.  I love taking care of moms and babies.

It has insidiously become the Standard of Care to offer to all pregnant women testing that will inform them whether there is an increased risk that their unborn children have certain genetic abnormalities or birth defects.  If I do not offer these tests to all pregnant women, I am considered to have provided substandard care, and the wrath of a society that tolerates Nothing But The Best will descend quickly upon me.  If I do offer these tests, I am practicing “Good Medicine” — and eugenics.

 

How did eugenics become Good Medicine again?

 

I don’t want to practice eugenics.  Yet I am compelled to by the Standard of Care;  and the Standard of Care is shaped by the existence and marketing of these tests.  It’s the old story in our technophilic society:  we are constrained to use a technology merely because the technnology exists.

 

Why were such tests even developed in the first place?  Was it only for diagnostic purposes,  simply to provide information to prospective parents?  Of course not.  Clearly these tests were developed to help guide therapy;  and because the primary “therapeutic” option is induced abortion of fetuses who are not up to snuff, it seems equally clear that eugenic considerations drove their development.  So, the eugenic ideal drives development of eugenic technology, which, marketed and disseminated, drives the Standard of Care, which drives what I do in my office and provides the ammunition for the licensing board — and malpractice lawyers — who are looking over my shoulder.

 

Thus am I an unwilling eugenicist.  Thus am I compelled to do the dirty work for the eugenicists of our society.

(This is not to say that all parents who opt to undergo this testing do so for eugenic purposes.  I realize that some do so solely for diagnosis.  I am writing here about the development and mandatory offering of such tests.)

 

Maybe the time has come for a new  medical association.  Instead of the AMA, perhaps we should inaugurate the HMA:  the Hippocratic Medical Association, the members of which will adhere to a different Standard, who will pledge to uphold the ideals behind the Hippocratic Oath.  The members of this association would return to the ethos of that Oath which, according to anthropologist Margaret Mead,  marked one of the great turning-points in the history of the human race, because, “For the first time in our tradition, there was a complete separation between killing and curing . . . One profession . . were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age, or intellect–the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child . . .”

 

Parental Guidance Before and After Birth

 

As I sat sipping coffee and reading articles on the moral implications of genetic interventions in the germ-line (don’t yawn), a perfect picture was painted at the table across from me.  A young and boisterous child spoke of his aspirations for the future, vehemently proclaiming to a doubting adult audience, “I want to be a teacher, a singer, a dancer, a hospital man, I want to be everything.”

 

His ambitions were a bit outlandish.

 

His father, or who I believed to be his father, responded: “Do you know how you can be all of those things? You can be an actor.  This way you can be a teacher one day, and a singer another, and…”

 

“No, I want to be them all!”– Clearly the aspirations of the father were distinct from that of the son.

 

Imagine, if you will, that your direct (active) influence on your child could begin before conception. What if you could unify your aspirations before birth? No longer would you have to squelch his dreams as he bellows across Starbucks…

 

Although this is not yet in our grasp, Gender selection and disease screening are already a possibility. What if more options become available?

 

John Harris, recognizing this future possibility in his book Enhancing Evolution, avows an ethical parity in genetic interventions before conception and parental influences after birth. Could this be true?  Are encouraging your child to play an instrument and (in some future world) fashioning an embryo to be a world-class musician morally equivalent?

 

I would say there is a distinct difference between choosing for our children potential traits in embryo and guiding our children along in life. No doubt both influences are according to parental values. However, by choosing traits we are no longer discussing influence in terms of persuasion and direction, we are discussing a new kind of coercion.

 

What do you think?