This Article considers the moral and legal status of practices that aim to modify traits in human offspring. As advancements in reproductive biotechnology give parents greater power to shape the genetic constitution of their children, an emerging school of legal scholars has ushered in a privatized paradigm of genetic control. Commentators defend a constitutionally protected right to prenatal engineering by appeal to the significance of procreative liberty and the promise of producing future generations who are more likely to have their lives go well. This 'new eugenics,' however, confronts us with ethical challenges that neither liberal arguments about autonomy, fairness, and consent, nor utilitarian arguments about preferences, happiness, and equality, are able to capture. I begin by analyzing the Supreme Court's modern substantive due process jurisprudence, as it bears on recent advancements and controversies in genetic science. After developing a doctrinal framework that could support an asserted right to genetic engineering, I draw on empirical research in behavioral psychology to examine the influence of eugenic norms on egalitarian attitudes and institutions. I predict that if parents become accustomed to choosing the genes of their children, it would be radically more difficult to give an influential account for why the successful should adopt a charitable posture toward those who are less fortunate. I argue that by shifting control over offspring DNA from chance to choice, enhancement will inflate a sense of individual entitlement for social and economic outcomes. I conclude that increasing willingness to prevent the birth of abnormal children distracts attention from institutions that fail to accommodate the limitations of imperfect people. Some may reply that producing people who better fit the roles society chooses to reward need not deter us from providing for people whose abilities fail to meet the demands of modern society. However, this reply misses the way that changes in reproductive practices can bring about changes in the way that we understand our identities and relationships. Eugenic solutions to social problems such as poverty, crime, and unemployment reshape the challenge of genetic disadvantage so that it is no longer one we address through collective measures such as public education, social services, and income redistribution, and instead becomes one for individual parents to prevent through donor screening, embryo discard, or selective abortion.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The State's Interest in Potential Life.Dov Fox - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (2):345-357.
Similar books and articles
New Reproductive Technologies in the Treatment of Human Infertility and Genetic Disease.Lee M. Silver - 1990 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 11 (2).
Can Human Genetic Enhancement Be Prohibited?William Gardner - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):65-84.
Frozen Embryos, Genetic Information and Reproductive Rights.Sarah Chan & Muireann Quigley - 2007 - Bioethics 21 (8):439–448.
Genes and Future People: Philosophical Issues in Human Genetics.Walter Glannon - 2001 - Westview Press.
The Wisdom of Caution: Genetic Enhancement and Future Children.Jason Borenstein - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):517-530.
Genetic Engineering to Avoid Genetic Neglect: From Chance to Responsibility.Jessica Hammond - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (4):160-169.
Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering.S. Matthew Liao - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads78 ( #65,221 of 2,153,476 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #162,759 of 2,153,476 )
How can I increase my downloads?