Authors
Abstract
It has been argued by some authors that our reaction to deaf parents who choose deafness for their children ought to be compassion, not condemnation. Although I agree with the reasoning proposed I suggest that this practice could be regarded as unethical. In this article, I shall use the term “dysgenic” as a culturally imposed genetic selection not to achieve any improvement of the human person but to select genetic traits that are commonly accepted as a disabling condition by the majority of the social matrix; in short as a handicap. As in eugenics, dysgenics can be achieved in a positive and a negative way. Positive dysgenics intends to increase the overall number of people with a particular genetic trait. Marriage between deaf people or conceiving deaf children through reproductive technology are examples of positive dysgenics. Negative dysgenics can be obtained through careful prenatal or pre-implantation selection and abortion (or discarding) of normal embryos and foetuses. Only deaf children would be allowed to live. If dysgenics is seen as a programmed genetic intervention that undesirably shapes the human condition – like deliberately creating deaf or dwarf people – the professionals involved in reproductive technologies should answer the question if this should be an accepted ethical practice because the basic human right to an open future is violated
Keywords deafness  dysgenics  eugenics  genetics  repro-genetics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11019-005-2852-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,132
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Well-Being, Opportunity, and Selecting for Disability.Andrew Schroeder - 2018 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 14 (1).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Choosing Deafness with PHD: An Ethical Way to Carry on a Cultural Bloodline?S. Camporesi - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 19 (1):86-96.
Eugenics and Basic Genetics in H.J. Muller's Approach to Human Genetics.Elof Axel Carlson - 1987 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 9 (1):57 - 78.
Can It Be a Good Thing to Be Deaf?Rachel Cooper - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (6):563 – 583.
Better Off Deaf.Robert Sparrow - 2002 - Res Publica (Misc) 11 (1): 11-16.
Choosing Disabilities and Enhancements in Children: A Choice Too Far?Timothy F. Murphy - 2009 - Reproductie Biomedicine Online 2009 (18 sup. 1):43-49.
Distinguishing Genetics and Eugenics on the Basis of Fairness.F. D. Ledley - 1994 - Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (3):157-164.
Ethical Dimension of Paediatric Cochlear Implantation.Rui Nunes - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (4):337-349.
Moderate Eugenics and Human Enhancement.Michael J. Selgelid - 2014 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (1):3-12.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-01

Total views
38 ( #285,717 of 2,454,732 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #143,646 of 2,454,732 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes