Advertisement

The Legacy of Eugenics in Contemporary Law

  • Pin Lean Lau
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter introduces the philosophical foundations of eugenics as a starting point, because this supports the reasoning that proposes a form or regulatory or governance framework for pre-implantation genetic interventions. Through a historical exploration of the laws of human inheritability of conditions, and the rise of national eugenic policies, the premise made here is that a wholesale free-for-all use of emerging biomedical technologies, particularly where those technologies involve possibilities to intervene into the human genome, may be interpreted to result in eugenic consequences though a process of selection, and also impacts the operability of contemporary laws. Even if the principle of autonomy is respected, as it is in the case of a new form of “liberal eugenics”, I provide three main reasons why this concept is flawed, and why a more meaningful capitulation of the effects of genetic interventions particularly in the scope of human reproduction must be very carefully evaluated. Instead, I advance the call for a reinterpretation of eugenics in light of embryo selection in biomedical and reproductive technologies; founded upon limits that do not encroach on another individual’s rights and liberties.

References

  1. Agar N (1998) Liberal eugenics. Public Aff Q 12:137Google Scholar
  2. Agar N (2006) The debate over liberal eugenics. Hast Cent Rep 36:4Google Scholar
  3. Barnhart MG (1997) Ideas of nature in an Asian context. Philos East West 47:417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr MD, Lee Kuan Yew: race, culture and genes. 18Google Scholar
  5. Basas CG (2014) What’s bad about wellness? What the disability rights perspective offers about the limitations of wellness. J Health Polit Policy Law 39:1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumann F, Humanism and Transhumanism. 17Google Scholar
  7. Belluck P (4 August 2017) Gene editing for “designer babies”? Highly unlikely, scientists say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-babies.html
  8. Bognar G (2016) Is disability mere difference? J Med Ethics 42:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botkin JR (1998) Ethical issues and practical problems in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Law Med Ethics 26:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs H (24 January 2018) First monkey clones created in the lab. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42809445
  11. Buchanan A et al (2001) From chance to choice: genetics and justice. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/case.html
  13. Burrus T (23 June 2011) One generation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Is Enough. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/one-generation-oliver-wendell-holmes-jr-enough
  14. Chan CK (1985) Eugenics on the rise: a report from Singapore. Int J Health Serv 15:707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chesterton GK (2000) Eugenics and other evils: an argument against the scientifically organized state. Inkling BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Christiansen K (14 November 2017) Genome editing: are we opening a back door to eugenics? Science Nordic. http://sciencenordic.com/genome-editing-are-we-opening-back-door-eugenics
  17. Chua A (2011) Battle hymn of the tiger mother. Penguin GroupGoogle Scholar
  18. Cochrane K (7 February 2014) The truth about the tiger mother’s family. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/07/truth-about-tiger-mothers-family-amy-chua
  19. Cohen A (2016) Imbeciles, The Supreme Court, American Eugenics and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Penguin PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook M (19 August 2017) China rushes into embryo selection. BioEdge. https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/china-rushes-into-embryo-selection/12399
  21. Cyranoski D, Reardon S (2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
  22. Deppe C (2010) Tao Te Ching: a window to the Tao through the words of Lao Tzu. Fertile Valley Publishing. https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Deppe.pdf
  23. Dhammanada KS (2002) What Buddhists believe, 4th edn. Buddhist Missionary Society MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Dyson F (1997) Can science be ethical? N Y Rev Books 44:46Google Scholar
  25. Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol 2, 3rd edn (Thomson Gale 2004)Google Scholar
  26. Flanigan J (2013) Adderall for all: a defense of pediatric neuroenhancement. HEC Forum 25:325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foley KE (23 January 2018) Chinese scientists already used Crispr gene editing on 86 human patients. Quartz. https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/
  28. Foucault M (1963) Naissance de La Clinique Une Archéologie Du Regard Médical. Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. Foucault M (1976) The history of sexuality volume I: an introduction. Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  30. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  31. Franklin DL (29 June 2015) How the 1942 case of a one-footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality. Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/gay_marriage_supreme_court_ruling_how_skinner_v_oklahoma_laid_the_foundation.html
  32. Gabbatis J (14 February 2018) Dolly the sheep: 15 years after her death, cloning still has the power to shock. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dolly-the-sheep-cloning-15-years-death-future-humans-monkeys-what-next-a8208896.html
  33. Galton D (2002) Eugenics. The future of human life in the 21st century. AbacusGoogle Scholar
  34. Ganesan JS (7 October 2016) A short history of the word “Kiasu”. Esquire Singapore. https://www.esq.sg/lifestyle/culture/news/A-Short-History-Of-Kiasu
  35. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html
  36. Groll D, Lott M (2015) Is there a role for “human nature” in debates about human enhancement? Philosophy 90:623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gyngell C, Douglas T (2015) Stocking the genetic supermarket: reproductive genetic technologies and collective action problems: stocking the genetic supermarket. Bioethics 29:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Handyside A (2010) Let parents decide. Nature 464:978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harris J (2010) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Hediger R (2016) Becoming with animals: sympoiesis and the ecology of meaning in London and Hemingway. Stud Am Nat 11:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heinemann T, Honnefelder L (2003) Principles of ethical decision making regarding embryonic stem cell research in Germany. Bioethics 16:530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heyman SJ (1991) First duty of government: protection, liberty and the fourteenth amendment. Duke Law J 41:507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hovhannisyan A (2018) Ōta Tenrei’s defense of birth control, eugenics and euthanasia. Contemp Jpn 30:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hsu P, Lander E, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157:1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. IMDb, Science and the Swastika. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808104/
  47. Ingram C (12 March 2003) State issues apology for policy of sterilization. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/12/local/me-sterile12
  48. Kaelber L, Eugenics: compulsory sterilization in 50 American states. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
  49. Kango-Singh M (2010) In: Speicher M, Antonarakis SE, Motulsky AG (eds) Vogel and Motulsky’s human genetics-problems and approaches. BioMed Central. https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-7364-5-1-73
  50. Kater MH (1987) The burden of the past: problems of a modern historiography of physicians and medicine in Nazi Germany. Ger Stud Rev 10:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kevles DJ (1999) Eugenics and human rights. BMJ: Br Med J 319:435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kurzweil R (2014) The singularity is near. In: Sandler RL (ed) Ethics and emerging technologies. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  53. Leem SY (2017) Gangnam-style plastic surgery: the science of westernized beauty in South Korea. Med Anthropol 36:657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lessig L (2006) Code: Version 2.0, 2nd edn. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  55. Matsubara Y (1998) The enactment of Japan’s sterilization laws in the 1940s: a prelude to postwar eugenic policy. Historia Scientiarum 8:187Google Scholar
  56. Mehlman MJ (1999) How will we regulate genetic enhancement. Wake Forest Law Rev 34:671Google Scholar
  57. Mendel as the Father of Genetics:: DNA from the Beginning. http://www.dnaftb.org/1/bio.html
  58. Nature (1998) China’s “eugenics” law still disturbing despite relabelling. Nature 394:707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. North Carolina Administration, NC DOA: Welcome to the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims. https://ncadmin.nc.gov/about-doa/special-programs/welcome-office-justice-sterilization-victims
  60. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  61. Osborn F (1937) Development of a eugenic philosophy. Am Sociol Rev 2:389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pellissier H (22 June 2015) Do you fear eugenics? China does not, and that’s a problem - interview with Chad White. Institute for Emerging Technologies and Ethics. https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/pellissier20150622
  63. Reiss MJ, Straughan R (1996) Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  64. Robertson J (2010) Eugenics in Japan: Sanguinous repair. In: Bashford A, Levine P (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenicsGoogle Scholar
  65. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
  66. Rorty MV (2003) The future of human nature. Notre Dame Philos RevGoogle Scholar
  67. Saetz SB, Court MV, Henshaw, MW (1985) Eugenics and the third Reich. Eugen BullGoogle Scholar
  68. Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atl Mon 293:51Google Scholar
  69. Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Scott Sills E (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  70. Savulescu J (2001) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15:413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Savulescu J (2007) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In: The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  72. Savulescu J (2009) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. Read Philos Technol:417Google Scholar
  73. Savulescu J, Kahane G (2011) Disability: a welfarist approach. Clin Ethics 6:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Selgelid MJ (2014) Modern eugenics and human enhancement. Med Healthcare Philos 17:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sholley JB (1951) Constitution of the United States of America. In: Cases on constitutional law. Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar
  76. Shuster E (1997) Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med 337:1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Singapore Democratic Party, Eugenics in Singapore. http://yoursdp.org//news/eugenics_in_singapore/2008-11-09-558
  78. Singer P (2009) Parental choice and human improvement. In: Human enhancement. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  79. Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html
  80. Stone G et al (2005) Constitutional law, 5th edn. Aspen PublishersGoogle Scholar
  81. Tarrant-Cornish T (26 December 2017) Richest country in the World: China to overtake the US as most powerful economy. Express. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/896869/China-economy-US-richest-country-world-Donald-Trump-trade-GDP-research
  82. Thomas A (31 July 2017) Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it blindly into a future for the elite. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/super-intelligence-and-eternal-life-transhumanisms-faithful-follow-it-blindly-into-a-future-for-the-elite-78538
  83. Tien L (2005) Architectural regulation and the evolution of social norms. Yale J Law Technol 7:23Google Scholar
  84. United Nations, In opening debate on human cloning ban, some speakers urge outright prohibition, others favour partial ban to allow for medical advances | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. https://www.un.org/press/en/2002/l2995.doc.htm
  85. Vetlesen AJ (2005) The future of human nature. Scand J Disabil Res 7:232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Watts G (31 January 2018) “Eugenics” case highlights dark chapter in Japanese history. Asia Times. https://www.asiatimes.com/2018/01/article/eugenics-case-highlights-dark-chapter-japanese-history/
  87. Weihua L, Xinwu Z (2000) Harvard Girl Liu Yiting: a character training record. Writers Publishing HouseGoogle Scholar
  88. Wiesenthal DL, Wiener NI (1999) Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics. Sci Eng Ethics 5:383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. World Bank (2018) Global economy to edge up to 3.1 percent in 2018 but future potential growth a concern. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/01/09/global-economy-to-edge-up-to-3-1-percent-in-2018-but-future-potential-growth-a-concern
  90. World Medical Association (2018) WMA declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
  91. Yap MT (2003) Fertility and population policy: the Singapore experience. J Popul Soc Secur (Popul) 1(Suppl):643Google Scholar
  92. Yuehtsen JC (2010) Eugenics in China and Hong Kong: nationalism and colonialism, 1890s–1940s. In: Bashford A, Levine P (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenicsGoogle Scholar
  93. Zeidman LA (2011) Neuroscience in Nazi Europe Part I: eugenics, human experimentation, and mass murder. Can J Neurol Sci/Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques 38:696CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pin Lean Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations