Thursday, August 11, 2011

A "tremendously great accomplishment": the new eugenics




From Mark W. Leach at Mercatornet:



By the year 2030, Denmark will become Down syndrome-free. If this happens, the landmark elimination of this minority group will be due to the introduction of a national prenatal testing program in 2004. The number of DS births halved in 2005 and has dropped by 13 percent every year since then. Niels Uldbjerg, professor of gynaecology and obstetrics at the University of Aarhus, told the Copenhagen Post that this is a “tremendously great accomplishment”.

But is it? Or is it a form of latter-day eugenics?

Although the United States is far bigger and more diverse than Denmark, the development of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) could make Down syndrome births a rarity there as well. Normally, they account for about 1 birth in 691. But when statistics show that when pregnant women are diagnosed with a DS child, as many as 90 percent terminate it.

In my own medical practice, the only children I see with handicaps that can be prenatally diagnosed are born to religious families or to poor women who don't get pre-natal screening.  These diseases-- spina bifida, Down's syndrome, congenital hydrocephalus-- aren't being cured. Children with them are being diagnosed in the womb and are being aborted.

This "great accomplishment" is not that we are eliminating or curing the diseases. We are eliminating the people with them.

Up until now, diagnostic techniques have been invasive and carried a risk of miscarrying the child. A good number of women refuse the testing and some give birth to DS children. But with non-invasive screening, the risk disappears. More women will have the test and nearly all DS children will be aborted.

Some consider this eugenics.(1) Eugenics – selecting people based on genetics out of a belief that it improves the human race – has been taboo since the compulsory sterilization laws in Germany under the Nazis. These evolved into the euthanasia of the disabled and were a precursor to the Holocaust. While no one is predicting government-mandated breeding policies, many people are worried that NIPD is ushering in an era of privatized eugenics.

Government-mandated breeding policies are unnecessary. A culture in which abortion for  lifestyle is considered morally acceptable is a culture in which abortion for handicap is considered morally obligatory.

The reality, though, is different. Many women are too scared to say No to testing and then to an abortion. Doctors admit to being poorly trained in counseling their patients and to even urging them to terminate.(6) There are too few genetic counselors for current prenatal testing programs. When NIPD arrives many more will be needed. Older diagnostic systems are invasive and women risk miscarrying. So “risk-free” diagnosis will be far more popular.

There are other problems. Doctors do not provide educational materials to their patients, nor do they discuss the third option of adoption following a diagnosis. It’s not surprising, then, that mothers say that prenatal testing makes them anxious, regardless of the test results. A significant number believe that their decision was inconsistent with their values. Sure, there’s no compulsion. But there is heavy-handed social pressure.
I have seen considerable pressure applied to women to abort handicapped children. The pressure is generally indirect, but intense. Requests for meetings with teams of doctors to discuss "the next step", unrealistically negative predictions of the child's outcome, and simple referrals to abortion clinics without the family's request for such information are common. I have had several women who kept their babies tell me of intense pressure from the medical profession to abort.

Commercial interests also stand to benefit from the introduction of NIPD. In the US, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) funded the confirmation of nuchal translucency as a first-trimester screening test for Down syndrome with millions of public dollars. Just this year the NIH granted a private laboratory US$2 million for its efforts at developing NIPD, in addition to private funding. In Europe, a multi-national consortium is supporting the Orwellian-named SAFE project: Special Non-Invasive Advances in Fetal and Neonatal Evaluation.

In[m1] many countries, prenatal testing for DS is funded by taxpayers. Governments justify funding prenatal testing based on a claimed benefit that fewer children with Down syndrome mean more healthcare dollars for other people. Not surprisingly, because the patient does not have to pay the cost, there are more tests and more terminations.

Supporters of public funding argue that it is cheaper to offer subsidized prenatal testing and abortions than to pay the medical bills of a child with Down syndrome. Governments, therefore, are involved in a program intended to reduce the number of lives with DS. The new eugenics looks a lot like the old eugenics.
Handicapped children are cheaper dead.

Following the money, and what it funds and what it does not, reveals that the current administration of prenatal testing for DS appears much more like the old eugenics that the civilized world pledged would happen “never again.” As a woman with a child with Down syndrome told a Danish newspaper, “We should not have an ethnic cleansing type of situation, which this resembles. They are going after one specific handicap. What’s next? Will it be children with diabetes who will be rejected?”
The eugenics of the first half of the 20th century was an ugly affair. The Nazi fulfillment of eugenic dreams-- the T4 program in which a quarter of a million handicapped people were exterminated in Germany-- so horrified the public that by mid-century few dared to advocate eugenics by name.

In the mid-1950's, American eugenicist Fredrick Osborn proposed a change from negative eugenics to positive eugenics. He proposed the motto "Every Child a Wanted Child"-- a motto adopted by Planned Parenthood.

Osborn was a tactical genius, and is probably responsible, more than any other man, for the deeply eugenic culture in which we live today.

The idea that any person-- let alone a physician-- could describe the extermination before birth of all children with a particular handicap as a "tremendously great accomplishment" should send chills up our collective spine. The fact that it doesn't, the fact that many otherwise decent people agree that such extermination is an "accomplishment", is evidence for the growing depravity of our culture.

The depravity of eugenics is traceable to the materialist/Darwinian understanding of man. If  we are just evolved animals, then a little culling and selective breeding is just good husbandry.

Eugenics is a deep sickness on mankind. Only the recognition that we are spiritual as well as material-- that we are created in the image of God-- can turn this brutal tide.

21 comments:

  1. The language 'great accomplishment' is indicative of the mentality involved.
    As a member of a NATO force, I am confronted by this with horror.
    THESE are the people we are charged to protect?
    I am not alone in feeling this way. Most of the servicemen I know feel that what we fight for is being diminished daily, by the people we are fighting for.
    This kind of inhumanity is a prime example of just such 'hamstringing' and 'cultural suicide' that my men frequently rant on about.
    Something has to give, Doctor.
    This kind of thing cannot go on forever.
    I pray the solution presents itself soon.
    Poor kids :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. I sense some transhumanism gaining force don't you people XD ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder why materialists, atheists, darwinists and other believers in "nothing from nothing" stay mute on this subject?

    They should and probably are very thankfull of their mother's decision, or are they?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's because we've become bored with Mike's antics.

    Come on, Mike, do something outrageous. Call us brownshirts. Declare that Republicans tend to have a higher IQ. Or that half of the US households don't pay taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No one is silent. It's a matter of personal belief. Some believe abortion should be a right, some don't. If you truly believe you cannot handle the immense commitment it takes to properly raise a DS inflicted individual, perhaps it it is your right to abort the child. Is it an obligation to abort the child? No, of course not. It's alarmist exaggeration to say so. That being said, no one should be pressured into making the decision, but society and economical stress applies substantial pressure. I agree that there should be better and more genetic counseling available.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think E... that society is something really ... volatile. See not many years ago we use to kill people with genetic problems ... simply because it made our genetic pool/blood/society/race worst XD.

    these things might have their share of good intentions on them, but, evil is paved with good intentions. Bet most of our worst screw ups as Humans were probably born by simple ideas that seem so innocent at some point or SO GOOD at some point

    ReplyDelete
  7. @oleg:

    [Come on, Mike, do something outrageous. Call us brownshirts. Declare that Republicans tend to have a higher IQ. Or that half of the US households don't pay taxes.]

    1) Atheists are brownshirts.

    2) Republicans have higher IQ's

    3) Half of the US households don't pay takes.

    Have at it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ E:

    [If you truly believe you cannot handle the immense commitment it takes to properly raise a DS inflicted individual, perhaps it it is your right to abort the child.]

    It doesn't take an "immense commitment" to raise a Down's kid. They're gentle sweet people, and are probably easier to deal with than children who are not disabled (I've raised 3 healthy teens, so I know).

    Some Down's kids have health issues, but most don't. They are very loving sweet kids, as anyone who has dealt with them knows well.

    There is no justification for killing them in the womb.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike,

    I know that you are thoroughly unfamiliar with data. You just repeat slogans without bothering to check them.

    Here is a brief on taxes: Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. Bottom line: the vast majority of the US households do pay taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As to brownshirts, your writings reliably obey Godwin's law:

    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

    In fact, I didn't even need to tease you on that one, you used the word 2 days ago, at your own volition.

    You know what, Mike? You sound a lot like a standard conservative blowhard. Lots of emotions, hardly any intellectual content.

    Carry on. You have the audience you deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oleg,
    Stop with the bedwetting.
    You think your talking point (Godwin's law) says anything to refute what the doctor has written about abortions? Of course not. Why not? Because you CANNOT.
    Your post smack of intellectual cowardice. You HIDE from the issues, and produce straw men.
    You simply insult and accuse them of stupidity and lack of intellect. Are you a child to write so? Perhaps that is the issue. Children are often frightened. If you are young, don't be ashamed to admit it. I will go easier on you, for one, and you can stop ignoring half the commentors!

    Pepe,
    How right you are. The silence is deafening.
    One fellow (E?) says abortion is a 'personal' issue, hence the silence. I agree. As a soldier with blood on his hands, killing is extremely personal. But of course this is a blog, and the issue is being discussed.
    I think you have nailed it on the head, Pepe.

    E,
    I have a question for E: Are YOU against it? How many atheists you know are against abortion? Is there ANY that read this blog or could pots here?
    I ask this honestly I have NEVER met an atheist/materialist who is against abortion on demand. PLEASE change that for me?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @oleg

    Lots of emotions, hardly any intellectual content.

    Your frequent use of this tactic certainly fits this description.

    How about giving your opinion on the subject of the post instead?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Edward,
    I did not see your post re:transhumanism until I checked my own (blogger!!!)
    I agree that is how they dress this stuff up these days. Tanshumanism is the HOLY GRAIL of promissory materialism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao... they all had dreams of supermen, monkey soldiers, super workers etc. Breeding human beings (even with animals) is not a new concept, it is just that these guys now have hopes they can achieve it with some promised future science.
    So, to answer your question: YES! I can TASTE it in the air!

    ReplyDelete
  14. What's the point of talking abortion with Catholics, Pépé?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pépé,
    He still sees YOU. :P
    You're so lucky.
    Oleg,
    What's the point of talking to anyone who just ignores what he doesn't like: IE YOU!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @mregnor
    "It doesn't take an "immense commitment" to raise a Down's kid. They're gentle sweet people, and are probably easier to deal with than children who are not disabled."

    I can't believe you said this. Raising a DS or otherwise handicapped child doesn't end in childhood, it's a decades long, family-wide commitment that takes quite a bit more effort, attention, patience, support and financial resources than most parents are asked to deal with. I'm not saying that a child doesn't deserve the extra commitment, but I am saying that some parents may not feel they are equipped to deal with the situation -- for whatever reason. Some would agree with me. I doubt, however, many parents that are dealing with it agree with your position -- that it may be easier.

    @Crusade
    I am not against other people's right to abortion. There are atheists who are; I spent a little time reading their position out of curiosity, you might do the same.

    My point is that you don't have to agree with abortion, but at least recognize that some people don't feel they can deal with difficult situations. I agree there is a cruel element to it, but things are not always simple. I would rather a child not be born to parents that will not give the child the support and love needed. It's not eugenics, forced or otherwise, it's very extremist to say so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. E,
    Thanks for responding
    You wrote:
    "I am not against other people's right to abortion."
    'Right'? Is it a 'right' in the USA to receive surgical procedures? Do you have a right to terminate any other type of genetically human life? For my own part, I do not see how terminating a child's life could be considered a right. Given by whom? Guaranteed by what?

    You rightly point out:
    "There are atheists who are; I spent a little time reading their position out of curiosity, you might do the same."
    I will gladly do so. Could you direct me to that information? I have no idea where I would find it. I have never met such an Atheist or read such a position in the available literature...EVER. I would gladly find common ground on this issue, especially with people from 'across the aisle'.

    You go on:
    "My point is that you don't have to agree with abortion, but at least recognize that some people don't feel they can deal with difficult situations. "
    Sure. We all face difficult situations. We don't all get council to infanticide.

    Then:
    " I agree there is a cruel element to it, but things are not always simple."
    As a serving officer and veteran of combat in a NATO force, I am aware of the complexity of life. This experience and my continuing education in history is why I could NEVER suffer to be a materialist.

    "I would rather a child not be born to parents that will not give the child the support and love needed."
    Ah see! Now we get to the root of our misunderstanding: You are talking about prophylactics and contraceptives! Your talking about preventing births by abstinence. I am talking about abortion; that is KILLING a developing fetus. Abortions are no more 'not being born' than my enemies in battle are 'not being alive'. They are both killed. One in battle and hot blood, the other in the womb and cold blood. War and murder.

    Finally you posit:
    "It's not eugenics, forced or otherwise, it's very extremist to say so."
    Extremist eh? The new darling term of the left.
    "Racist" is SOOOO 90's.
    Oh well, E - I have been called much worse.I have my own opinion, if that's what you mean by extremist.
    So it's not extreme to 'not be born' millions of children annually?

    FYI:
    I have fought for years, to protect people just like you from extremists. For your 'right' to speak your mind on things I disagree with to the very fibre of my being. For your right to call me 'extremist'.
    Using a descriptive term like Eugenics makes me extreme.So, what else do you call selective breeding of humans, E? What is the 'centralist' or PC term for Eugenics? Engineering maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @E

    ...some people don't feel they can deal with difficult situations...

    This kind of thinking can be applied to many difficult situations in life: elderly parents who shit in their pants, uncontrollable teens wrecking havoc in cities (i.e. London), unsupportable noisy neighbours, etc...

    The only problem is that an unwanted child or a handicapped child cannot protest when still in his mother's womb!

    So it's easy and socially acceptable to murder this child to be.

    Humans doing abortions are despicable! They are killing their own kind…

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just to finish up here..

    @Crusade
    Just some quick Googling will lead you to atheists against abortion letters. Here are some to look through.
    http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library.html

    Also, when I said "I would rather a child not be born to parents that will not give the child the support and love needed," I was not talking about abstinence, I was talking about abortion. The ugly truth of the matter is that some people would feel very differently toward a handicapped child. Not all, but some. I think we would agree that anyone willing to abort a baby on these terms should not be trusted to care for a child. In that case, I would say abortion should be an option. I realize you do not feel that way, and that is fine. You should fight it. I understand why you do. I suppose you don't understand why I don't.

    Also, I was actually calling the use of the word eugenics specially in the context of abortion extremist. There does not exist an agenda to promote the human species' genetic wellbeing by requiring abortion or prohibiting reproduction. If you believe there is such an agenda, you are extremist. This is a voluntary thing.

    @Pepe

    Yes, abortion is is socially acceptable to some. To me, it isn't ideal but it is an option I recognize some may want. And yes, people cannot deal with many difficult situations. The ones you listed are exactly why we have assisted living, nursing homes, prisons and police.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @E
    The ones you listed are exactly why we have assisted living, nursing homes, prisons and police.

    Why not abort all these problems?

    Or would you rather provide assisted living, nursing homes, prisons and police to children to be?

    ReplyDelete
  21. E,
    Thanks for responding & thanks for the link, I will check it out.

    You wrote:
    "You should fight it. I understand why you do. I suppose you don't understand why I don't."
    You assume ignorance, and you assume wrongly. I understand "why you don't" just fine.

    You then explain:
    "I was not talking about abstinence, I was talking about abortion."
    I know. I was being a smart ass. Mea Culpa.
    In my world we call taking life 'killing' rather than 'not being born'. To avoid birth without killing, one must avoid conception. No? A foetus is, after all, a genetically human life.

    You continue:

    "The ugly truth of the matter is that some people would feel very differently toward a handicapped child. Not all, but some. I think we would agree that anyone willing to abort a baby on these terms should not be trusted to care for a child. In that case, I would say abortion should be an option."
    So let me be clear, E.
    You are saying that in a case where a mother would rather kill her child than deliver it she is untrustworthy as a mother (I agree so far), and may kill or harm the child if delivered.
    So the solution is to kill the child in the womb?
    This is where we part company.
    This seems paralogism to me, as well as incredibly selfish.
    For my own part, the child's life is more important than statistics - in any form, no matter how tough or short.
    How on earth are you killing a child for it's own good? Is it going to heaven or to be reincarnated? No, you don't believe that.
    So how do you justify killing that potential, absolutely random and unique, in order to preserve the lifestyle of a crazy woman/ abusive mother? I don't see the logic at all.
    Unless we dump morality along with God and metaphysics. Then we leave selfish and illogical behind and head into the territory of Evil.
    Solution? If she hurts the child, take it away and lock her up. Better a madwoman in a cell than a dead child in a medical waste dump or crematoria. Even if the child is killed, it has LIVED. You suggest taking even that short life away, for the comfort of the selfish, evil bitch who would harm it?
    Your argument is an excellent one for increased social welfare programs for children and even contraception, but not abortion.


    "Also, I was actually calling the use of the word eugenics specially in the context of abortion extremist."
    Okay. So there is no program to terminate such (above) pregnancies? There is no "tremendously great accomplishment" in Denmark? No targetted genetic group for removal? The DS kids are NOT being aborted? How about elsewhere and other 'disorders'?
    Of course there is, and it is Eugenic in nature. Soft, PC Eugenics. Tom-eh-to, Tom-ah-to. Stating that fact is not extremist.
    Bombing abortion clinics and killing 'doctors' preform them - that is extreme. We are just talking (writing).
    But whatever makes you feel comfortable conversing.
    Call me extremist if you like. I have been called much worse.
    Besides, I fought for your right to be wrong - have at it.

    ReplyDelete