Prenatal genetic testing
for parents to screen traits of their future offspring has without a doubt been
on the rise with new innovations in medicine. The extent that parents should be
given access to this privilege is certainly not black and white. However, the
reason that new parents seek out this service in the first place is important
when determining how widely available this new trend should be made. When
thinking about this question, the line between screening for life threatening
birth defects and eugenics immediately comes to mind. But where does the line
get crossed? Of course, in order to better prepare future parents for a child
with a life altering or threatening disease such as Tay-Sachs, downs syndrome,
cystic fibrosis, etc. prenatal genetic testing seems like a necessity. But what
should the criteria be for undergoing this diagnosis? Eugenics or “designer
babies” may not seem linked to screening for disease at first. However, it
turns out that during Pre-Implementation Genetic Diagnosis, or checking the
embryo for deficiencies before it is returned to the mother’s womb, certain physical
alterations can be made to the fetus’ genes along the way. Because of this new
trend, the line between traits stemming from the biological versus social is
made even more complex.
First, we must not ignore the possible beneficial
outcomes of prenatal genetic testing. Parents should have the option to be well
suited for the birth of a child that may have enormous difficulty functioning
on their own or have a limited life expectancy. Regardless of what decision the
mother chooses, in terms of continuing with her pregnancy, reaching out for
guidance on the subject, or preparing both mentally and economically for a
child with disabilities, all seem more than reasonable. Imagine the heartbreak
of setting up a nursery, saving up for a child’s schooling, or having dreams of
watching your son or daughter get married only to realize that they have little chance of living past the age of one. In fact, advice about choice
eugenics has actually become a large part of prenatal care given by doctors to
better inform their patients (Hubbard and Newman). Since we have the science to
prevent these hopes and dreams from getting crushed in the first place, many
doctors and patients alike agree that we should be able to use it.
On the other hand, this idea of choice eugenics has its pitfalls
and even a hidden agenda. Because prenatal genetic testing has become so
widespread in the fertility for profit industry, some doctors have actually
been sued for putting too much pressure on their patients to terminate or alter
a pregnancy that may result in a child with genetic deficiencies (Hubbard and
Newman). This also raises the question of the role of the doctor in situations
like so--where does one’s doctor stand in the fine line between giving
unbiased, helpful advice and pushing a mother to do something she doesn’t want
to? Such decisions that parents are forced to confront brought on by testing
can often be virtually impossible for a mother to be to make--“modern prenatal
care treats pregnant women not as expectant mothers but as managers of fetal
risk profiles” (Samerski 2007). Modern prenatal care, even without the eugenics
aspect, puts more added pressure on the mother for an obvious reason: she can’t
simply wait for the baby to be born and hope for the best. Even the rise of
ultra sounds and check ups can put mothers in a state of “tentative pregnancy” (Samerski), because if prenatal tests do not
have an income that indicates a perfectly healthy child, the expectant mother
must now consider an abortion. Specifically, the mother is turned into even
more of a liability because the mother’s own traits are used as a risk
assessment factor. For instance, women over thirty five are labeled much more
at risk of having a child with downs syndrome, and young women under eighteen
are deemed at risk because of a predetermined lack of stability in the future
child’s home life. Maybe the most important thing to consider is that prenatal
testing can back expectant mothers into a corner, or a “one-way street”,
because a positive test result for disease can only provide reasons for terminating
the pregnancy (Samerski), not keeping it.
The idea of fertility as a commodity certainly cannot be
ignored when speaking about the links between modern prenatal care, genetic
screening, and eugenics. With so many products, foods, and services designed to
help women’s bodies become more fertile, becoming pregnant in today’s society
can leave a prospective mother’s wallet empty very easily. “The German
maternity passport, a handheld pregnancy record capturing all medical data,
lists fifty-two factors that immediately classify a pregnant woman of being at
risk…the list is so broad and vague that roughly three out of four pregnancies
are now diagnosed as being at risk” (Samerski, Schwarz and Shucking). Thus, a
whopping seventy-five percent of women will most likely spend extra money
trying to determine the possible outcome of their offspring because they are
deemed in this “at-risk” category. This means that the prenatal care industry
is already making money based on the anxiety of mothers that have no real,
proven risks for failed pregnancies, without even touching upon the rise of
designer babies. By playing on the innate fears and concerns of soon to be
mothers, the business of giving birth yields an overwhelming profit all on its
own.
Another large factor in the politics of the prenatal
eugenics movement is cost. While pre-birth screening costs skyrocket, it seems
as if lower socioeconomic class citizens are left out of the loop, as they
already struggle with paying for routine check ups and ultrasounds. Thus, these
super human designer babies are specific to mostly white, upper class families,
which has dangerous implications for the future of society if this trend
continues. Not only will class and race divides further separate, but racism
toward minorities, especially those in inner cities with a lack of health care,
will greatly worsen because of the new physical and intellectual prowess that
the white upper class would emanate. Because of this, genetic counseling arises
as a whole new technique of social engineering. “As genetic counseling
exemplifies, prenatal decision making does not increase a woman’s autonomy, nor
does it bring her closer to her desire: a healthy or at least “normal” child.
Instead, “the pregnant woman is both disempowered and held responsible at the
same time” (Samerski, Balsamo 1996, 110). Now, minority women feel even more
disempowered when they do not have the same access to genetic modification and
screening as upper class white women do.
As if pre-existing racism isn’t bad enough (i.e the
“genocide” of black babies), using prenatal genetic testing as a gateway for
eugenics would not only create unfair and often unattainable physical standards
for future generations, but leave those who can’t afford access to this
movement behind as well. Without some form of government regulation, the poor
would not have any sort of access. Furthermore, even if regulations and
restrictions were put in place towards the extent of eugenics used and the cost,
the production of designer babies would most likely still be made available
underground to those that could afford it. Thus, we are left with a society of
“normal” minorities left to make due with their unmodified traits, and a new
wave of these mostly Caucasian super humans. Now, of course this would be a
problem of the far future, but it is crucial to prevent something like this
from happening. With the goal of making the human race stronger and more
intelligence, history could easily repeat itself if we are not aware of the
risks involved with overly screening our babies for the fear that their genes
might carry anything below perfection.
So, to what extent exactly should parents have access to this service? This question relates
back to the tired and true debate of biological determinism versus social
constructionism. The most serious issue with extensive prenatal genetic
screening may be that people’s biology would stem from their social circumstances.
If one’s parents have well paying jobs and are of higher socioeconomic status, desirable
biological traits can essentially be bought and sold. Regardless of whether
these physical attributes are added to the fetus for protection from diseases
or eye color, where does it end? Health and aesthetics can often overlap, and
these boundaries aren’t nearly as clear as they may seem. For example, a mother
to be might go in for a procedure to protect her child against Tay-Sachs disease
because the baby’s father is of Jewish descent, but with that same procedure
she might also be tempted to modify traits that are not technically classified
as a disease, such as obesity. Throughout any pregnancy, it is more important
now than ever to develop a healthy skepticism when buying into curiosity about
the outcome of the child’s physical traits. As long as the mother is reassured
that her child’s life is not immediately threatened, and her own life is not at
risk, a more natural approach is much more beneficial for society at large.
After all, trying to control a society genetically worked out miserably the
last time--if doctors and scientists keep history in mind they might just come
to the conclusion that the human race is already getting more intelligent and
physically able with time.
Written by Leigh Bentson
Works Cited
Hubbard, Ruth, and Stuart Newman. "Yuppie
Eugenics." Z Magazine.
March 2002: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.zcommunications.org/yuppie-eugenics-by-ruth-hubbard-and-stuart-newman>.
Samerski, Silja. "Genetic Counseling and the
Fiction of Choice: Taught Self Determination as a new technique of Social
Engineering ." Chicago
Journals. 2009: n. page. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.
