Managing Editor,

Jacky Engel’s article on eugenics in the January 2005 issue (pp2-4) was a real eye-opener into current thinking in ethics and medicine and how our profession may evolve in the future. It particularly concerned me to learn how a number of eminent bioethicists (who are not practising clinicians) are able to submit and determine policies for this country’s doctors. These people will never have to deal with the consequences of their own proposals.

In furthering my interest on the subject, I had the chance to give a presentation at my medical school on eugenics and learning disability. During the project period, I interviewed a charming young man with an autistic spectrum disorder who was able to take care of himself at a basic level augmented with carer support. If there had been a diagnostic test for such conditions in the antenatal period, would his mother have aborted him? Thankfully this is not a question I have yet to answer, but I suspect that the population at large would not wish to have a child with disabilities.

While eugenics is barely talked about these days, its spirit is alive and well. Liberals in the establishment have effectively advanced an agenda of abortion, euthanasia and an increasing number of reproductive technologies. However, this is not to say that techniques such as IVF and prenatal diagnosis are inherently wrong. Some technologies in certain ways can be usefully deployed in the obstetric field for the good of both parent and child: for example, the detection of spina bifida in the baby during pregnancy can mean that doctors can treat this successfully in utero.

Even though we are fallen creatures, God made us in his image, including the ability of sentience. Eugenics reduces humans to mere commodities to be compared against one another, and debases the intrinsic value that God assigns to us.

In conclusion, the new eugenics movement keeps its agenda in touch with the public by emphasising the individual’s right to choice in issues of life or death, and herein lies the key question: whether an individual’s right to choose overrides the sanctity of life. I cannot see how that could be consistent with a Christian worldview. I recognise that some scientists are genuinely motivated to improve the human race, but similar theories, dressed up differently, brought about Auschwitz 60 years ago. We have the benefit of the Bible and all its wisdom, coupled with the hindsight of history: I certainly hope that this lesson does not have to be relearnt in the 21st century.

Gavin Ling
Nucleus editor