Talk:Eugenics/Archive 2

message: Shakespeare very persuasively argues that there is little difference between "old eugenics" and "new eugenics" (i.e. genomics). He states that:
:"The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases" (1995: 8-10).
He additionally argues that both "old" and "new" eugenics frames disability as being something which is undesirable - something akin to the framing of ethnicity in negative terms. The message that eugenics sends out to disabled people is thus: "we pitty you, and in the future we will try to prevent your likes from happening again" - which is a pretty negative message. This message is even more negative when taken in the context of the everyday discrimination that disabled people are forced to contend with.--Nicholas 13:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note that Shakespeare's remark is very PoV and while worthy of mention in the header, the statement  "...frames disability as being something which is undesirable" is a finely crafted semantic trap written by an expert in political advocacy. For starters, in modern scholarship "disability" isn't a scientifically definable quality, so his statement fails an important test of any hypothesis... it can't be falsified.  Wyss 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is obviously a PoV. But what isn't? Plus, Shakespeare wouldn't argue that disability is "scientifically definable". So, i'm not sure what you are getting at with your criticism?--Nicholas 13:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I run into that remark more and more these days on WP. What isn't PoV? "Abraham Lincoln is widely noted as the 16th president of the United States." There are other examples. Anyway I'm not criticising anything, Nicholas, and the Shakespeare "frames as undesirable" reference will remain in the header as long as I'm editing this article (subject to consensus), I think it's extremely helpful to remind people about the slippery slope he alludes to. Wyss 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Shakespeare

message: One of the biggest criticisms I've seen regarding eugenic attitudes is that they commodify hereditary traits. The header currently represents this criticism with what appears to be a sub-topic within it: this commodification includes the negative commodification of disability.  That sub-topic should be in the article, but I think the header should probably go with the broad category that subsumes it.--Nectar T 22:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commodifies hereditary traits

message: Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation.
:So far, this is the only line even hinting at the Catholic Church's longstanding opposition to eugenics.  Is this just an oversight, or is there a reason for the omission? -- Temtem 01:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
::Hmm, I think at one point there was a line about it, but yes, there should be a line that the Catholic Church was one of the most consistent and long-standing opponents of eugenic policies and legislation, and even had guarantees pushed through in Nazi Germany, if I recall, that could get Catholics judged dysgenic out of compulsory sterilization procedures. There were a few lesser Catholic figures though who issued pro-eugenic statements (justifying it under a notion of "greater good") which were blandied about by eugenicists but I'm pretty sure these were never sanctioned by the Church establishment. --Fastfission 01:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic opposition  

message: :::Dear Nectar, I think you are misrepresenting Tom Shakespeare. The first of those two external links that you provided is written by someone other than Shakespeare and it only summarises his view in one (rather crude) sentence. The second external link doesn't say anything in support of your interpretation. However, if you read his book you will find that he unequivocally states:
::::“The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases” (1995: 8-10).
:::Thus, Shakespeare recognises that new genomics "does not mark a radical departure" from old eugenics.--Nicholas 10:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry. I never saw Shakespeare's article toward the bottom of that first link . But still, I think Shakespeare may have been misrepresented. In the paper that Nectar kindly brought to my attention, Shakespeare states "I do not think that we live in a society with eugenic policies, and i do not think that the reproductive decisions of men and women are eugenic. However, I do not htink that the problem ends there". He then goes on to discuss the "illusion of choice" that is offered 'to men and women' in their reproductive decisions. For instance, he says that 'the conveyor belt of routine testing and anti-natal care removes the possiblity of informed consent, and drives people toward decisions that they may not have wanted to make'. So, because Shakepseare is currently misrepresented I will remove all reference to him from the article.--Nicholas 18:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare again