Shakespeare and Eugenics
Tom Shakespeare, that is. I was reading an article by Tom Shakespeare on the BBC Disability Blog “Ouch!” where he talks about a disturbing new development — or removal of it — from America.
This cunning plan which emerged from an endocrinologist and a bioethicist in Seattle, suggests that it may be possible, and in some cases appropriate, to stop disabled children, from growing.Tom Shakespeare
The reasons behind this is that apparently some parents of disabled children in America are concerned that as they get older and their children get older, they will find it progressively harder to care for them. Or, as Tom puts it:
Mum and Dad are worried that daughter’s going to grow too big for them to be able to lift, carry, dress and otherwise care for. Simple solution, say the doctors. Just keep her child-sized. Pump her full of hormones, whip out her uterus, and there you have it. No more growth. One convenient, lightweight and portable family member, ideal for every home.Tom Shakespeare
And disturbingly, this has already been through an institutional ethics committee, who have decided it’s perfectly appropriate.
It’s like saying “Let’s prevent the disabled from breeding! They’re inconvenient enough as it is, and frankly the last thing we need is more of them!”. Well who is entitled to make those decisions? Who is going to be put in the position where they prevent someone from growing up and basically remove them from the gene pool? Who is going to make the decisions that these people aren’t fit to grow up? That they’re not fit to breed? That they’re a threat to racial purity?
You can see where I’m going here, can’t you. Yes, as per Godwin’s Law, it always comes back to the Nazis. I mean, in this case, I think it’s a perfectly legitimate reference however, as during the Third Reich, the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring was passed, which allowed for the compulsory sterilisation of any citizen suffering from one of a number of genetic disorders.
What’s the difference? Okay, in this case it’s the parents who are asking for the girl to be sterilised, but once they’ve had the bloody child in the first place, they no longer have rights over it. They have responsibilities to it. Now to be fair, one of those responsibilities is to do what is best for the child, and I’m sure they are doing what they believe is best. I’m not pretending their situation is easy.
But nor am I going to beat around the bush: we’re talking of denying adulthood to someone. We’re talking about compulsory sterilisation. How, how, can this be a good thing? As Tom points out…
We know there may be other options. We could be more accepting of difference. We could provide more accessible homes, fund proper personal assistants, and ensure that home-based services help disabled people live in the community. But that might cost quite a lot, and it’s hardly as much fun, is it? I mean, investing in welfare costs money, you know.Tom Shakespeare
I am a firm believer in equality: whether you’re black, white, yellow, brown, green, male, female, hetero, homo, bi, disabled or otherwise, you’ve got the same rights as anyone else. That’s what it boils down to, and it’s pretty basic. I don’t believe I have the right to compulsorily sterilise anyone or deprive them of an adulthood, and I don’t believe anyone else should have that right either.
Who has the right to decide that a child — any child — does not have the right to adulthood? What genetic (or other) abnormalities qualify? And when you’re talking about degrees of disability, where do you draw the line? Do you sterilise people who have learning disabilities too? How severe would they have to be?
In this brave new world of ours, once we’ve finished exterminating the disabled — or at least those disabled people who are inconvenient — then where will we turn our attentions? My vote would be for short-sighted people. Just think: in a thousand years time we could have eliminated myopia just by the compulsory sterilisation of short-sighters today! Although it might just be easier to hide their glasses and watch them stumble around…
… although on the other hand, education statistics might considerably improve if we sterilise all the children who fail to get five or more GCSEs at grades A to C…
Tom also suggests — tongue planted firmly in cheek — that maybe the next step is a dimmer switch for hyperactive children. If we are going to move into a society where eugenics is practised and children are customised to suit the wishes of their parents (yes, this applies to “designer babies” too. Either you want a child or you don’t. You get what you’re bloody given. Imagine how little Timmy will feel when he grows up to discover that if he hadn’t been genetically compatible for his brothers bone marrow or whatever it is, that his parents wouldn’t have wanted him in the first place. I can understand parents who’ve been pushed into a corner feeling they have to make that sort of decision, but that doesn’t mean I find it any less morally repugnant). Anyway, after offending a huge bunch of people, where was I?
Oh, yes dimmer switches for children. This is wrong; and because I know Tom was only joking about it, I’m sure he’d agree. But it does give me the glimmerings of an idea. It’s wrong to single out hyperactive children for this sort of “customisation”. And something that regulates their level of activity is too. You don’t want to be able to turn them down until they are an incommunicative vegetable (or teenager, as I believe they are known). All we really need is a volume control…
Hello. I am 
An interesting and shocking article Jack, and a well considered response. To me it’s a symptom of an increasingly self-centered, convenience-driven society - if we can make something more convenient for us, let’s do it, regardless of the effect it might have on others. It would be foolish to deny the technological progress that makes these things possible, but we never seem to know when to stop, do we?
My teenage step-daughter has severe learning difficulties, will never have children of her own, and will be dependent on us for the rest of her life, but you’re absolutely correct that we don’t have the right to prevent her enjoying adulthood. Our responsibility is to ensure that she leads as full a life as possible, and that means letting her grow and making sure we grow with her - dealing with the inevitable challenges we’ll face and celebrating the successes (however minor) on her terms, not ours.
As for the dimmer switch, I couldn’t help thinking of 2000AD’s Mean Machine Angel - a dial like that could actually come in handy in my own head…