User:Aaa564/Eugenics in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section From "Eugenics in the United States" Wikipedia Article

Compulsory sterilization prevention and continuation

Banning Sterilization

The 1978 Federal Sterilization Regulations, created by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, or HEW (now the United States Department of Health and Human Services), outline a variety of prohibited sterilization practices that were often used previously to coerce or force women into sterilization.[131] These were intended to prevent such eugenics and neo-eugenics as resulted in the involuntary sterilization of large groups of poor and minority women. Such practices include: not conveying to patients that sterilization is permanent and irreversible, in their own language (including the option to end the process or procedure at any time without conceding any future medical attention or federal benefits, the ability to ask any and all questions about the procedure and its ramifications, the requirement that the consent seeker describes the procedure fully including any and all possible discomforts and/or side-effects and any and all benefits of sterilization); failing to provide alternative information about methods of contraception, family planning, or pregnancy termination that are nonpermanent and/or irreversible (this includes abortion); conditioning receiving welfare and/or Medicaid benefits by the individual or his/her children on the individuals "consenting" to permanent sterilization; tying elected abortion to compulsory sterilization (cannot receive a sought out abortion without "consenting" to sterilization); using hysterectomy as sterilization; and subjecting minors and the mentally incompetent to sterilization.[131][132][73] The regulations also include an extension of the informed consent waiting period from 72 hours to 30 days (with a maximum of 180 days between informed consent and the sterilization procedure).[132][131][73]

Lack of Access to Information about Sterilization (already in article)

However, several studies have indicated that the forms are often dense and complex and beyond the literacy aptitude of the average American, and those seeking publicly funded sterilization are more likely to possess below-average literacy skills.[133] High levels of misinformation concerning sterilization still exist among individuals who have already undergone sterilization procedures, with permanence being one of the most common gray factors.[133][134] Additionally, federal enforcement of the requirements of the 1978 Federal Sterilization Regulation is inconsistent and some of the prohibited abuses continue to be pervasive, particularly in underfunded hospitals and lower income patient hospitals and care centers.[132][73]

Sterilization in US Prisons (start of my additions)

By 1979, California, driven by the eugenic thinking that prisoners were unfit to reproduce, sterilized approximately 20,000 people without their consent (1). This practice legally ended when eugenics laws were repealed in 1979 for California state hospitals and in 2010 for state prisons (2). However, the compulsory sterilization of American men and women continues to this day. Between 2005 and 2011, 148 female prisoners were sterilized in California prisons through tubal ligations without required state approvals (3,4,5). Former inmates claim that medical staff pressured women who had served multiple prison terms or would be likely to return to prison in the future to be sterilized (6). In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure is required to save an inmate's life.[136] Additionally, in 2021, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, signed a compensation agreement to pay these 148 victims $25,000 each.

Other states have sterilized prisoners in the recent past. In Tennessee, general sessions judge Sam Benningfield signed an order in 2017 allowing inmates to reduce their sentence by 30 days if they undergo voluntary sterilization (7). His goal was to break a “vicious cycle” of repeat drug offenders who were unemployed or could not pay for child support (8). While the order was only in place for two months, 38 men signed up to receive vasectomies and 32 women to receive Nexplanon implants, a birth control device (8). Benningfield claimed this 2017 order was not a eugenics program, writing in a statement that its purpose was to, “protect children and help people in their rehabilitation efforts.” (9) However, criminal justice researchers and news outlets continually compared it to previous prisoner sterilization programs based in eugenics and portrayed it as a continuation of the practice of eugenics. John Raphling, a senior researcher on criminal justice for the U.S. Human Rights Watch, told The Outline that Benningfield was “coercing poor people to have this procedure to prevent them from reproducing.” (9)

Sterilization in Immigration Detention Centers

In 2020, forced sterilizations at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center amassed national attention. Over 50 people detained at the ICE facility, all lower-income immigrant women with minimal understanding of the English language, stated they were pushed to undergo or did undergo medically unnecessary gynecological surgeries including hysterectomies. (10) A Senate briefing on this subject emphasized the “uniform absence of truly informed consent” due in part to language barriers and in part to lack of information provided. (11)

Modern eugenics and genetic engineering

Human enhancement through genetic alterations is aimed at improving traits considered normal and extinguishing illnesses, defects, and other abnormalities (12). While genome editing is still being heavily researched and developed, the technology could one day be more developed and used to alter human genetics (13). Opponents of human enhancement through genetic engineering assert that the technology is founded in eugenic ideals: to develop superior individuals and extinguish those deemed inferior. (12) Supporters claim that this technology is considered reproductive autonomy and will ultimately benefit both individuals and the community.


References I will add:

  1. https://revealnews.org/article/female-inmates-sterilized-in-california-prisons-without-approval
  2. https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/03/forced-sterilization-california/#:~:text=By%201979%2C%20long%20after%20the,eugenics%20laws%20were%20finally%20repealed.
  3. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-sterilization-california-reparations-tennessee-eugenics.html
  4. https://lawandinequality.org/2021/06/07/the-long-scalpel-of-the-law-how-united-states-prisons-continue-to-practice-eugenics-through-forced-sterilization/
  5. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/california-bans-sterilization-female-inmates-without-consent-n212256
  6. https://revealnews.org/article/female-inmates-sterilized-in-california-prisons-without-approval/
  7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/21/judge-to-inmates-get-sterilized-and-ill-shave-off-jail-time/
  8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/28/tennessee-judge-under-fire-pulls-offer-to-trade-shorter-jail-sentences-for-vasectomies/
  9. https://theoutline.com/post/1963/americas-long-shameful-history-of-sterilizing-prisoners?zd=3&zi=ag52aemp
  10. https://lawblogs.uc.edu/ihrlr/2021/05/28/not-just-ice-forced-sterilization-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=Over%20time%2C%20this%20method%20of,legitimized%20early%20eugenic%20sterilization%20procedures.
  11. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/number-of-women-alleging-misconduct-by-ice-gynecologist-nearly-triples/
  12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135459/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793437/

Article Draft[edit]

Lead[edit]

Eugenics after World War II[edit]

Genetic engineering[edit]

After the Second World War, the extreme version of eugenics practiced by the Nazis brought the movement into disrepute. However, aspects of the eugenics movement such as forced sterilization were still taking place, just not with as much public visibility as before. As technology developed, the field of genetic engineering emerged. Instead of sterilizing people to remove traits deemed to be "undesirable", genetic engineering "changes or removes genes to prevent disease or improve the body in some significant way."

Proponents of genetic engineering cite its ability to cure and prevent life-threatening diseases. Genetic engineering began in the 1970s when scientists began to clone and alter genes. From this, scientists were able to create life-saving health interventions such as human insulin, the first-ever genetically engineered drug. Because of this development, over the years scientists were able to create new drugs to treat devastating diseases. For example, in the early 1990s, a group of scientists were able to use a gene-drug to treat severe combined immunodeficiency in a young girl.

However, genetic engineering also further allows for the practice of eliminating "undesirable traits" within humans and other organisms—for example, with current genetic tests, parents are able to test a fetus for any life-threatening diseases that may impact the child's life and then choose to abort the baby. Some fear that this could lead to ethnic cleansing, or alternative form of eugenics. The ethical implications of genetic engineering were heavily considered by scientists at the time, and the Asilomar Conference was held in 1975 to discuss these concerns and set reasonable, voluntary guidelines that researchers would follow while using DNA technologies.

Disability-Selective Abortion[edit]

Advancements in prenatal testing over the past several decades have contributed to an increase in disability-selective abortions, which refers to the termination of pregnancy after a diagnosis of a genetic anomaly before birth.[1] In 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) began to recommend that all women, regardless of age, should be offered diagnostic genetic testing before 20 weeks gestation.[2] Today, prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities, including Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome, is offered as routine healthcare. In the United States, it is estimated that anywhere from 61%-93% of infants with Down syndrome are terminated after a definitive prenatal diagnosis each year.[3] Reasons to continue or terminate a pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic abnormality are complex, and often influenced by a combination of social, medical, and ethical considerations.

Arguments in Favor of Disability-Selective Abortion[edit]

Defenders of disability-selective abortion suggest that its practice alleviates human suffering and helps parents make informed reproductive decisions.[4] This position considers disability-selective abortion as healthcare, intended to prevent pathology and improve quality of life. Proponents also argue that access to disability-selective abortions is essential to protecting women’s bodily autonomy.[5] In addition, some support disability-selective abortion on the basis of procreative beneficence – the principle of selecting the child with the best-expected life based on available genetic information.[6]

Arguments Against Disability-Selective Abortion[edit]

Opponents of disability-selective abortion argue that the normalization of its practice is inherently imbued with a condescending, eugenic attitude toward disability.[7] They suggest that disability-selective abortions are enabled by the normal function view (NFV) of health, which pathologizes disability and assumes that disability is directly correlated with a reduction in health.[8] In addition, some refute disability-selective abortion with the Expressivist argument. The Expressivist argument posits that selecting out disability is wrong because it implies that the world would be a better place without people with disabilities, leaping from the presumption that it would be better if a disability could be cured to that it would be better if the person with a disability did not exist.[9]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Davis, Lennard J. (2016-10-19). The Disability Studies Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-39786-1.
  2. ^ Graham, Lisa (2007-09-01). "ACOG Releases Guidelines on Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities". American Family Physician. 76 (5): 712–716.
  3. ^ Natoli, Jaime L.; Ackerman, Deborah L.; McDermott, Suzanne; Edwards, Janice G. (2012-02). "Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995–2011)". Prenatal Diagnosis. 32 (2): 142–153. doi:10.1002/pd.2910. ISSN 0197-3851. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Davis, Lennard J. (2017). The disability studies reader (5th ed ed.). New York (N.Y.): Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-93022-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ Davis, Lennard J. (2017). The disability studies reader (5th ed ed.). New York (N.Y.): Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-93022-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  6. ^ Savulescu, Julian (2007-05-01). "In defence of Procreative Beneficence". Journal of Medical Ethics. 33 (5): 284–288. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.018184. ISSN 0306-6800. PMID 17470506.
  7. ^ Parens, Erik; Asch, Adrienne (1999). "Special Supplement: The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing Reflections and Recommendations". The Hastings Center Report. 29 (5): S1–S22. doi:10.2307/3527746. ISSN 0093-0334.
  8. ^ Barnes, Elizabeth (2020), Silvers, Anita; Shachar, Carmel; Cohen, I. Glenn; Stein, Michael Ashley (eds.), "Disability, Health, and Normal Function", Disability, Health, Law, and Bioethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5–19, ISBN 978-1-108-48597-5, retrieved 2024-04-17
  9. ^ Buchanan, Allen E.; Brock, Dan W., eds. (2007). From chance to choice: genetics and justice (8th printing ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66977-1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aaa564/Eugenics_in_the_United_States&oldid=1219455358"