Perspective Choices we might not want to make
By PAMELA SCHAEFFER
Recently a short document titled
Two Ethical Questions was sent to my e-mail box. I might have
chalked this missive up, after reading it, as a historically inaccurate and
therefore ineffective canard from a fringe group on the antiabortion front.
When it arrived, though, I was working on the series of articles
on genetic engineering that appeared in the last issue of NCR. Forced to
ponder the potential effects of genetic profiling and genetic manipulation to
produce designer children -- children genetically bred to conform
to social and parental proclivities -- I found these ethical
questions provocative. I was intrigued, too, because they came to me via
my daughter, having obviously made the rounds of managers at the major St.
Louis corporation where she works.
Noteworthy, I thought, that career-oriented 30-somethings were
finding this document absorbing enough to pass around.
Its contents follow:
First Ethical Question (heavily edited to correct historical
inaccuracies): A woman is pregnant for the third time. Her first two children
died in infancy. Of her six children yet to be born, three more will die very
young. Of the three who will survive, one will be victimized by a parasitical
alcoholic father, do very poorly in school, and become deaf and mentally
tormented in early adulthood. Another will become a nearly intolerable burden
to a sibling. The woman herself, after bearing all these children, will become
deeply unhappy, describing life as a chain of sorrows. Given this
foreknowledge, should this woman end her pregnancy?
Second question: Choose which of the following three
candidates you would choose if you had the opportunity to vote for a world
leader:
Candidate A: Hangs out with crooked politicians, consults
with astrologers. Has had two mistresses. Chain-smokes, drinks 8 to 10 martinis
a day.
Candidate B: Was twice kicked out of office. Sleeps until
noon. Used opium in college. Drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero and a vegetarian who
doesnt smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasnt had any
extramarital affairs.
Make your own selection before reading on to find out the
identities of the three options.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
As for the abortion question, if you said yes (and chances
are, you did not), you just killed Beethoven.
The question about whom to vote for challenges our tendency to
forget that great evil often comes cloaked in conventional morality, or
conversely, that an adulterer and murderer, David, was Gods own choice
for a king.
The second question is the one to puzzle over. In the
not-too-distant future, parents will possess, when confronted with only a few
cells, a wealth of information about the gifts and problems their potential
offspring are likely to have. Scientists tell us parents may then be able to
select among a range of embryos, rejecting those with defective genes.
Given such options, would loving parents knowingly choose to
nurture into life an embryo whose genetic tendencies included both musical
genius and deafness -- a sure recipe for torment?
While pondering what a genetically ideal future might mean for
creativity and genius, I happened into a used bookstore in Kansas City, where I
found a book called Private Lives: Curious Facts about the Famous and Infamous
by Mark Bryant. A bit of thumbing soon provided a list of numerous historic
luminaries who might not have gotten the genetic nod.
Charlotte Bronte? Very frail as a child. Sir Isaac Newton? Small,
weak, insane for 18 months after a nervous breakdown in 1673. Vincent van Gogh?
A host of health-related problems, not least of which were epilepsy and
schizophrenia. Virginia Woolf? Mentally unstable, her death by drowning the
culmination of a string of suicide attempts. Thomas Edison? Deaf as a
child.
Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, whose policies as head of the
Soviet Union ultimately led to the deaths of millions, was fit and healthy most
of his life. So was Benito Mussolini, Italys fascist dictator, with the
exception of a case of venereal disease, presumably preventable, and an
ulcer.
Had parents had the opportunity to make health-based selections
before each of those people was born, whom do you think would have been
selected for life? Or if, say, we had decided to alter Brontes genes to
produce a more vibrant child, would she have produced her great art?
Even apart from the morality of giving ourselves the right to make
such decisions, shouldnt we be concerned about all that genes alone
dont tell us, about all that we cannot possibly know about the mystery of
unfolding life?
Alternatively, perhaps in a more distant future, embryos could be
engineered to our genetic design.
When children come to be viewed less as a gift and more as a
product to be designed, will expressions of the human spirit range as widely?
Or will we, having taken the risk out of breeding also eliminate genetically
problematic instances of human genius, whether it happens by accident, or more
benignly, through the caution that will almost inevitably guide our choices?
Should we be concerned, perhaps, about the poverty of our individual or
collective imagination?
Think of all the generations through history that have been
enriched by the creative output of adults who almost certainly would not have
made the genetic cut. What are the chances, really, that in some
yet-to-be-determined future, we will have the wisdom, even if we had the
knowledge, to get it right?
The ethical question about Beethoven is worth
pondering when we become subject to subtle persuasions that engineering a child
might somehow be better than rolling the genetic dice.
Pamela Schaeffer is NCR special projects editor.
National Catholic Reporter, October 29,
1999
|