FABGAB Episode 5: Karey Harwood on New Eugenics and Procreative Liberty

9:19PM Feb 17, 2021

Speakers:

Kathryn MacKay

Karey Harwood

Keywords:

eugenics

people

paper

procreative

point

thought

technologies

book

terms

choices

genetic

eugenics movement

view

eugenic

sperm donor

judith

individual

cumulative effect

sperm donation

concrete example

Hello everyone and welcome to FAB GAB. This is the podcast for the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics brought to you by FAB network. My name is Kathryn MacKay and today I'm joined by Karey Harwood from NC State University that's in North Carolina. And Karey's here with me to discuss her paper, 'Which "Eugenics”?: Expanding Access to ART, Respecting Procreative Liberty, and Protecting the Moral Equality of All Persons in an Era of Neoliberal Choice'. And this paper appears in volume 13 number two of IJFAB.

Hi, Karey. Hi, Kathryn. Thanks for having me.

Oh, thanks for being here. This is great. How are you doing?

I'm doing well. Thank you. How about you?

I'm good. Thank you. I really enjoyed reading your paper. I thought this was really interesting. And so I wonder if for the listeners, you might give us a kind of elevator pitch summary of, of the paper here?

Sure. Well, the paper is essentially a really long response to a book by Judith Daar, called 'The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies', which she published in 2017. And in that book, she argues for expanding access to assisted reproductive technologies as a matter of justice, because a lot of people have been left out of those resources and unable to form families. So on the one hand, I my papers, kind of an appreciative engagement with that book, but then there's a critical piece to where I ask, or sort of raised the issue of what I refer to as the 'Eugenic Mentality', because in my view, Daar's book was a little too quick to dismiss some of the eugenic potential of some of these new reproductive and genetic technologies like PGD - Pre Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. And now I mean, even since she wrote the book, you know, CRISPR, and its potential uses, open that question even further. So part of my book is, yes, it's a good idea to expand access, but there are some things we should still be cautious about, and that we should still be able to talk about, in terms of the potential of some of these technologies to enable a eugenic mentality, which I, you know, I'm borrowing that particular term from the Catholic Church. And it's really easier to think of it in terms of quality control, kind of in the creation of offspring that you would bring to your choices at, you know, a mindset of quality control. And to me that triggers concerns about discrimination and equality. So I don't know if that's like a good short elevator pitch but it's some of the issues that I talked about,

No, that's great. I wonder if you could say a little bit more about what the eugenic mentality is?

Well, it's the idea that we are positioned to judge the worth and value of other human beings. Okay, I'm so taken to its most egregious extreme. We see what happened with the eugenics movement in the 20th century. And actually, the whole beginning part of the paper kind of contextualises this term eugenic mentality by looking back in history and looking at the eugenics movement in the United States in the early 20th century. And how that was embraced as a positive thing. I mean, it was viewed, eugenics was viewed positively as a way to alleviate suffering. And, you know, prevent, prevent the birth of people who would suffer, would be a drain on society. You know, it was really conceptualised as a positive, progressive use of technology. Now, now, of course, we look back and we scoff at how limited their knowledge of genetics really was, and they were making very erroneous, you know, faulty and erroneous assumptions about how things were inherited... traits were inherited. Like this old fashioned term 'feeble mindedness'. That was one of the things that was worried about, and then obviously, you know, after our experience with eugenics and the forced sterilisations that took place in this country, of course, Nazi Germany... Germany took eugenics to its most egregious, logical extreme. It's out of that history, it's with that in the background, that I'm engaging this new book, this new argument by Judith Daar. And she's saying, 'Yeah, there is a new quote unquote, new eugenics we need to worry about, but it's not designer babies, it's not what you might have thought. It's actually that we're excluding whole categories of people from using ART'. For people who can't afford it. minorities who might be discriminated against, LGBTQ community, single individuals, you know, a whole, the whole swath of people that experienced social infertility, and more are being left out. So that's her take on, kind of, 21st century eugenics. Hmm. There, you know, as whereas into the 20th century, certain people were being sterilised who were deemed less valuable as human beings. Now, certain people are being shut out of ART. Does that make sense?

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I thought that was actually a really interesting point that she makes...

It is, yeah.

And you could see the cumulative effect of that possibly being really enormous. Which I guess is her point, that it's a kind of population level. But I feel like your point, one of your points in the paper is that we tend to see this and I guess this is getting into the neoliberal choice aspect of your paper as a question of what individuals are doing, rather than seeing it as the potential population level effects of these choices?

Well, yeah, I... I do think she has an excellent point. And I do think that as a matter of justice, these things, these technologies need to be made more accessible. So it's not that I'm disagreeing with her on that. I do question whether like the intentionality is the same. You know, I, at one point in the paper, I say, forcibly, sterilising someone isn't the same as providing, you know, ART for a single person, but those things just aren't really, truly analogous, but she's more comfortable than I am, I think just turning over... you know, in, for example, she, she's very comfortable with procreative liberty, and then doesn't really propose any... any real limits on that. So if a prospective parents wanted to have a deaf child or wanted to have any, you know, select for any number of traits, she's okay with that, you know, she neutral on in terms of individual procreative choices. I would say that I'm just a little more cautious and a little more eager to have a conversation about what those individual choices could add up to over time. I mean, yes, it's not state coercion, it's not the state telling you, you know, this person needs to be sterilised or you need to select this kind of child and not that kind of child. But individual choices can also have a cumulative effect, and can be... create pressures in their own right. And all... sort of all I'm asking for is this space to have a conversation about that, to sort of still be willing to have a conversation about how some of these choices might be changing the nature of reproduction and changing the nature of the parent child relationship. Or the, you know, how parents and children stand in relation to each other is probably more what I mean to say,

Mm hmm.Yeah. So I think it would be really helpful to hear I guess, kind of what you think some of the sort of main... main points of your argument are in the paper, because clearly one of the points is that you'd like... you just want to sort of open the field for conversation, make sure that we're interrogating the values that are going into these kinds of choices. Before simply saying, 'Okay, let's just wide open, let's just let the market take care of itself.'

Right. Right (laughs).

(laughs) Which I think we should always be careful making that kind of proposal. So yeah, I just think it'll be interesting for the listener to hear maybe a couple of the points that kind of get you there or that you think we should take from there, sort of forward.

You know, I think one concrete example that might help the listeners connect, who haven't read the paper I sort of mentioned In passing this issue of unregulated sperm donation in the United States. And you know, since I published this article, I read something just the other day in the New York Times the case of the serial sperm donor, some some guy they think is, you know, possibly fathered over 1000 kids. He 's been, yeah, he's been donating both to sperm banks and kind of unofficially through Facebook pages. I mean, he's, he's fathered a lot of children. Right. So, you know, on... it is perfectly possible to say on the one hand, yes, people should be free to use sperm donors, people should be free to donate their sperm. And on the other hand, say, what we still need to have... proceed with some caution here, maybe I should have some restrictions in the US. All we really have is a recommendation from the American Society of reproductive medicine that, you know, and it's it's pretty lenient about how many children could result from a single sperm donor, other countries in Europe are more specific and costrained. But I think it's not unreasonable to be concerned about the impact on the resulting children. You know, I'm sure they're glad to be alive, right. They they're glad to have their lives but to be made aware of, you know, 800 potential half siblings would be at the lea st disconcerting. (sic) there're other there're other values at stake? Right there're other people in this equation - the resulting children. So being aware of that and acknowledging that that is a moral value too, pushes back against that individual reproductive freedom. So that, you know, there really are some reasonable countervailing interests, that should constrain that. So that's a... that's a concrete example, like the free for all that has become sperm donation is an example of an area of reproductive choice that perhaps could stand some some limitation. So I think one important and pretty controversial point in my paper, is this transition from thinking of procreative liberty as a negative right, to a positive right or entitlement. So I spend a while talking about that, and talking about what I think Judith Daar's position is on that and what some other scholars have said about that. Okay, I think I referenced Kimberly Mutcherson from Rutgers and, you know, thinking of procreative liberty as a negative right is just freedom from interference. And that is, you know, traditionally how we thought of it. And that's how John Robertson writes about it. But transitioning to thinking of it as a positive right, or entitlement, I think, possibly has some risks, has some... some problems that come with it. And that's part of what I talked about in the paper. But, you know, I did that knowing full well, that that was perhaps the most controversial and potentially problematic point that would get... that might get some pushback, right? Because if I'm saying, well, maybe we don't want to go down the road of thinking of it as a positive right or entitlement, meaning that, you know, you're entitled to assistance you're entitled to, to help with it. That could be interpreted as being against non-traditional families, which is not at all the message that I wanted to convey, but I knew that was a risk and sort of bringing that up as an issue.

Hmm. That's interesting. So just as a point of kind of crafting your argument and... and writing the paper, how did you... since you knew that that was going to be a potentially sticky issue, how did you, kind of, approach it? How did you, I guess, think through how you were going to present your view and kind of walk that middle line?

Well, I guess I... I looked and read other people to see how they've navigated those waters. I found Amanda Roth's article really interesting. I don't know if you've... you've read that piece, but I talked about it somewhere in... in my article, it's his her... her... actually, it was published in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics that is called 'Queer Family Values and Reciprocal IVF: What Difference Does Sexual Identity Make?' And I don't know if this is... if I'm necessarily answering your question very directly, but she, she talks about, she's at least open to criticising the use of reciprocal IVF, insofar as she says it's imitating or mimicking heterosexual family for me... formation by so emphasising the importance of genetic connections. And she says, 'hey, you know, queer family values, insofar as we can speak of them generally have, have really embraced families of our choosing, and not necessarily based on genetic connections'. And, you know, she, I thought was a good model of someone who's saying, 'Yes, I support queer family formation, I support freedom of choice, I support procreative liberty', but I still think it's, there's room to be sceptical, to be critical, to wonder whether this was a really good use of this technology. You know, it doesn't mean you're, you know, against queer families, it just means that you're open to questioning the use of that particular technology, whether it's really in keeping with values that you, you know, believe in. And I think in her case, she's pointing out geneticistism. That's the term that we've all settled on using, meaning that it's extremely important to have a genetic connection to your child.

Mm hmm.

That you'll go to great lengths to accomplish it.

Yes. Something that myself and a number of other people are quite critical of kind of overvaluing

Overvaluing. Yeah!

Genetic connection,

Which doesn't mean you don't understand it as a perfectly, you know, under a plausible and typical desire.

Yeah, agreed.Oh, that's very interesting. And I think that kind of, I think hearing about how some bits of writing papers can be difficult, or how you kind of

Yeah.

You can recognise that there's a, that they're difficult bits to navigate. It's just interesting to hear about how people kind of tackle that, especially for folks who are listening who are younger academics, or just starting out writing papers, it can be really... that's... it's sometimes difficult to know, you know, you see a hazard up ahead, you kind of like, how will I get through this?

It is difficult, because, you know, you want to engage in honest and earnest conversation about things that matter. But you also want to be extremely careful that you've said what you mean, and that you've been respectful. And that you've really thought through, you know, the objections that will will be raised? Mm hmm.

Yes, definitely. So I guess, we've kind of covered off the main points of your paper and sort of talked about what it's about, a bit. So I just wonder if there's a sort of primary takeaway message that you'd like, or that you hope people will glean from the paper? And I guess I'm sort of curious to know, do you do you foresee... are you hoping that maybe you'll get a response from Judith Daar and kind of engage in like, a, a dialogue or what?

I would love that, but I, you know, that would that would be or, you know, anyone who's... has the time to sort of respond and... and raise the objections that need to be raised, I would, of course, really relish that. I mean, I think the most basic takeaway is, you know, it's always a good exercise, to imagine how a future generation might assess our current practices, you know, so it's easy for us to look back at the American eugenics movement in the 20th century, and see all the ways in which it was really misguided. But if that teaches us anything, it's that we should always remember that sometimes we do get things really wrong, and that it's important to listen to dissenting voices.

Mm hmm.

They deserve at least some consideration. I use, or rely heavily on a book that I really enjoyed reading years ago now, Christine Rosen's 'Preaching Eugenics', which talked a lot about the church in the United States, Protestant and Catholic churches, and how deeply involved they were in the American Eugenics Society. And you know, it... there's a difference there though, and that the Protestants were much more enthusiastic, and had sermon writing contests and really embraced the eugenics movement in the early 20th century and they... Catholics were more sceptical. They were kind of written off because you know... really prejudice towards Catholics, though, that's just, they're being superstitious, they're not scientific. But they sort of had this consistent opposition to the eugenic mentality that really wasn't our place to sort of judge the value of our fellow human beings based on intelligence or beauty or any other trait. Now you can take their position and translate it perfectly well into a secular vocabulary of respecting equality. And actually, you know, the disability rights activists have, have articulated that much better than I can, in terms of the importance of really respecting the wide range of humanity that's out there in terms of ability.

I think that was one of the things that I really took away from your paper was that there are certain voices from certain corners of the intellectual playing fields that tend to be discounted, and I think religious voices are definitely one of those. And I think, perhaps in bioethics, I don't want to speak for everyone and I, you know, I don't want to make too many generalisations, but my impression is that religion is seen as a barrier in certain kinds of bioethical debates, especially when it comes to certain procreative liberties, and especially women's rights to getting proper reproductive health care and stuff like that. So it's very... it was interesting to me, and I have been thinking about this quite a bit, actually, lately, to kind of think that I dismissed too quickly certain kinds of perspectives. So keeping an open mind towards even just the fact that really useful ideas might come out of places that we don't expect. It's like... (laughs)

that is essentially my point of view. Or you might come across an interesting insight. And you know, why wasted this?

Yeah,yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. But I actually, I teach a class called religion, gender and reproductive technologies.

Oh, interesting.

And a few different religions and their, you know, both of their official teachings might be about things like contraception or abortion or reproductive technologies, but also how people live their lives who, you know adhere to those religions. Those are not one and the same thing, necessarily - your official teaching versus lived experience. I find it's a really good exercise in appreciating the diversity of views that exists between and within you religious traditions, more complex than my students tend to assume at the outset.

Well, thanks so much for speaking with me, Carrie. This has been a really great discussion.

Oh, thank you for having me. I enjoyed it.

My pleasure. And thanks, everyone, for listening to this episode of FAB GAB. You can find Karey's paper linked in the episodes notes along with a transcript of our conversation. And you can find other episodes of FAB GAB on Spotify, RadioPublic Anchor, or wherever else you get your podcasts to quality. Thanks so much for listening. Bye.