Negative eugenics, purposive practices to eliminate some trait from our progeny, is a topic that commands discussion today. We have had the ability to practice negative eugenics for many years, perhaps for our entire history in one form or another, but today we have many options, several quite scientifically sophisticated, for such practices. What concerns me is that the easier is becomes to practice negative eugenics, the greater is the need for some consistent criterion of what makes a given trait (...) properly erasable. In this paper, I will argue that there is a need for a criterion of what makes a given trait properly a candidate for elimination through programs and practices of negative eugenics. I will begin by presenting the problem, then will proceed to explore the topic through a series of three questions: First, can we engage in programs of negative eugenics? Second, should we engage in any such programs? Third, which programs should we practice, and how should they be practiced? The paper will conclude with my own suggested criteria. (shrink)

Despite legislation and public education, racism and sexism are alive and well. Though pre‐conceptive gender selection may enhance procreative liberty, this technology presents two disturbing questions. First, does sex selection represent underlying parental sexism? Second, by performing gender selection, do medical professionals perpetuate sexism? It will be maintained that pre‐conceptive sex selection is sexist as it reflects parental anticipation of stereotypical gender based behavior. Perhaps even more incriminating, sex selection forces parents to prefer one sex over another, to place a (...) value on gender. This emphasis on sex conflicts with societal goals which urge, and often legally require, individuals to ignore gender. We will assert that pre‐conceptive gender selection exemplifies sexism in its purest most blatant form as prior to conception, before parents can possibly know anything about their child, gender dominates the calculus of a child’s worth. We will also emphasize that physicians, by facilitating sex selection, legitimize the motivations of their patients and provide de facto support of sexism. In a similar vein, arguments against pre‐conceptive race selection will be made. (shrink)

This book provides an analysis of the debate surrounding cultural diversity, and attempts to reconcile the seemingly opposing views of "ethical imperialism," the belief that each individual is entitled to fundamental human rights, and cultural relativism, the belief that ethics must be relative to particular cultures and societies. The author examines the role of cultural tradition, often used as a defense against critical ethical judgments. Key issues in health and medicine are explored in the context of cultural diversity: the physician-patient (...) relationship, disclosing a diagnosis of a fatal illness, informed consent, brain death and organ transplantation, rituals surrounding birth and death, female genital mutilation, sex selection of offspring, fertility regulation, and biomedical research involving human subjects. Among the conclusions the author reaches are that ethical universals exist, but must not be confused with ethical absolutes. The existence of ethical universals is compatible with a variety of culturally relative interpretations, and some rights related to medicine and health care should be considered human rights. Illustrative examples are drawn from the author's experiences serving on international ethical review committees and her travels to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where she conducted educational workshops and carried out out her own research. (shrink)