Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:50:32.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eugenic Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Daniel Wilker
Daniel Wilker
Affiliation:
Department of History of MedicineMadison Medical SchoolUniversity of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eugenics is generally regarded as evil; but what was its sin? Racism, class bias, and violation of reproductive freedom, which tainted objectionable eugenic interventions, are not part of the core notion of eugenics. A number of candidates have been suggested as the wrong inherent in eugenics, ranging from statism to the impossibility of consensus on the ideal human being. It is most plausible to view eugenics as sharing moral dilemmas with much of public health, and the critical issues as those of distributive justice.

Type
Genetic Services Eugenic Practices?
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 3-4 , Autumn-Winter 1998 , pp. 455 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beardsley, Tim. 1997. “China Syndrome: China's Eugenics Law Makes Trouble for Science and Business.” Scientfic American 276(3-4) (March):33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broberg, Gunnar, and Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1996. Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. East Lansing:Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Carison, Elof Axel. 1981. Genes, Radiation and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Chee Khoon, and Chee, Heng Leng. 1984. “Singapore 1984: Breeding for Big Brother.” In Designer Genes: I. Q., Ideology, and Biology, edited by Chee, Heng Leng and Chan, Chee Khoon, 4–13. Kuala Lumpur: Institute for Social Analysis.Google Scholar
Davenport, Charles. 1914. “The Eugenics Programme and Progress in its Achievement.” In Eugenics: Twelve University Lectures, by Aldrich, Moron A., Carruth, William Herbert Davenport, Charles B., [and others] with a foreword by Lewellys F. Barker et al. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
Dong-Sheng, Sun. 1981. “Popularizing the Knowledge of Eugenics and Advocating Optimal Births Vigorously.” Renkou Yanjiu (Population Research) (Beijing) 4: 37–41.Google Scholar
Duster, Troy. 1990. Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1992. Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Bent Sigurd. 1996. “Something Rotten in the State of Denmark: Eugenics and the Ascent of the Welfare State.” In Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, edited by Broberg, Gunnar and Roll-Hansen, Nils, 9–76. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1927. Opinion in Buck v. Bell. U.S. Reports 274:205, 207.Google Scholar
Itzkoff, Seymour W. 1994. The Decline of Intelligence in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Johannsen, Wilhelm L. 1917. Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel Belysning. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Kamrat-Lang, Debora. 1995. “Healing Society: Medical Language in American Eugenics.” Science in Context 8(1): 175–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kevles, Daniel J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1992. “Out of Eugenics: The Historical Politics of the Human Genome.” In The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project, edited by Kevles, Daniel and Hood, Leroy, 3–36. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1996. The Lives to Come. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Mazumdar, Pauline M. H. 1992. Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Critics in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Muller, Charlotte. 1985. “A Window on the Past: The Position of the Client in Twentieth Century Public Health Thought and Practice.” American Journal of Public Health 75 (5 May): 470–475.Google Scholar
Murray, Charles, and Herrnstein, Richard J.. 1994. The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nature. 1994. “China's Misconception of Eugenics” (editorial). 367 (6 January): 1–2.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Diane. 1995. Controlling Human Heredity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pernick, Martin. 1996. The Black Stork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernick, Martin. 1997. “Eugenics and Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 87 (11, November):1767–1772.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert. 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, Philip R. 1991. The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wachbroit, Robert. 1987. “What is Wrong with Eugenics?;” QQ: Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy 7 (2–3):6–8.Google Scholar
Watson, James. 1997. “Genes and Politics: Presidential Address.” Annual Report 1996: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
Wertz, Dorothy. 1996. “Eugenics: Alive and Well in China.” The Gene Letter 1(1), July.Google Scholar
Xiong, Ping. 1996. “A Plan for Controlling the Ratio of the Sexes.” Population Institute Review, (Beijing) November/December: 10–16Google Scholar