Carrie Buck

Once the Eugenics Board of North Carolina was eliminated, the sterilizations stopped. For many though, the damage had already been done. One victim said “I think my rights have been revoked in a way, it’s just like if you go to prison for something that you ain’t done”(Gannon para. 3). This theme of regret and injustice carries on for most victims still alive today. In recent efforts to right the wrongs of the past the state has started the process to compensate the victims of sterilization. Once a legitimate case has been established and approved, victims could potentially receive up to $50,000 from the State of North Carolina. This in no way reverses the tragedy that they dealt with but it is a start to apologize and attempt to make

Harris’ argument uses supporting data to help support his conclusion. His conclusion is that if individuals can use a form of science that saves a potential life from leading a “harmed” life, then we should be in favor for it. In order to provide stability for his conclusion, he uses a number of premises or supporting data to help prove his point. First, he believes that it is morally wrong to produce children who will get hurt by their genetic constitution. Second, he stresses that there is no difference between individuals who want to “cure” their offspring’s dysfunctions, and individuals who use Eugenics as a way

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

A moral justification for genetic treatment is only as accurate as the justification of disease. In the realms of objective science and the use of genetic testing, Kitcher argues that the basis for terminating a pregnancy due to a severe syndrome can also lead to the basis for termination due to an undesired sex or possibly even homosexuality. Ultimately, Kitcher supports only a minimalist approach to the use of

Buck v.Bell. 274 U.S. 200. Supreme Court (1927). Rpt. in Bioethics and The Law. Ed. Janet L. Dolgin & Lois L. Shepherd. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 2013. 254.

Lack of scientific knowledge about genetic biology was the primary reason why eugenics movement died out towards the latter half of the 20th century. It was concluded that there was actually no significant way to identify “fit” families. The eugenics movement unjustly called people unfit without reason. The primary downside to the eugenics movement in the United States is that scientist paid too much attention to the genetic correlations between class and genes, but rarely looked at the environmental factors that affected the class. Essentially what the eugenics movement did was called families that were alcoholics and thieves due to your genes. An argument could have been very easily made that these families were

The American eugenics movement is characterized by the implementation of sterilization laws in over 30 states that led to over 60,000 sterilizations of those deemed “disabled” by the regulating entities. This movement began in the early 1900’s and many argue that this movement was the base for eugenics programs all over the world, including the infamous eugenics movement in Germany. Proponents of this program believed that the

The United States and Nazi Germany, an unlikely pair. The disparity of values and beliefs of the two has set them as polar opposites in many people’s minds. However, when Eugenics and the 1927 Supreme Court come to mind the distance between the two seem to diminish. Yes, today’s topic is the infamous Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell; a 1927 case which upheld a Virginia statute that permitted the compulsory sterilization Carrie Buck and other intellectually disabled individuals for the purpose of improving the genepool . This shocking 8-1 ruling is no doubt one of the Supreme Court’s greatest errors as it failed to acknowledge that the statute in question aside from being immoral and cruel, was a clear violation

to be or not to be, that is the question. When one meets Gould for the first time, one witnesses a tremendous power: no one can question his charisma and compelling personality. But under the facade, behind the mask of great glory and munificence lies the true Gould, the Gould who desires to enslave the working man, to nullify his basic rights, and crush every bit of resistance against injustice. The duplicity of the magnate is not always obvious, but it is evident in his dealings with the Knights of Labor. speak softly but carry a big stick, and you will go far.

Part Two covers the years 1900-1950. It describes the rise in popularity of eugenics, and the resurgence of physical therapies and remedies for mental disorders. Whitaker stated that the rise of eugenics caused a degradation in moral treatment of mentally ill patients, and eventually gave way to forced sterilization of patients deemed to be mentally incapacitated to prevent the spreading of the genetic disorder of insanity. The American public as a whole seemed to embrace forced sterilization by the 1920’s.

Carrie Mae Weems is an African American artist, who works with text, fabric, audio, digital images, but mostly known for her “Kitchen Table” photography series. Her art is focused around the serious issues African American have to face in the United States every day.

There is much bias and confusion surrounding the topic of eugenics. Many times the reason for this is the lack of understanding of what the term means, where it states “In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar, and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning ‘well-born.’ (Genetics Generation, 2015).” This term has evolved to encompass more than just “well-born” as can be seen in the encyclopedia. “The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as ‘the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.’ (Court, 2004).” The meaning of the word eugenics, due to the way it has been used, confuses many people.

Ethical barriers prohibiting the practice of eugenics today include principles provided for in the American College Healthcare Executive code of Ethics (Board of Governors, 2016). The principles outlined in the code help protect the patients’ interests through guiding

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

The public attention about research studies for genetics is comparable to the topic of eugenics from the early 1900s. Eugenics focused on the sterilization of humans based on their illnesses (e.g. Sickle Cell Anemia), mental disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), or even life decisions (e.g. Habitual criminals). In the 1980s, Americans were given a poll and “44% favored compulsory sterilization of ‘habitual criminals’ and of the ‘hopelessly insane’” (Reilly, 2000, p. 486). This, along with several other cases,