Below is an editorial in the ‘journal of medical ethics’ which condemns a small, peaceful protest held on Sept 30 2004 by “People Against Eugenics” as anti- democratic. PAE was protesting about pro –eugenic talks given by a motley crew of transhumanists, advocates of reproductive cloning, and people who believe that disabled peoples’ lives are of no value.
Many of these fine figures have been watched in the US for some time as they attempt to launch their pro eugenic agendas under the guise of “freedom of choice”- see
 http://www.genetics-and-society.org

The editorial below attacking the protest contains several important untruths, which are currently undergoing legal evaluation, and a lot of half baked waffle about protests being ‘anti democratic’.
The Disability Rights campaigners and their supporters who attended the protest preferred not to pay the £300 conference fees for the privilege of being told that their lives held no value.
In terms of responding to intellectual arguments, such as they are, in the editorial, PAE’s original press releases and leaflet speak for themselves.
The PAE press releases, info about the protest and the conference, and the resulting discussion thread can be found at
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298454.html
a leaflet text webmounted by ‘people against eugenics’ is pasted below this editorial

for more info contact  peopleagainsteugenics@hotmail.com

from= journal of medical ethics December 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Free speech, democracy, and eugenics
Søren Holm, John Harris
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attempts to stifle debate in medical ethics must be strongly resisted
On 30 September and 1 October this year a conference on
‘‘Ethics, Science and Moral Philosophy of Assisted Human
Reproduction’’ was held at the Royal Society in London. The conference was
organised by the German philosopher Edgar Dahl and the eminent embryologist
Robert Edwards, and the speakers included scientists, IVF practitioners,
and philosophers from the UK, the USA, Europe, and Australia (you can
see the programme at  http://www.humanreproethics.org/welcome.htm)
Because the programme included discussion of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
and reproductive choice the conference was targeted by an anonymous
group calling itself ‘‘People Against Eugenics’’ that is hiding its real
identity behind an email address. If this shadowy organisation had had
any arguments to present it could have participated in the conference, which
was not closed in any way. There was ample room for discussion after the
talks, as well as a one hour session where it was possible to question
individual speakers at length. However, this organisation either had
no arguments or no willingness to stand up and be personally identified. Instead
it tried to stop the conference taking place by threatening the Royal Society
with disruption and possible legal action if it allowed the conference to go
forward. Luckily this tactic did not succeed, as Robert Edwards agreed to
cover any eventual legal costs. This courage deserves the highest praise
and admiration. This attempt to stifle legitimate academic
debate about ethical issues is deeply worrying, and must be resisted
by the medical ethics community in the strongest possible terms. Unless there
can be an open debate where arguments and positions are put forward to be
discussed and criticised, not only will the whole field of inquiry wither and die
but democratic values will be put at risk. Think for a moment how the development
of medical ethics would have been influenced if people had not been
able to discuss abortion and prenatal diagnosis, the issues in research involving
incompetent research subjects, or the problems raised by end of life
decision making—all controversial issues that in various ways can be linked
to eugenics or Nazi Germany. Free and open debate is the lifeblood
of medical ethics—without it medical ethics becomes a dogmatic system
devoid of intellectual life. Even those in the medical ethics community who
hold substantive views similar to those of the would be conference wreckers
therefore have compelling reasons to uphold the principle that academic
debate should not be stifled by political correctness.
At a deeper level the position taken by People Against Eugenics is philosophically
confused, performatively inconsistent, and extremely illiberal and
antidemocratic. It is philosophically confused because eugenics is not a
simple concept with a straightforward denotation and connotation. It is impossible
to be ‘‘against eugenics’’ in any meaningful sense, unless we are in a
situation where we can openly discuss what we mean by eugenics and it is just
this discussion that the organization wants to stop. It is performatively
inconsistent because it denies others the right to speak that People Against
Eugenics claims so vociferously for itself (or maybe him or herself: because of its
shadowy nature we cannot know whether there is really more than one
person behind the name). And it is profoundly illiberal and antidemocratic
because free and open debate about controversial issues is not only the
lifeblood of medical ethics, but the lifeblood of liberal democracy. Without
free and open debate democracy loses much of its justification and becomes a
mere counting exercise of votes. Through their actions ‘‘People Against
Eugenics’’ has shown itself really to be ‘‘People Against Freedom and
Democratic Debate’’. J Med Ethics 2004;30:519.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.010959
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Søren Holm, John Harris, Editors, Journal of
Medical Ethics
Correspondence to: Professor S Holm, Cardiff
Law School, Cardiff University, PO Box 427,
Cardiff CF10 3XJ, UK;  holms@cardiff.ac.uk





The press releases, info about the protest and the resulting discussion thread can be found at
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298454.html
leaflet text follows

PEOPLE AGAINST EUGENICS
FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

“Nothing About Us Without Us” (Disability Rights slogan)

The conference at the Royal Society "Ethics, Science and Moral Philosophy of Assisted Human Reproduction" is a blatant attempt to advance a eugenic agenda in the guise of a ‘debate’. Yet that debate is one-sided when no-one advocating a disability rights perspective is speaking. This conference is part of a strategy to advance a eugenic agenda. For the past several years, a small but influential network of established scientists, bioethicists, and authors has been working to convince people that reproductive cloning and inheritable genetic modification should not be banned. Many of the speakers at this conference have a clearly stated eugenic position, advocating the reproductive technologies PND and PGD for an increasing range of “genetic defects” and many also support reproductive cloning and germline (inheritable genetic) modification.

Eradicating “Inferior” humans
Speakers like Stock, Harris, Savulescu, McMahan and others clearly state that they wish to prevent people seen to be a ‘burden’ on society from being born, those whose lives have –according to them- no value; Downs’ kids, disabled kids, even kids with bad teeth. This is unspeakable. People’s lives have intrinsic worth. You don’t have to be Stephen Hawking or a Paralympic medal winner to “prove” that disabled people can achieve great things, contribute to society and have quality of life; people have the right to be valued as a human being.

Designer Babies
On top of this nauseating eugenic de-selection of those deemed not to fit the quality scale, speakers are advocating the ‘genetic enhancement’ of our children, shopping for extra, ‘better’ characteristics – like more intelligent, better looking, better at sport. ‘Designer babies’, a generally misused term, is in this context appropriate as it highlights the language and the culture of the market at work. This is market- led eugenics. The commodified, genetically engineered child and the removal of the greatest level playing field of all- our common genetic heritage- is the ultimate symbol of the logic of capitalism.

Women’s Rights
PAE supports women’s right to reproductive autonomy and to have an abortion. This is a different issue however to having a “right” to choose sets of characteristics based on changing social norms. When foetuses are screened for conditions which have no cures, there are social, cultural and economic pressures forced on people to make these “choices” in an unequal power setting- the clinic. Many parents tell of pressure put on them by society or the medical establishment if they choose to keep a disabled or Downs child. Women are in the frontline of having to bear the burden of these new reproductive ‘choices’. This is a tricky area with some complex ethical issues at stake, and medical uncertainty in terms of prognosis for even “single gene” disorders further complicates the picture. But the blatant eugenic agenda of this conference indicates where this is all going: “reproductive freedom” is letting in eugenics by the back door.

Social Justice Not Eugenic Elitism

Many of the health and social obstacles faced by the worlds’ population could be easily sorted out with fair distribution of resources. PAE wants social justice not eugenic elitism. Level the playing field. Better diet, education, opportunities, and support for people across the boards, in particular those with impairments and facing other obstacles like poverty. These people want to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots- to improve the “gene rich” and eradicate the “gene poor”. It is sickeningly elitist and despicable. Are they living in the real world? War and poverty are the greatest challenges to us as human beings and cause the most suffering and illness.


For more information contact:  peopleagainsteugenics@hotmail.com
peopleagainsteugenics
e-mail:  peopleagainsteugenics@hotmail.com