|
Written by Staff Writer
|
|
May 05, 2007 at 03:39 AM |
The advent of genetics introduced the concept of error within nature, with regard to the perceived proper functioning of the human body. Prior to genetic science, disease had carried moral connotations, and was seen in a moral light. The sick had deserved their condition due to inferior moral fibre, and disease was due to mistake (which implies judgement, a human quality) as opposed to nature’s error, non-human and therefore blameless.
When genetic science uncovered the link between “faulty” genes and certain diseases, it meant that an individual could become ill, through genetic error, no matter what his moral attributes were. Disease could no longer be viewed as a consequence of moral failure, because judgement never entered the equation in the first place. In this way, genetics dismantled the link between human thought/actions and nature.
The knowledge that some individuals are doomed to suffer from birth through an unavoidable and blameless genetic error gave rise to an unenviable dilemma - would it be moral to allow a human being to enter the world, if suffering through disease were a certainty? At first it seems as though the answer to this question is no. However, in choosing not to allow such a human being to be born, I.e. weeding out of society all those who have serious innate errors which will very much negatively affect their future functioning and well being, one is heading back to ideas of eugenics.
Georges Canguilhem was not reassured by the removal of moral connotations from disease, because the concept that some individuals are inherently and naturally flawed, and therefore “weak”, alludes to harsh ideas surrounding the concept of “the survival of the fittest”. Canguilhem wished to make it clear that rules such as “survival of the fittest” might not apply universally. Society today is not representative of the biological jungle concept conjured when people think of Robert Spencer‘s phrase, where weakness means death. We live in an environment which can adapt to and accommodate for genetic disorders, not only diminishing suffering for those doomed to be ill, but also allowing the prospect of a fulfilling life. In these circumstances, it is no longer so immoral to bring a genetically disordered individual into the world. In other words, it is no longer necessary to revert to the eugenicist concept of termination of the foetus due to inherent flaws.
Genetic medicine holds the promise of getting rid of genetic diseases. This attitude of “getting rid “ of the disease, however, is not the right way to go about matters according to Canguilhem. He wrote that “to dream of an absolute remedy (e.g. abortion) may be worse than actually accepting illness”. In other words, he means that the emphasis should be placed on treatment of disease, as a natural fact of life as a human being, as opposed to trying to get rid of it completely. WIthout disease, he claims, we are not truly human. |
|
Last Updated ( May 05, 2007 at 03:53 AM )
|
Blog 
