Psychiatry and genetics : psychosocial, ethical, and legal considerations / edited by Michael A. Sperber, Lissy F. Jarvik.

Date:
[1976], ©1976
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Psychiatry and genetics : psychosocial, ethical, and legal considerations / edited by Michael A. Sperber, Lissy F. Jarvik. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    183/224 (page 166)
    166 ALBERT S. MORACZEWSKI While we admit the powerful influence of many individual factors, we must recognize that some consensus on these issues is possible if open discourse is fostered. A difficulty in ethical discussions is what is left unsaid, what is assumed. But in a society like ours, with pluralistic val¬ ues (for better or worse), it is of the utmost importance that nothing be presumed in such discussions. For example, I am sure no one would wish to deny individuals the right [emphasis added] to decide not to have children who are genetically abnormal. ® For a fundamentalist Christian who holds that all children come from God and that such natu¬ ral misfortunes as genetic defects are to be patiently borne, that state¬ ment would not be acceptable. Furthermore, whence comes the alleged right? Is it rooted in civil law? Or does it have a more fundamental ori¬ gin? Perhaps there is a societal consensus, albeit an unspoken one. I raise these issues here to emphasize the labyrinthine complexity of these questions. What do we mean when we say I have a right? What do we mean when we say that an action is right or wrong, good or evil? What is understood by the phrase good is to be done and evil to be avoided? There are some things that men do which we say are wrong, e.g., murder, stealing, lying. But why are these actions considered mor¬ ally bad? It is the role of ethics to reflect on what makes those actions for which a man is personally responsible good or bad. The broad spec¬ trum of meanings attached to the words good and bad accounts for the development of different ethical systems throughout the ages. Rather than enter into a prolonged historic and philosophic analysis of these terms, for the sake of brevity and clarity I shall define them as they are used in this article.^ Right: a moral power vested in a person, owing to which the holder of the power may claim something as due him or belonging to him, or demand of others that they perform certain acts or abstain from them. By saying that right is a moral power, I mean to emphasize the fact that it does not depend on any kind of might or physical force. By the term moral power I also mean that to deprive one of a right would be an offense against justice. Traditionally, it has been customary to distinguish between positive or acquired rights, which have as their immediate source the state, and natural rights, also known as the rights of man, which are inherent in the human person and hence are ordinarily in¬ alienable. This distinction is recognized in the Declaration of Independence, which specifies that there are certain rights which by their nature are inalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.