The Slippery Slope on Steroids -- Part One of Two

Editor's note. I hope you had a wonderful Mother's Day. Please drop me any thoughts you might have on Part One or Part Two. The address is daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Let me begin with a quick note, directly related to Monday's TN&V. It really would be difficult to exaggerate the caliber of speakers at this year's NRLC convention. You won't want to miss a minute of the three-day convention, June 14-16, to be held in Kansas City, Missouri.

(For a full description of the roster of speakers, go to
www.nrlc.org/news_and_Views/March07/nv031307part1.html. For complete details about how to register, please go to http://www.nrlc.org/convention/index.html.)

A reminder of a famous insight of one of the superb speakers, the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, came in the form of a story in the British paper, the Telegraph. The headline, as they say, says it all:

"Clinic to weed out embryos with a squint." The subhead was, "Embryos are to be screened for a cosmetic defect for the first time in a British clinic."

And, no, I am not making this up. The story, which ran May 7, begins as follows: "Doctors have been given permission to create a baby free from a genetic disorder which would have caused the child to have a severe squint."

By the time you reach the fifth or sixth paragraph, you're tempted to think this is a spoof. It's not.

A businessman and his wife went to The Bridge Centre family clinic to '"create a baby" and wanted advanced assurances. So the clinic went to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) which gave Prof. Gedis Grudzinskas a "license," according to the Telegraph, to create a child free of a genetic disorder "which causes the eyes only to look downwards or sideways" which the husband, and his father, had had.

Give Prof. Grudzinskas credit. He is happy to take an unflinching look over the cliff, indeed he welcomes it.

"When asked if he would screen embryos for factors like hair colour, he said: 'If there is a cosmetic aspect to an individual case I would assess it on its merits.

"'[Hair colour] can be a cause of bullying which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it."

Way back in 1988, Fr. Neuhaus wrote an essay that appeared in the April issue of Commentary magazine, "The Return of Eugenics." He penned this sentence which I have never forgotten. "Thousands of ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptional."

Later this week, I will be discussing that powerfully illuminating essay in the light of what has happened in the subsequent 19 years. Since I would like you to read Part Two, I will end here, except to note a story that ran in the same newspaper three days later.

Rather than using tests to find ways to kill babies, the story tells us (under the headline, "Simple test could save babies' lives") how doctors are using technology to prevent the death of unborn children. It begins,

"Doctors are developing a simple home spit test to detect a condition that kills up to 1,000 babies a year in Britain. The test will allow pregnant women to check themselves to see if they are at risk of pre-eclampsia. The condition is one of the most common complications of pregnancy and is caused by a defect in the placenta. It is characterised by high blood pressure and protein in the urine and, if allowed to develop unchecked, it can threaten the lives of the mother and child."

Is this schizophrenic, or what?

Please send your comments or questions to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Two