The Genius & The Imbecile: Disentangling the 'Legal' Framework of Autonomy in Modern Liberal Eugenics, from Non-Therapeutic Gene Enhancement Use in Gene Editing Technologies

Abstract

This paper intends to gravitate into a brief exposition of the framework of ‘liberal eugenics’ (often described as the more liberated, compassionate form of eugenics, distinguishing itself from the pejorative eugenics movements of the past, by employing an autonomous nature of decision making vis-à-vis parents and beneficiaries), considered from the perspective of non-therapeutic uses of gene editing technologies. Where emerging technologies (such as the gene editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9) are concerned, democratic innovations need to be balanced against a social movement of a non-radical nature in the interest of enlightened medical discourse; taking into account that the variables of each regulatory space is often inundated with issues such as plurality, different ideals of morality and public opinion, and the determination of stewardship responsibilities, amongst others. Specifically, this paper intends to extrapolate on the ‘legal’ formulation of the modified concept of ‘autonomy’ that is central to the liberal eugenics paradigm. In essence, it has been described as ‘liberal’ because the underlying justification for a selection process excludes intervention from a State, and centralizes the role of the family as the key decision-maker in adjudging the proprieties of both therapeutic and non-therapeutic medical treatments. However, this paper hypothesizes that notwithstanding this ‘gift’ of autonomy, the legality of the concept in itself continues to raise the more discursive issues relating to gene modification/enhancement debates, germ-line modification, the savior sibling dilemma, distributive justice/access, disability, and considerations of primary/personhood of a human being, amongst others. This paper poses that the autonomous element in liberal eugenics may be an illusory disguise to escape the shackles of past negativities, and may still require a more holistic and reflected discourse as part of a regulatory or governance framework.