@Kaol: Fitness for what?
Inasmuch as we're longer lived and healthier than we were even a century ago, it would seem the opposite.

I think I see what you mean - inasmuch as the severely disabled live when, not so long ago they would have died soon after birth, it could be suggested that we're countering natural selection. Indeed, some might have kids on their own, and pass on the genes that caused the disability.

There's two problems with this account, though. The first is that many, if not most, serious disabilities have nothing to do with genetics; of the remainder, many will not be passed on (because genetics is complicated like that. A somatic-line mutation is different from a germ-line mutation - the former won't be passed on). And, of course, each child is the product of two gametes, so there's a good chance that a mutation on one chromosome will be conpensated on the other. (That's why girls are much less likey to be haemophiliacs: it's a problem on the X-chromosome. Since girls have two of these, they'd have to be very unlucky to have the same problem on both - although it's possible.)

The other reason is more of an ethical point, which is that medicine is - quite properly, I'd have thought - concerned about the suffering of this person here, rather than any group to which he or she belongs.

I don't have any particular problem with eugenics - I think it's admirable to try to engineer people to be healthier, brighter and so on. (Have a look at Agar's Liberal Eugenics and Harris' Enhancing Evolution on this - Harris is my boss, and I've just written a paper saying that his argument isn't as strong as he thinks it is, but he's still worth reading, because many of his claims are correct.) But that's a long way from what you were talking about...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:31, Reply)