Diluting The Gene Pool

This post raises some controversial issues that may upset some people, so please know that my intention is not to deliberately offend anybody, but to discuss the implications of the Hippocratic Oath as it relates to advances in medical science and technology.

For those who aren’t aware, the Hippocratic Oath basically requires doctors to practise medicine ethically and to do what’s right for their patients, although there are several other conditions too.

Now, this was all fine and dandy when medical science had little to offer in the way of treatment and cures, but nowadays, with all the technology that’s available (e.g. CAT scanners), this is no longer the case.

Doctors, and other medical professionals, are able to save the lives of many people who, in former times, would simply have died, often at a very young age.

This does, of course, raise several questions.

Firstly, how can anybody else make the judgement call that takes into account the quality of somebody else’s life?

The Hippocratic Oath seems to mandate that doctors should try to save people’s lives no matter what, and they are, in fact, duty-bound not to assist in suicide.

But what if that person would rather die? Isn’t that their right to make that choice?

Some people’s lives can, indeed be saved, but simply existing may not be enough for some people – I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be, for me. (In my first marriage, mere existence is more or less what it felt like, and I was definitely suicidal for a while, as everything seemed really pointless.)

Now, you have to say that, having a reasonably strict set of rules / guidelines / principles to follow is a good thing – asking any human to make life and death decisions based on their own judgement call may be asking too much.

And the Hippocratic Oath removes some of that from the equation.

However, there is a darker side to all of this.

Leaving any religious beliefs aside, supposing that letting these people die naturally (i.e. if there were no medical intervention) was Nature’s way of ensuring the survival of the fittest?

In “the wild”, this is exactly what happens with almost every other species – the weak are left by the wayside for the greater good of the species as a whole.

Cruel?

No, not at all, as cruelty implies deliberate action.

Reality?

Yes, as to ensure the survival of a species requires that only the strongest procreate and pass on the best possible set of genes to future generations.

So, here’s the big question: is modern medical science and technology, with all that they can accomplish, ultimately diluting the human gene pool?

By saving people who would naturally die, and allowing them to grow older and have children of their own, are defective genes being passed down to future generations that would otherwise disappear from the gene pool?

We already know that in most societies, certain marriages are forbidden, because evidence has long been available that allowing people who are too closely related by blood to have children results in defects. (The Habsburg Dynasty, with its so-called Habsburg Jaw, is a very well known example of this.)

The same goes for animals too – you have to wonder whether the fact that the German Shepherd was created largely through a deliberate inbreeding program is responsible for current issues, such as the increased likelihood of this breed coming down with Canine Parvovirus.

On the other side of the coin, however, then in the grand scheme of things, i.e. six billion people worldwide, many of whom do not have access to medical technology and still do die at a very early age, just how significant is it that a relatively small number are saved that otherwise would not live long enough to pass their genes on to children, and their children’s children?

What do you think?

Tags: judgement call, science and technology, medical profession, darker side, cat scanners, life and death

BELIEVE IT OR NOT:


Powered By Odd Facts