Pro & Con - April 2, 2001

To the Editor:

The "Pro & Con" section of the 2/1/01 issue of Family Practice News should have been labeled "Pro & Pro", since both authors ignored the central issue concerning prenatal testing for Down syndrome. The title should have read, "Should prenatal testing for Down syndrome be accorded the same ‘crimes against humanity’ status as the Nazi eugenics policy?".

Could someone please explain to me why it is moral to go on "search and destroy" missions for Down syndrome or any other similarly stricken children before they’re born, but not moral to do so after birth? Of course, according to "Dr." Peter Singer, it should be considered acceptable to do so, up to one year after birth. Since he’s teaching the leaders of tomorrow at Princeton University, perhaps someday we’ll be seeing a "Pro & Con" with the following heading: "Should Down syndrome infants be abandoned at birth and left to die or should they be given lethal doses of KCl and phenobarbital IV?" Or, maybe we should do a retrospective issue, set in 1935 Germany, the topic being, "Should Jewish children be identified by physical characteristics or strictly by parentage?"

And if you object to my characterization of these issues in any way, can you give me a principled reason why? Perhaps some reason other than just, "It’s legal, so it’s OK?" Surely we can realize that, just because a particular behavior is legal, doesn’t mean it’s moral for a physician or anyone else to participate in it.

Jeremy Klein, MD, FAAFP