In the Alex Jones Show segment, host Alex Jones interviews Dr. Dan W. Brock, a biomedical ethicist
employed by the National Institutes of Health. The discussion centers on genetic screening programs
for potential genetic diseases in children. Dr. Brock argues that it is desirable to prevent serious
diseases through genetic testing before a child is born, emphasizing preventing disability and
suffering, but not supporting coercive measures. He distinguishes bioethics from eugenics and
focuses on individual reproductive decisions rather than broader societal implications, also
denouncing forced screening or decision-making in medical matters.
Well, you are a professor, but I guess you basically still are, I would say, a professor.
Are you a doctor?
What's your title, sir?
unidentified
No, I'm a philosopher by training.
When I was at Brown University, where I was for over 30 years, I was half in the philosophy department there and half in the medical school where I directed a center for biomedical ethics.
Alright, we're talking to Dan W. Brock, Biomedical Ethicist.
Now, I'm trying to understand something here.
Now, I've read some articles on the BBC a few weeks ago where they were saying they're discussing genetic screening by law.
Of course, because it costs everybody money having to take care of these people, these blind and disabled and others.
And some of Singer's colleagues, in one of their books, Back to Eden, I believe is the name, I read it about a year ago, said that they need to take control of human evolution.
Now, you say these are your views, What are your views?
What exactly do you do there in your government office?
unidentified
Well, there's a department of clinical bioethics here which does research on bioethics issues.
We have training programs and so forth, but mostly I do research and publish on bioethics issues.
I've only been here since this past summer, so I have most of my career been in a university.
I think most Americans find it chilling, kind of Orwellian, or a type of Brave New World, like Huxley wrote about, and of course his brother, the UNESCO head, that are talking about eugenics and how wonderful it was.
It sounds chilling to say, set up programs for people to No, I didn't talk about that at all.
unidentified
What I talked about is a practice that goes on now that I think isn't all that controversial.
The idea is that if we can prevent very serious diseases like Tay-Sachs disease or Huntington's disease, then most people think it would be desirable to do so.
Forget about any cost to the broader society.
These are extremely disabling diseases to the persons who have them.
They often involve very severe suffering.
Sometimes they involve early death of a child, as with Tay-Sachs disease or Leishnian disease.
So these are serious afflictions and some diseases, like the ones I just mentioned, are transmitted genetically, in effect.
If you have the gene in question, you'll develop the disease.
What we can now do is to do genetic testing for, as I say, whether parents are at risk for passing on this disease, or one can do, again in some cases at least, genetic testing of an embryo or fetus to determine whether it has the genes for the particular disease.
So they misquoted you because they have it in quotes?
unidentified
Yeah, I don't think I, well, I was, I don't know whether I don't know whether it's an accurate quote, but it's a reasonably accurate paraphrase in any event.
You're obviously one of the less radical ones, comparatively, on this scale.
But he brought out, read the quotes.
It's been published.
The Wall Street Journal wouldn't let him run it because the liability wasn't true.
We've got this creature Singer calling babies mackerels, saying they have the same worth as mackerel fish, calling retarded children subhuman.
I mean, these are chilling statements, and there is a large body moving towards forced screening, and obviously it starts out as a voluntary thing.
Aren't you concerned about that?
unidentified
Sure, I'm concerned about that.
I mean, I can't be responsible for what somebody else says or for somebody else's account of what somebody else says, so I have no comment on what Leslie Smith says about what Peter Singer says.
But, of course, I'm concerned about the shift from doing any of these practices Voluntarily, when it's the parent's decision, and involuntarily.
Just as I have been a supporter of patients' rights to make decisions about their own medical treatment, I would be concerned if we moved to forced decisions by someone else about patients' medical treatment.
Here's a London Telegraph article today, sir, where it says that if people do not take all the vaccines ordered by the government, though it's not the law, all their health care will be denied, period.
It's usually about three years ahead of us.
unidentified
I haven't seen the article, so I don't know whether that's true or not.
I wouldn't support that.
We do have some vaccines that are in effect compulsory in this country.
three dollars a real effect all on the list all over the other one of the
all the second brought white man
Either it's the law or it's not, and you cannot make someone take a vaccine.
They try to create color of law, and now they're trying to make DNA tests from all the kids they have to do it.
There's no law, it's a policy.
So that's not, what you just said is not accurate.
They cannot make, well I guess under model states that just passed federally, I guess they can forcibly inoculate us.
Maybe you're right under martial law.
unidentified
What I was about to say was that In many states, for children to enter school, they have to have certain vaccinations.
But there's typically a public health reason for that.
Nope.
One's getting vaccinations for infectious diseases where there's not just a risk to the child, but there's a risk to others if that child... No, that's a mandate.
We're talking to Dan W. Brock, who is a biomedical ethics, bioethics person in the federal government, and we have the Webster's Dictionary here, and it says eugenics.
And the 1883 definition, a science that deals with improvement as by control of human mating of hereditary qualities of race and breed, and the other nine definitions are similar.
Why do you guys call it bioethics?
I guess eugenics got a bad name, a bad rap, so it's bioethics now?
How do you answer that, Mr. Brock?
unidentified
Since we're coming on after your commercial, I want to repeat that I speak only for myself and not for any branch of the federal government.
The term bioethics was coined in the early 1970s.
Most of it has not had anything to do with issues about eugenics.
It's had to do with, for example, end-of-life care with patients, with issues like the definition of death.
Getting rid of the retarded folks, the blind, the old.
unidentified
When I talk about end-of-life health care, I'm not talking about getting rid of any of those persons.
There's been a large movement, as I assume you know, in this country over the last several decades through things like advanced directives whereby people can gain control over their own healthcare.
Near the end of life, and that I don't think has anything to do with getting rid of people.
Okay, let me ask you another question, Mr. Brock, because this is very important.
Look, we have this movement, it's out there, the other bioethicists are saying this horrible stuff, calling babies mackerel, the rest of it.
In this article, they've got you in this speech before all these people at the University of Rhode Island saying, you know, that abort blind babies.
I've got friends that are blind, that were born blind.
We've got great scientists, philosophers, people with ideas.
Many times, handicapped people I know are more intelligent, more loving, wonderful people because they didn't become these mindless, satanic yuppies running around, these materialistic idiots.
And this, I mean, come on!
unidentified
Of course, I made exactly that point in my talk at some length.
So, of course, there are many blind people that lead wonderful lives.
