Adventures on the Dark Side
Cases of sexual attraction are bound to grow
as “genetic orphans” seek out their missing
parents.The British press is a fathomless mine of lurid but thought-
provoking explorations of the dark side of the human condition.
Recently it featured a passionate romance between a 51-year-
old British woman and her 32-year-old American son.
Kim West was studying in California when she had a child
out of wedlock. She gave him up for adoption and returned to
England. Nearly 30 years later they were reunited and imme-
diately felt an overwhelming sexual attraction. Ben ended up
abandoning his missus and moving in with his mum. They are
considering having children.
Most people ind this real-life scenario confronting, but it
raises interesting questions about bioethical reasoning.
Post-adoption romance is a poorly-understood but well-
documented phenomenon. In the 1980s an American adoption
counsellor, Barbara Gonyo, coined the term “genetic sexual
attraction” for these powerful feelings. Two British psycholo-
gists interviewed several people in the grip of genetic sexual
attraction who all described “a romantic ‘falling in love’, intense
and explosive, sudden and almost irresistible”.
The psychologists estimated that such feelings are present
about 50% of the time when siblings and parents are reunited.
Their article was published 20 years ago in the British Journal
of Medical Psychology(later renamedPsychology and
Psychotherapy), so it’s possible that the number of cases has
increased.
A columnist for The Telegraph(London) also pointed out
that the use of anonymous sperm donation could cause a huge
increase in the prevalence of genetic sexual attraction. Chil-
dren can contact their biological parents as soon as they turn
18, so genetic sexual attraction numbers are bound to grow as
“genetic orphans” seek out their missing parents.If we have to deal with more genetic sexual attraction in
society, is there anything in the bioethical toolkit to prevent
legalising and normalising incest? Possibly not.
The most widely-accepted theory of bioethics is principalism.
Although we live in an intellectually Balkanised society, it says,
everyone accepts the need for autonomy (informed consent),
beneicence (no harm) and justice (balancing individual and
social rights). These help us reach a consensus on hot-button
issues like IVF, stem cell research or privacy.
Principalism has been a great help in navigating through the
thickets of ethical controversy provoked by new technologies.
However, it sometimes clashes violently with moral intuitions,
our inarticulate “gut feel”. Genetic sexual attraction is one of
these.
When assessed by each of these principles, genetic sexual
attraction would probably get a tick. Autonomy? Kim and Ben
are consenting adults who understand the issues. Justice? They
have a right to express themselves sexually. Beneicence? They
are not harming each other.
But wouldn’t their offspring be at greater risk of birth defects?
Perhaps, but this is disputed. In an article in Criminal Law
and Philosophy, an academic at Rutgers School of Law, Vera
Bergelson, has argued that science does not bear this out:
... it is far from clear that inbreeding presents a threat to society. The
number of serious genetic disorders associated with inbreeding is quite
limited. Moreover, some scientists believe that, in the long run,
populations may suffer from the prevention of consanguineous
marriages ...
In any case, an elevated incidence of genetic defects is clearly
a risk that our society is willing to take. Otherwise we would have
banned IVF. Nor do we ban marriage between people who are
carriers of serious genetic diseases.
Bergelson concludes that “the true reason behind the long
history of the incest laws is the feeling of repulsion and disgust
this tabooed practice tends to evoke in the majority of popu-
lation. However, in the absence of wrongdoing, neither a historic
taboo nor the sense of repulsion and disgust legitimizes crim-
inalization of an act.”
That is one conclusion. The other is that principalism’s
toolbox is not big enough to deal with genetic sexual attrac-
tion.
Perhaps we need to analyse our “gut feel” more deeply. When
we do, we might see that principalism’s attitude to sexuality
and well-being is quite inadequate. Perhaps participants in
genetic sexual attraction are being harmed at a deeper level
than mere sexual satisfaction, to say nothing of their children.
There might be wisdom in the Yuck Factor after all.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge, an online bioethics newsletter.50 | MAY 2016
QUANDARY Michael CookSubscribe at austscience.com
Make sense of science