It depends on the context and consent. Sterilization is a medical procedure, and it’s not inherently bad. When someone freely chooses it for personal, informed, and medical reasons, such as birth control or preventing a dangerous pregnancy, it can be an important decision about their health. But when sterilization is forced, coerced, or done without full understanding, it becomes a serious violation of Human Rights. During the Eugenics era in Canada, Indigenous women, immigrants and people with disabilities were sterilized without consent. Therefore, the problem isn't the procedure itself, it's who makes the decision and whether that decision respects an individual's autonomy, dignity and informed choice.

Yes, even though eugenics lost its credibility after World War II, eugenic practices such as forced sterilization didn’t stop right away. In North America, many institutions continued forced and coerced sterilizations into the 1970s, and there have been reports of sterilizations occurring today. Modern eugenics has also brought up some ethical questions. For example, IVF and the pre-embryonic genetic screening may result in reinforcing norms about what bodies and abilities are “desirable” and which should be prevented. However, these ideas extend beyond just reproductive technologies. The Social Determinants of Health and the social inequalities that occur can support Social Darwinist ideas about who should reproduce and shape who is valued in society. Therefore, eugenics and scientific racism continue to persist in more subtle, yet equally harmful ways.

Eugenics intersected with racism, classism and ableism by promoting the belief that some populations were genetically superior to others. In the early 20th century, eugenic policies often targeted marginalized communities such as people of colour, immigrants, individuals with disability, and individuals of lower social class. These policies were justified by eugenic ideologies that were “backed” by science. However, science was used as a cover to propagate their beliefs and justify discrimination. Their use of science was biased, and there was no real evidence that supported their eugenic belief. Therefore, the belief that certain traits were hereditary led to them promoting policies that eliminated the “undesirable” traits from the population. For example, certain individuals were sterilized for having “low” intelligence, so they didn’t “pass” it on to their children. As a result, eugenics reinforced existing social hierarchies by using science to legitimize prejudice and inequality.

Studying the history of eugenics is important today because it shows how ideas about “improving” humans have resulted in discrimination and the violation of human rights. By understanding the history, we are better equipped to recognize and prevent similar biases that show up in society today. Eugenic ideology appears in many different social institutions, including science, politics, and media. Today’s genetic and reproductive technology is one area where eugenic thinking can occur, but these ideas also appear in broader social conditions. For example, the Social Determinants of Health. Income, housing, economic status, and access to healthcare play a role in shaping who is encouraged or discouraged from having children. Although they may be labelled as eugenics, they closely tie into Social Darwinism, especially when making assumptions about who is “fit” or “unfit” for parenthood. Understanding history helps us evaluate how modern technologies and social policies can be used to promote equality rather than reinforce old hierarchies.

The public should make sure they are well-informed and hold policymakers accountable for how these technologies are used and regulated. This begins with people knowing and understanding what eugenics is and recognizing when ideas or practices reflect eugenic principles. Through learning about the history and ethical issues around the manipulation of genes, people can better evaluate how technologies such as gene editing and genetic screening might reinforce inequalities. The public can also engage in open and honest dialogue with scientists, organizations, and policymakers, so the policies reflect a range of ethical perspectives and not just those of experts or businesses. Beyond technology itself, the public should also consider how social conditions such as healthcare, reproductive autonomy and childcare influence who benefits from genetic technologies and who might be disadvantaged. This ensures ethical guidelines address not only scientific advances, but also the inequities that can make eugenic ideas more likely to reappear.