Abort Disabled, Says One Geneticist
Here's a sobering account of one geneticist's advocacy of
aborting blind and disabled babies, arguing that society might be better off
if their births are prevented. Disability advocates, who attended the lecture
where geneticist Dan Brock presented his ideas, argue that his arguments have
profound implications for society's general attitudes toward people with
disabilities and, potentially, the provision of disability-related services.
Brock insists that he is not trying to pass judgment on people with
disabilities, but that he merely wants to leave it in the hands of parents (as
opposed to government regulation) to decide whether or not to seek abortions
when genetic screening indicates the presence of disabilities.
Jonathan Young
JFA Editor, AAPD
==========================
Geneticist: Abort the blind and disabled
By: Julie Novak November 20, 2002
Narragansett Times
KINGSTON - Society might be better off if it prevents the birth of blind and
severely disabled children, said biomedical ethicist Dan W. Brock at the
University of Rhode Island's tenth Honors Colloquium lecture last Tuesday
night. In a world where genetic screening has become not only common, but also
proficient and covered by health insurance in some cases, new parents may be
facing more thought-provoking decisions as they prepare for the birth of a
child. And Brock thinks such decisions should be left to parents, not the
government, because of their complexity.
A supporter of pre-birth screening and procedures like abortion to prevent
disabled children from being born, Brock said his thoughts should not be
perceived as a judgment of severely disabled people.
"I want to define genetic testing in a strictly reproductive context. It's
uncontroversial that serious disabilities should be prevented in born
persons," Brock asserted. "It's considered a misfortune to be born blind or
with a serious cognitive disability, but if it's a bad thing for a born
person, then why not prevent these conditions in someone who will be born?"
Brock countered several arguments put forth by disability advocates, who fear
his theories will label them as second- class citizens, in his lecture titled,
"Genetic Testing & Selection: A Response to the Disability Movement's
Critique." Despite their fears that this implies society would be better "if
they had never been born," Brock said he upholds the "full and equal moral
status" of disabled people.
He contends the volume of governmental policies that promote equal opportunity
still do not help a severely disabled person enjoy the same quality of life as
a person who was born "normal." But that does not mean someone who becomes
disabled through an accident should not be provided for.
"We should distinguish between preventing people from becoming disabled from
preventing the existence of disabled people," explained Brock, a former
professor of philosophy and biomedical ethics at Brown University who now
works for the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of
Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
Disabled persons will argue they experience a high quality of life, but Brock
said that this type of self-assessment can be misleading because people learn
new skills and adapt to their environment to cope with their disability. "They
do suffer real disadvantages," he said. "Our notion of how good a person's
life is is not fully determined by their own subjective self-assessment."
Brock believes genetic screening will eventually lead to fewer people with
severe disabilities. He acknowledged that eliminating severely disabled
children might decrease the amount of services and programs available for
others, a notion disability advocates use to oppose his argument. "But fewer
resources would be needed," Brock noted.
Brock stated blindness and severe cognitive dysfunction are two disabilities
he would prevent. But the issue is not black and white, he added, and other
disabilities that can be prevented, like deafness, conjure up controversy as
well. Is their quality of life severely affected by our society? he asked.
"This is why these choices should be left to individual parents," Brock said,
adding that most parents, if given a choice, will opt not to have a child with
disabilities.
"Preventing a severe disability is not for the sake of the child who will have
it. Rather, it is for the sake of less suffering and loss of opportunity in
the world."
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6115819&BRD=1714&PAG=461&dept_id=73829&rfi=6
# # #
=====================
JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the American Association of People with
Disabilities
www.aapd-dc.org
www.jfanow.org
There's strength in numbers! Be a part of a national
coalition of people with disabilities and join AAPD today.
www.aapd-dc.org
Last Updated on
02/20/2005
webmaster@namiscc.org
