Deciding Against Disability: Does the Use of Reproductive Genetic Technologies Express Disvalue for People With Disabilities?
Journal of medical ethics 2010 Apr; 36(4): 217-21
This paper focuses on one objection to the use of reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs): the argument known as the expressivist objection. According to this argument, the choice to use reproductive genetic technologies to prevent the birth of individuals with disabilities is an expression of disvalue for existing people with disability. Many have been persuaded by this impassioned perspective. This paper shows that this argument is misguided and so does not constitute a sound objection to the use of RGTs to prevent disability in future children. It first identifies some responses to the objection that may be sound but not completely convincing to proponents of the expressivist position. It then describes a thought experiment designed to demonstrate more clearly that choosing to use RGTs to prevent disability in future children does not convey a negative message about people who have disabilities. After describing a decision that clearly does not send such a message, the paper walks through a series of cases and shows how, despite differences that might seem to be morally relevant, each is morally equivalent to the previous one with respect to the extent that it expresses disvalue for such individuals.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Malek, Janet (2007-07)Research protocols must have a reasonable balance of risks and anticipated benefits to be ethically and legally acceptable. This article explores three characteristics of research on reproductive genetic technologies that ...
EEOC Compliance Manual [New Section of the Compliance Manual, Volume 2, EEOC Order 915.002, Section 902, "Definition of the Term 'Disability'" -- Document finds that employers cannot discriminate against workers on the basis of their genetic makeup --workers who carry abnormal genes are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act] United States. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] (1995-03-14)