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
