What's new. I am sure many parents who have been 'diagnosed' carrying an
unborn baby with 'defects' already feel this "moral duty to abort" as a
result of misinformation and the pressures of the medical profession
and daily multitude of messages we all get about the all important
desirability of physical beauty, intelligence, health, wealth and youth.
Trashy as this publication may be, it is yet an other warning to us
all that this stuff *is* being published and, if truly reported, that
leading scientists are (yet again) at the forefront of a eugenics
movement.
Should the disability movement and academia concerned about this, together,
organise in opposing this worldwide trend? How can they until this, and
related issues such as abortion itself, euthanasia, 'do-not-resuscitate
order in hospitals, and so on are not confronted consciously at our deepest
personal value levels and we find firm common ground? Without this is
any such co-operation doomed to remain patchy and relatively ineffective
(exceptions granted)?
Issues of 'choice', 'human quality', and personal autonomy for instance
need to be thoroughly examined as they are so often held up as the main
justifications of these things. Is it a question of a better balance
between these and a sense of interconnectedness, interdependence and
inherent human worth for instance?
Erik Leipoldt
At 22:17 5/07/99 +0100, you wrote:
>I wondered if anyone else had read the article which appeared in the
>London Metro free publication in the last day or so:
>
>Parents 'have duty to abort disabled babies'
>
>Parents will soon have a moral duty to abort pregnancies when a severe
>disability is detected, a leading scientist has suggested.
>Bob Edwards, who led the team behind Britain's first test tube baby,
>said it will be a 'sin' for parents to give birth to a disabled child.
>He claimed science's increasing ability to screen out genetic defects
>during the early stages of pregnancy would create a world in which the
>'quality' of children could be monitored and controlled.
>Edwards, who believes fertility treatment and screening programmes will
>eventually become tools for social engineering, was speaking at the
>annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and
>Embryology in France.
>He said "Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child that carries
>the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we
>have to consider the quality of our children"
>Mike Willis of the ProLife Alliance said: "Doctors are turning human
>life into a commodity. This of course, was part of Adolf Hitler's
>philosophy. You cannot start culling embryos because once you do that
>no-one is safe. What's next? Will they start weeding out people who
>are gay?"
>
>(end of article)
>
>I wondered if anyone felt like commenting about this?
>
>Janet Iles
>Student, M.A. Disability Studies (Leeds University)
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|