November 26, 2002
A HAZARD OF MISFORTUNES:
Geneticist: Abort the blind and disabled (Julie Novak November 20, 2002, Narragansett Times)Society might be better off if it prevents the birth of blind and severely disabled children, said biomedical ethicist Dan W. 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] 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?"
This guy's an ethicist? And we pay his freakin' salary? It is undoubtedly true that we might save our society much time, money, and aggravation if we killed babies who were going to be inconvenient to raise and care for, but that isn't ethical reasoning, it's expedience. And having decided that the circumstances of someone's life would represent a "misfortune" which justifies our killing them, what other misfortunes might we not add to the list? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2002 5:45 PM
I was born severely hearing-impaired at birth. If Mr. Brock had his way, I'd never have been born. Further deponent saith not.
Posted by: Joe at November 26, 2002 5:17 PMI understand Brock's point of view and think it not illogical.
I understand your response and am sympathetic toward it.
If, we, as a society, were to impose your point of view on the parent, then I believe we, society, should be willing to provide substantial support to the parent in raising that child to self sufficient adulthood. Would we be willing?
Gene:
Of course not. Kids have been born blind and otherwise disabled since time immemorial and for the most part their families have cared for them and loved them. If they are too great a burden the community or the government does help. What has changed?
The profession of medical (or biomedical) ethicist exists solely, as far as I can tell, to invent justifications for behavior that any decent person knows is wrong.
Ask your grandma.
Gene - what oj said. Nobody is "imposing a point of view on the parent" - there is inherent risk and responsibility in having kids. Those who can deal with neither have no business even thinking about having them.
Harry - I'm witcha on that. "Ethicist". What a joke. Any kindergarten child can tell you this is wrong, we don't need to complicate the discussion any further.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - is this what it's like to watch a society fall apart from the inside?
I happen to be reading Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" just now. He does not have a great deal on the Nazi euthansia program for "life unworthy of life," but he does make the point that even though most Germans had no problem with murdering Jews, most objected to bumping off the mentally deficient and even got the regime to abandon the program.
Posted by: Harry at November 27, 2002 4:04 PMMaybe we can prevent "ethicists " from procreating. Off With his d*ck!
Posted by: Tim at November 27, 2002 9:43 PM