McMahan - The Morality of Screening for Disability (2)

Morality of Screening Technologies

• Focus: The ethics of utilizing technologies enabling parents to avoid having disabled children through various screening methods.

• Techniques Discussed:

  • Preconception genetic testing

  • Non-genetic testing of potential parents

  • Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)

  • Prenatal screening with abortion option

Key Objections to Screening and Selection

• Discrimination Concerns:

  • Critics claim that such practices are discriminatory, aiming to eliminate individuals with disabilities, similar to preventing births of particular racial groups.

• Impact on Existing Disabled Individuals:

  • Screening reinforces discrimination against those already living with disabilities, making them feel more isolated and unusual.

  • Reducing the population of disabled individuals could diminish their visibility and political power.

• Loss of Human Diversity:

  • Eliminating disabled individuals would negatively impact diversity, as they offer unique contributions and perspectives.

  • Their existence teaches valuable lessons about difference and resilience.

• Hurtful Views:

  • Screening may suggest that disabled lives are less valuable or worth living, sending harmful messages to those who are disabled.

Responses to Objections

• Proponents argue that individual liberty rights should take precedence, allowing personal choice in reproductive matters.

• Skepticism of Objections:

  • Objections may not be strong enough to prohibit screening practices; they could imply acceptance of ethically dubious actions such as deliberately causing disability during pregnancy.

Example Discussion: Hypothetical Drug Scenario

• A hypothetical drug causes both pleasure and potential prenatal disability:

  • Demonstrates a scenario where the choice of pleasure leads to the conception of a disabled child.

  • Raises ethical dilemmas regarding individual choices during reproduction and potential implications for parenting decisions.

  • Suggests a moral inconsistency in condemning screening while permitting other methods of conceiving disabled children.

Consequences of Opposing Screening

• Critics who oppose screening must grapple with their arguments' implications for other actions related to causing disability.

• They may inadvertently reinforce negative views of disability, perpetuating stigma.

• Autonomy and Ethical Considerations:

  • Previous beliefs regarding the negative aspects of being disabled may lead to views on preventing disability that contradict individual choice.

The Reality of Parenting Disabled Children

• Parents of disabled children often express gratitude for their specific child, rejecting the notion that disability equates to suffering or a lesser life.

• Experiences show that familial bonds formed with disabled children foster joy and significance in life.

Positive Proposals for Addressing Concerns

• Advocates should work on enhancing public discourse and representation of disabled individuals rather than solely opposing screening practices.

• Focus on fostering understanding and appreciation for disabled lives could support greater social acceptance and justice for disabled communities.

• Proposals should center on the celebration of diversity and the unique contributions disabled people offer.