🚀 go-pugleaf

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:24:19 +0000
From: "T.Shakespeare" <tilting@windmills.u-net.com>
To: Gregor Wolbring <gwolbrin@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Kuhse: eugenicist


>Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 16:21:50
>To: disability-research@mailbase.ac.uk
>From: "T.Shakespeare" <tilting@windmills.u-net.com>
>Subject: Kuhse: eugenicist
>Cc: gaiafund@gn.apc.org, Alan H
>
>"Pigs, cows and chickens have a greater capacity to relate to others,
better ability to communicate and far more curiosity than most severely
retarded humans."
>
>[Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, from _Should the Baby Live? The problem of
handicapped infants_]
>
>A conference is taking place next Friday and Saturday in Preston at the
University of Central Lancashire on 'Genetics: Acquisition, Access and
Control'.  The programme encourages health professionals, philosophers,
sociologists, those in the insurance industry, those in the pharmaceutical
indudstry and students in these areas to attend. 
>
>There appear to be no disabled speakers - certainly no one from a
disability organisation - although Sarah Cunningham-Burley from the
University of Edinburgh, who is an ally, is speaking on public awareness and
public involvement and will undoubtedly mention the issue of disabled
people's involvement in debate. 
>
>The most worrying aspect is the abstract of the paper to be given by Helga
Kuhse, who has published, along with Peter Singer, Should the Baby Live? and
is (I think - can someone confirm) among those philosophers who feel that
moral/legal sanctions of the killing of foetuses should be extended to
(disabled) newborns who are "not yet human". 
>
>Disabled people have not been involved in organising the conference or
drafting the programme, and no disability activist has been invited to give
a contrasting perspective on "Does Prenatal Testing Discriminate Against the
Disabled?"
>
>If you disagree with the points made by Kuhse in her abstract below, the
absense of any obvious counterpoint to her argument specifically from a
disability equality perspective, and the fact that disabled people have,
once again, not been involved in debate on issues that affect/threaten their
lives,  you may wish to phone, fax or write to the conference organisers:
>
>University of Central Lancashire
>Centre for Professional Ethics
>Vernon Building
>Preston PR1 2HE
>Tel: 01772 892541. Fax: 01772 892942. E-mail: l.smith1@uclan.ac.uk
>
>Ruth Bailey and Agnes Fletcher are considering other action, including
distributing leaflets raising the issue of lack of involvement of disabled
people; lack of opportunity to provide an alternative perspective to
Kuhse's, etc. If anyone can help, please e-mail: Agnes Fletcher,
DAA_ORG@compuserve.com 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Does Prenatal Genetic Testing Discriminate Against the Disabled?
>Abstract: Helga Kuhse, IAB Board Member, Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash
University, Australia.
>
>"It has been observed that proponents of the new genetics are typically
universalists: the achievements of genetics are to benefit the whole of
humanity, rather than any particular section or group. Whereas proponents of
the "old eugenics" were sometimes willing to resort to coercive programs to
implement racist or elitist ideas, proponents of the new genetics have the
seeminghly laudable goal of freeing humanity - the whole of humanity - from
the scourge of genetic disease.
>
>Not everyone agrees. It has been charged that far from being universalist,
the new genetics discriminates against the disabled and devalues their
lives. Prenatal testing is a case in point. It seeks to identify genetic
disabilities or defects in the developing fetus, typically with the
intention of preventing the birth of a disabled child. This practice, it has
been claimed, is discriminatory and unjust - not (or not only) because of
what it does to the affected fetus, but rather because of what it does to
already existing disabled people: it signals that their lives are of lesser
value that the lives of able-bodied people.
>
>Given certain plausible views about the moral status of the fetus, I shall
suggest that these arguments are not convincing. Prenatal genetic diagnosis
is no more discriminatory than gene therapy and other medical interventions.
In offering parents the opportunity to make the lives of "their children" go
better, it is universalist. Its aim is the prevention of disease and
disability - not the implementation of elitist ideas of perfection."
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>


	 		    Dr. Tom Shakespeare
     13 Wood Terrace, Gateshead, NE10 OUD, UK. Phone/fax: (0191) 495 0405 
		     email: tilting@windmills.u-net.com 
	          http://www.windmills.u-net.com/home.htm
"I am a farmer of thoughts, and all the crops I raise I give away" Thomas Paine