Medical Disparagement of the Disability Experience: Empirical Evidence for the “Expressivist Objection”

Disability, Relational Equality, and the Expressivist Objection

Proponents of the expressivist objection argue that the use and provision of testing to select against disability in offspring express negative judgments about existing persons with disabilities. But does the expression of such judgments also wrong those persons? This paper argues that whether the expressivist objection succeeds will ultimately depend on whether a plausible explanation can be supplied for how persons with disabilities are wronged by the expression of negative judgments and that the literature on relational egalitarianism can supply such an explanation, albeit with important limitations.

Culpable Ignorance, Professional Counselling, and Selective Abortion of Intellectual Disability

In this paper I argue that selective abortion for disability often involves inadequate counselling on the part of reproductive medicine professionals who advise prospective parents. I claim that prenatal disability clinicians often fail in intellectual duty-they are culpably ignorant about intellectual disability (or do not disclose known facts to parents). First, I explain why a standard motivation for selective abortion is flawed. Second, I summarize recent research on parent experience with prenatal professionals. Third, I outline the notions of epistemic excellence and deficiency. Fourth, I defend culpable ignorance as the best explanation of inadequate disability counselling. Fifth, I rebut alternative explanations. My focus is pregnancies diagnosed with mild or moderate intellectual disability.

Epistemic Virtue, Prospective Parents and Disability Abortion

Research shows that a high majority of parents receiving prenatal diagnosis of intellectual disability terminate pregnancy. They have reasons for rejecting a child with intellectual disabilities-these reasons are, most commonly, beliefs about quality of life for it or them. Without a negative evaluation of intellectual disability, their choice makes no sense. Disability-based abortion has been critiqued through virtue ethics for being inconsistent with admirable moral character. Parental selectivity conflicts with the virtue of acceptingness (the commitment to welcome whatever child comes naturally) and exhibits the vice of wilfulness (the project of picking and choosing what children one will take). In this paper I claim that, beyond failures of moral virtue, disability abortion often involves failures of epistemic virtue on the part of parents. I argue two things: parents believe something false, or at least contested, about life with intellectual disability-and they do so because they are not epistemically conscientious. I first explain why a central motivation for disability abortion-that it prevents harm to the child-is mistaken. I next give a brief account of intellectual virtue and culpable ignorance. I then indicate why many parents fail to be intellectually virtuous when choosing to terminate pregnancy. I focus on elimination of intellectual disability and have little to say about physical and sensory impairments.

Benefits, challenges and ethical principles associated with implementing noninvasive prenatal testing: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive prenatal testing is a recent technology that provides some genetic information about the fetus through the analysis of cell-free fetal DNA circulating in maternal blood. We aimed to identify the benefits, challenges and guiding ethical principles most relevant to the clinical integration of noninvasive prenatal testing in Canada, according to experts throughout the country.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving Canadian experts of contemporary discussions about the ethical and societal implications of prenatal testing and genomic technologies. In round 1, we asked participants to identify clinical benefits and challenges related to the implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing in Canada, and the ethical principles they think should guide it. In round 2, we asked participants to select the most important elements stated by their peers. In round 3, participants were informed of the aggregated results from round 2, and invited to revise or confirm their selection.

RESULTS

Round 1 had a participation rate of 20.2%, and involved 61 participants. Subsequent rounds 2 and 3 had retention rates of 95.1% (n = 58) and 84.5% (n = 49), respectively. Through these discussions, we identified 3 lists of benefits (n = 10), challenges (n = 27), and ethical principles (n = 16) prioritized by Canadian experts as being most relevant to the implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing in Canada.

INTERPRETATION

Although multiple and diverse potential issues were identified, Canadian experts agreed on 2 sets of requirements for the responsible implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing in Canada. Interdisciplinary appraisals may be instrumental to responsible policy-making related to the implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing in Canada.

Beyond (Models of) Disability?

The strategy of developing an ontology or models of disability as a prior step to settling ethical issues regarding disabilities is highly problematic for two reasons. First, key definitional aspects of disability are normative and cannot helpfully be made value-neutral. Second, if we accept that the contested concept of disability is value-laden, it is far from obvious that there are definitive reasons for choosing one interpretation of the concept over another. I conclude that the concept of disability is better left ethically open-ended or broad enough to encompass the examination of various ethical issues (such as oppression, minority rights, or physical discomfort). Alternatively, the concept of disability could be altogether abandoned in order to focus on specific issues without being hindered by debates about the nature of disability. Only political costs, rather than conceptual considerations internal to the models, could be weighed against such a conclusion.

Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethics and policy considerations

New technologies analyzing fetal DNA in maternal blood have led to the wide commercial availability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). We present here for clinicians the ethical and policy issues related to an emerging practice option. Although NIPT presents opportunities for pregnant women, particularly women who are at increased risk of having a baby with an abnormality or who are otherwise likely to access invasive prenatal testing, NIPT brings significant ethics and policy challenges. The ethical issues include multiple aspects of informed decision-making, such as access to counselling about the possible results of the test in advance of making a decision about participation in NIPT. Policy considerations include issues related to offering and promoting a privately available medical strategy in publicly funded institutions. Ethics and policy considerations merge in NIPT with regard to sex selection and support for persons living with disabilities.

Reproductive Decision Making and Genetic Predisposition to Sudden Cardiac Death

BACKGROUND: With current genetic technology, it is possible to detect mutations associated with long QT syndrome (LQTS), a hereditary cardiac arrhythmia syndrome. As a result, prospective parents diagnosed with LQTS will have to decide whether or not to prevent its transmission to future generations, either by not procreating or through the use of assisted reproductive technologies or prenatal testing. This paper explores how a hereditary predisposition to sudden cardiac death can influence reproductive decision making. METHODS: This study draws from interviews and focus groups with individuals who have personal or family histories of cardiac arrhythmia or sudden death. A keyword search was conducted on interview transcripts to identify quotes for analysis. RESULTS: Participants expressed complex, often ambivalent attitudes about the prospect of having a child with a predisposition to sudden cardiac death. Their comments reveal conflicting understandings of genetic responsibility and reflect the variable effects of personal experience on reproductive decision making. This paper compares attitudes towards LQTS and other genetic conditions in analyzing the themes that emerged in interviews and focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: The "disability critique" of prenatal testing should be applied carefully to a context of genetic predisposition to sudden cardiac death in order to understand reproductive decision making. Firsthand experience with the condition, among other factors, can weigh heavily in those decisions.