Jackie Ballard of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People in the United Kingdom is pushing for the right of parents to intentionally create a child with hereditary deafness.
"Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle."
"A clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist."
I am neither deaf nor hard of hearing, and do not pretend to understand what it would be like to exist in a world without sound. I enjoy music, don't much like the sound of my own voice, and find the clacking of my hedgehog's wheel in the middle of the night very calming. I enjoy the tick-tick of my fingers on the keyboard as I type a blog post, and it would surely startle me if people could walk up behind me without the sound of footsteps to give them away. However, does that mean that my life has more intrinsic value than the life of a deaf or hard of hearing person?
This puts me in mind of a blog post by Deafmom, in which she describes the deafness that runs in her family and the long, slow process by which her family discovered its cause.
"It turns out that we have a rare gene that is passed on through the females in our family. A gene so rare at this point that only two other families in the world have been identified."
"On one hand, it is quite interesting to have some information about this gene and how it travels through the generations. There's a name for it, a way to explain to others what's happening in our family.
On the other hand, it opens us up to information that is sometimes better off left alone."
The article in the Sunday Times goes on to explore the arguments for the right to select FOR deafness:
"There are a small minority of activists who say that there is a cultural identity in being born deaf and that we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf.”
A small minority of activists? Again, I am not deaf, but I would say that the majority of people who ARE deaf or hard of hearing who describe themselves as activists would agree with this statement. Would the eugenics supporters in the UK who would like the measure prohibiting the selection of a deaf embryo like the world to lose the skill of sign language? It's hard to learn to sign when you can hear quite well- I know, I've tried, and all I managed to pick up was a few insults!
Deafmom mentioned in the comments on the above blog post that her daughter has a great perspective on being hard of hearing, and that she does not think her daughter will mind knowing that she is very likely to have deaf or hard of hearing children.
Shouldn't the decision of whether or not to eliminate deafness from the family's gene pool, if given the choice, be left to people who have experienced deafness as a part of their personality, self, identity, and culture, and who have examined the choice fully- rather than to lawmakers, who, like me, can't imagine being deaf?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
"Shock those kids!" "Yes, SIR!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22347088/
"Seven people have been fired over electrical shocks given to two emotionally disturbed teenagers at the direction of what turned out to be a prank caller..."
As I read these words, a tiny lightbulb flickered on in the back of my mind. Haven't we all heard this somewhere before? It seems like a bad dream, or a satirical story written to ruffle feathers and stir up a few laughs at the idea that we, here in America, at the close of the year 2007, would use electric shock as a punishment. But I'm sure I've heard this before.
"The teens were awakened in the middle of the night and given the shock treatments, at times while their legs and arms were bound. One teen received 77 shocks and the other received 29. One boy was treated for two first-degree burns."
It came to me. This nightmare was played out by actors and unwitting participants in the Milgram Experiment:
"The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner."
As most anyone who's taken a psychology class or even cracked a psych text knows, 65% of participants in Milgram's originally study inflicted three 450 volt shocks on the learner, which completed the 'test,' and no subject attempted to leave or decline to administer shocks at a level below 300 volts. The study, designed to determine whether or not Eichmann and the millions who participated in the Holocaust were just following orders, rather than acting on an inner sadism, shocked the world and was repeated on different continents, with different age groups, and at different times. The results were remarkably consistent.
Back to the group home:
"The center is believed to be the only school in the United States that uses two-second skin-shock punishments to change destructive behavior. The center says the treatments are used in a minority of cases and only with parental, medical, psychiatric and court approval.
The center has survived two attempts by the state to close it over allegations that its unorthodox methods amount to abuse."
School? Center? Call it what it is- a prison, an institution, a horror movie set. A school is a place of learning. A facility that shocks a teenager 77 times for misbehavior alleged by an authority figure whose identity was not verified by the "trained" staff members is not a place of learning. It's about time for a third attempt to close this "center," and if three times really is the charm, it won't survive this attempt.
"Seven people have been fired over electrical shocks given to two emotionally disturbed teenagers at the direction of what turned out to be a prank caller..."
As I read these words, a tiny lightbulb flickered on in the back of my mind. Haven't we all heard this somewhere before? It seems like a bad dream, or a satirical story written to ruffle feathers and stir up a few laughs at the idea that we, here in America, at the close of the year 2007, would use electric shock as a punishment. But I'm sure I've heard this before.
"The teens were awakened in the middle of the night and given the shock treatments, at times while their legs and arms were bound. One teen received 77 shocks and the other received 29. One boy was treated for two first-degree burns."
It came to me. This nightmare was played out by actors and unwitting participants in the Milgram Experiment:
"The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner."
As most anyone who's taken a psychology class or even cracked a psych text knows, 65% of participants in Milgram's originally study inflicted three 450 volt shocks on the learner, which completed the 'test,' and no subject attempted to leave or decline to administer shocks at a level below 300 volts. The study, designed to determine whether or not Eichmann and the millions who participated in the Holocaust were just following orders, rather than acting on an inner sadism, shocked the world and was repeated on different continents, with different age groups, and at different times. The results were remarkably consistent.
Back to the group home:
"The center is believed to be the only school in the United States that uses two-second skin-shock punishments to change destructive behavior. The center says the treatments are used in a minority of cases and only with parental, medical, psychiatric and court approval.
The center has survived two attempts by the state to close it over allegations that its unorthodox methods amount to abuse."
School? Center? Call it what it is- a prison, an institution, a horror movie set. A school is a place of learning. A facility that shocks a teenager 77 times for misbehavior alleged by an authority figure whose identity was not verified by the "trained" staff members is not a place of learning. It's about time for a third attempt to close this "center," and if three times really is the charm, it won't survive this attempt.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
'Hostage' Ads Pulled
Okay, so I guess I really should make a post about this. The ransom notes ad campaign has been pulled.
http://thegimpparade.blogspot.com/2007/12/ransom-notes-ad-campaign-ends.html
http://crip-power.com/2007/12/20/victory/
As most people who follow psychiatric disability advocacy were aware, the NYU Child Study Center recently launched an ad campaign depicting children with psychiatric disorders (Autism-spectrum disorders were labeled psychiatric disorders for the purposes of this campaign) as hostages of their disorders. The advertisements depicted ransom notes sent by supposed kidnappers, including Autism, Bulimia, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=23
The Autism ransom note reads, "We have your son. We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning…Autism."
For obvious reasons- let's start with the many, many autistic adults who lead independent, productive lives and interact socially- the ad campaign quickly came under fire from people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities of all sorts. Parents demanded an end to the campaign, signing a petition which made the point that, "Individuals with disabilities are not replacements for normal children that are stolen away by the disability in question."
The blogstorm, petition, and many letters, emails, and phone calls to the NYU Child Study Center made the desired impact. The advertising campaign has ended, and an almost-apology that falls short of admitting that the ads were offensive is posted on the same website that announced the launch of the ransom notes campaign.
http://www.aboutourkids.org/about_us/public_awareness
In part, the announcement reads, "We hope you will partner with us to bring the issues surrounding child and adolescent mental health to the top of America's agenda. Work with us as we fight to give children and their families equal access to health insurance, remove the stigma that the term "psychiatric disorder" so clearly still elicits, and, most importantly, support the drive to make research and science-based treatment a national priority."
Congratulations to those who participated in the drive to remove the ransom note ads, and please write to the NYU Child Study Center to thank them for taking a step forward by listening to the people who are experiencing, firsthand and as parents, friends, and relatives, the psychiatric conditions depicted as hostage-takers in their campaign. Please also ask them to take steps toward recognizing people with psychiatric disabilities as individuals, rather than as patients and test subjects.
http://thegimpparade.blogspot.com/2007/12/ransom-notes-ad-campaign-ends.html
http://crip-power.com/2007/12/20/victory/
As most people who follow psychiatric disability advocacy were aware, the NYU Child Study Center recently launched an ad campaign depicting children with psychiatric disorders (Autism-spectrum disorders were labeled psychiatric disorders for the purposes of this campaign) as hostages of their disorders. The advertisements depicted ransom notes sent by supposed kidnappers, including Autism, Bulimia, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=23
The Autism ransom note reads, "We have your son. We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning…Autism."
For obvious reasons- let's start with the many, many autistic adults who lead independent, productive lives and interact socially- the ad campaign quickly came under fire from people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities of all sorts. Parents demanded an end to the campaign, signing a petition which made the point that, "Individuals with disabilities are not replacements for normal children that are stolen away by the disability in question."
The blogstorm, petition, and many letters, emails, and phone calls to the NYU Child Study Center made the desired impact. The advertising campaign has ended, and an almost-apology that falls short of admitting that the ads were offensive is posted on the same website that announced the launch of the ransom notes campaign.
http://www.aboutourkids.org/about_us/public_awareness
In part, the announcement reads, "We hope you will partner with us to bring the issues surrounding child and adolescent mental health to the top of America's agenda. Work with us as we fight to give children and their families equal access to health insurance, remove the stigma that the term "psychiatric disorder" so clearly still elicits, and, most importantly, support the drive to make research and science-based treatment a national priority."
Remove the stigma? Excellent idea. Let's start by removing the idea that children with psychiatric disabilities are 'imprisoned' by their disorders, and next let's get rid of that drive to make research and science based treatment a national priority; at least, until ending discrimation against children, teens, and adults with psychiatric disabilities is a national priority. Continually researching cures for disorders does nothing to remove the stigma that says to classmates of a child with a psychiatric disability, "This child is different, is sick, is defective, is unsuitable to be your friend."
Congratulations to those who participated in the drive to remove the ransom note ads, and please write to the NYU Child Study Center to thank them for taking a step forward by listening to the people who are experiencing, firsthand and as parents, friends, and relatives, the psychiatric conditions depicted as hostage-takers in their campaign. Please also ask them to take steps toward recognizing people with psychiatric disabilities as individuals, rather than as patients and test subjects.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Clothing Peeves
My first two posts were both about disability and politics, so I figure it's time for something substantially lighter. My top five pet peeves about clothing follow.
5. Fake back pockets. Fake pockets in general. Pockets that are not real. I am wearing pants right now that I THOUGHT had handy back pockets, into which I could insert a cell phone, a small notebook, or some change. After purchasing said pants and attempting to insert hands into said pockets so as to appear casual or contemplative, I discovered that they were, in fact, no more than a sewn-on button and flap, sans attached pockets. This displeases me. If the designer is going to put the effort in to design some nice, buttoned flaps for pockets, why not use the extra four square inches of fabric, and add a pocket where there appears to be a pocket?
4. The rule of inversely proportionate fabric cost per square inch. Items made of so little material that I could scrounge in the scraps basket by my sewing machine and come up with more fabric in a single handful, invariably cost more than blouses or other garments made with a half-yard or more of fabric. This applies to bikinis, brassieres, and especially to lacy underthings. Is buttfloss really so difficult to make? Are labor costs higher for panties than blouses? Are the designers more talented and higher-paid than those who designed my trousers? Or do they just know that some women will pay whatever they charge for a teeny tiny satin thong, as long as the advertising assures said women that this undergarment will singlehandedly remove their wrinkles, lift anything that sags, and make a tall, dark, and handsome stranger appear from nowhere to ask how their day was.
3. Butt Deficiency Sizing. A girl with a figure can't find pants to fit without trying on every pair in the store or buying the $400 designer jeans anymore. They either stick out behind the waist like an open invitation to insert a flagpole or just won't fit over the hips without Herculean squeezing and yanking efforts. Apparently, modern designers are convinced that one or more of the following are true:
a. Modern women spend their lives trying to approximate the shape of walking stick insects.
b. Curves died with Marilyn Monroe.
c. Any woman with an ample rear possesses a substantially ampler tummy.
2. Dry Clean Only. This phrase is the bane of any clothes shopping experience which I dare to undertake, despite my marked distaste for the trying on and purchasing of garments. I do not wish to own any clothes which I must pay to have seared clean with chemicals that damage the environment and force me to make a second trip to pick them up. Please stop making them the only clothes that I like and which fit properly. You are killing my soul.
1. Buckles, belts, sewn-on cloth flowers, excessive sequins, and other tacky embellishments. Invariably, as soon as, after spending an hour grumbling about how impossible it is to just find a simple, business casual blouse, I see a promising item sticking out of a rack. I pull it out, everything looks great, but wait- there is a HUGE SATIN FLOWER sewn on the front like a parasitic corsage! Gah!
5. Fake back pockets. Fake pockets in general. Pockets that are not real. I am wearing pants right now that I THOUGHT had handy back pockets, into which I could insert a cell phone, a small notebook, or some change. After purchasing said pants and attempting to insert hands into said pockets so as to appear casual or contemplative, I discovered that they were, in fact, no more than a sewn-on button and flap, sans attached pockets. This displeases me. If the designer is going to put the effort in to design some nice, buttoned flaps for pockets, why not use the extra four square inches of fabric, and add a pocket where there appears to be a pocket?
4. The rule of inversely proportionate fabric cost per square inch. Items made of so little material that I could scrounge in the scraps basket by my sewing machine and come up with more fabric in a single handful, invariably cost more than blouses or other garments made with a half-yard or more of fabric. This applies to bikinis, brassieres, and especially to lacy underthings. Is buttfloss really so difficult to make? Are labor costs higher for panties than blouses? Are the designers more talented and higher-paid than those who designed my trousers? Or do they just know that some women will pay whatever they charge for a teeny tiny satin thong, as long as the advertising assures said women that this undergarment will singlehandedly remove their wrinkles, lift anything that sags, and make a tall, dark, and handsome stranger appear from nowhere to ask how their day was.
3. Butt Deficiency Sizing. A girl with a figure can't find pants to fit without trying on every pair in the store or buying the $400 designer jeans anymore. They either stick out behind the waist like an open invitation to insert a flagpole or just won't fit over the hips without Herculean squeezing and yanking efforts. Apparently, modern designers are convinced that one or more of the following are true:
a. Modern women spend their lives trying to approximate the shape of walking stick insects.
b. Curves died with Marilyn Monroe.
c. Any woman with an ample rear possesses a substantially ampler tummy.
2. Dry Clean Only. This phrase is the bane of any clothes shopping experience which I dare to undertake, despite my marked distaste for the trying on and purchasing of garments. I do not wish to own any clothes which I must pay to have seared clean with chemicals that damage the environment and force me to make a second trip to pick them up. Please stop making them the only clothes that I like and which fit properly. You are killing my soul.
1. Buckles, belts, sewn-on cloth flowers, excessive sequins, and other tacky embellishments. Invariably, as soon as, after spending an hour grumbling about how impossible it is to just find a simple, business casual blouse, I see a promising item sticking out of a rack. I pull it out, everything looks great, but wait- there is a HUGE SATIN FLOWER sewn on the front like a parasitic corsage! Gah!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Heroic Kiddo with LD Shot Saving Mother
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301908/
"As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, 'Don't hurt my mother!'"
"Alexis is learning-disabled and lags behind other youngsters her age. As a result, police say it may never be known whether Alexis meant to shield her mother from the bullets with her body. But Parker said that if her daughter hadn't put herself in between, 'I really don't know. We might have been dead.'"
"In addition to losing her right eye, Alexis was shot in the chin and jaw. Several days after the shooting, the little girl, her face horribly swollen and wrapped in bandages, stirred and squeezed her mother's hand."
What a brave little girl. I know that sounds trite, what with a new hero every week, but seriously, seven years old and saved her mother's life? You hear fairly regularly about people who risk their lives for their kids, but rarely is it the other way around- I can count on one hand the number of times I've read about a child saving the parent. This girl is a hero, and I hope that she is recognized with whatever medals and awards are available. I also feel sorry for her mother, who, if she is a decent human being and parent in any way, shape, or form, is certainly wishing with all her heart that she could take her daughter's pain away and bear it for her.
However, why exactly is it that it 'may never be known' if Alexis saved her mother intentionally? Because she had a stroke as an infant and is in a special education classroom, her heroism is somehow lessened?
The child screamed, "Don't hurt my mother," and shielded her mother's body with her own. She took not just a bullet, but multiple bullets for her mother. But because she has a learning disability, this fact is less clear than if she were a 'normal' child?
No seven year old, genius, special needs, both, or in between, is capable of thinking through the consequences of taking a bullet or several for his or her mother. But, clearly, this particular seven year old was capable of knowing her mother was in danger, and that she wanted to protect her. She was capable of articulating this verbally and capable of physically throwing herself across her mother to shield her.
The police should retract this disabilist statement, apologize, and honor this little heroine with the medal she deserves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis's school just told me that there has been a fund set up to assist her family with medical expenses:
Alexis Goggins Hero Fund
c/o Comerica BankCampbell Elementary School
2301 E. Alexandrine Street
Detroit, MI, 48207-1463
"As the gunman was about to open fire, 7-year-old Alexis Goggins lunged from the back seat of the SUV and threw herself across her mom, crying, 'Don't hurt my mother!'"
"Alexis is learning-disabled and lags behind other youngsters her age. As a result, police say it may never be known whether Alexis meant to shield her mother from the bullets with her body. But Parker said that if her daughter hadn't put herself in between, 'I really don't know. We might have been dead.'"
"In addition to losing her right eye, Alexis was shot in the chin and jaw. Several days after the shooting, the little girl, her face horribly swollen and wrapped in bandages, stirred and squeezed her mother's hand."
What a brave little girl. I know that sounds trite, what with a new hero every week, but seriously, seven years old and saved her mother's life? You hear fairly regularly about people who risk their lives for their kids, but rarely is it the other way around- I can count on one hand the number of times I've read about a child saving the parent. This girl is a hero, and I hope that she is recognized with whatever medals and awards are available. I also feel sorry for her mother, who, if she is a decent human being and parent in any way, shape, or form, is certainly wishing with all her heart that she could take her daughter's pain away and bear it for her.
However, why exactly is it that it 'may never be known' if Alexis saved her mother intentionally? Because she had a stroke as an infant and is in a special education classroom, her heroism is somehow lessened?
The child screamed, "Don't hurt my mother," and shielded her mother's body with her own. She took not just a bullet, but multiple bullets for her mother. But because she has a learning disability, this fact is less clear than if she were a 'normal' child?
No seven year old, genius, special needs, both, or in between, is capable of thinking through the consequences of taking a bullet or several for his or her mother. But, clearly, this particular seven year old was capable of knowing her mother was in danger, and that she wanted to protect her. She was capable of articulating this verbally and capable of physically throwing herself across her mother to shield her.
The police should retract this disabilist statement, apologize, and honor this little heroine with the medal she deserves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis's school just told me that there has been a fund set up to assist her family with medical expenses:
Alexis Goggins Hero Fund
c/o Comerica BankCampbell Elementary School
2301 E. Alexandrine Street
Detroit, MI, 48207-1463
Monday, December 17, 2007
Aborting Severely Handicapped Fetuses in Britain
Some news from across the pond:
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/07/12/11/121107ukbioethics.htm
"The country's Abortion Act of 1990 allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any time if two doctors agree there is a "substantial risk" of the baby being born with a 'serious handicap'.
What is considered a "serious handicap", however, is left up to the doctors to decide."
"For instance, pregnancy records released in October showed that a total of 156 babies with Down syndrome were born between 2002 and 2005 in the southwest portion of England. During the same period, doctors performed 194 abortions based on Down syndrome diagnoses in the same area.... Statistics released from that Anomaly Register for the Southwest also showed that 54 fetuses diagnosed with club feet, 26 with 'extra' or 'webbed' fingers or toes, and 37 with cleft lip or palate, were aborted during the same time period."
So, it's true, is it? Discrimination begins in the womb for children with disabilities. I'm not exactly surprised. I remember vividly when, as a young teen, I 'babysat,' a term that seems insulting when I look back on it, a woman older than myself who had cognitive and developmental disabilities. She communicated with some sign language and occasionally verbally, but required significant care. I was exhausted after only a few hours of keeping track of her- highly mobile, she ran faster than I did, and I found the fact that she wore adult diapers disturbing. What fourteen year old really wants to be told that she may have to change the diaper of a twenty-something? I wondered how her parents managed, and discussed the issue with my mother.
She responded, "I don't know."
I pressed further: "But Mom, what if I had been born with disabilities like that?"
My mother replied, "Then I hope I would have found out before you were born and in time to have an abortion."
I was shocked. I'd been expecting a motherly response, assurances that she would love me just as much, that she would have learned to cope; pretty much the polar opposite of the response I got.
Reading this article brought back the memories of my reaction to hearing those honest words from my mother. Can anyone decide, by the time a fetus is old enough to know if it will be born with a disability, if it is better off not being born at all?
"In November of 2006, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that the deliberate killing of babies with disabilities should be considered as a treatment option. The RCOG suggested in a Sunday Times of London article that 'active euthanasia' should be considered for the overall good of families, and to keep parents from the emotional and economic hardship of raising a child with disabilities."
As opposed to euthanasia after birth, I suppose abortion would be preferable; especially for the unfortunate medical professionals tasked with performing the hypothetical euthanasia. What would it do to a person to actually, physically kill a post-birth infant? Probably about the same thing it does to people to kill puppies when animal shelters are overcrowded- "Shelter worker burnout," it's called, and it's the reason both for high turnover in animal shelters and for frequent incidences of neglect in shelters. Are we really heading toward a world where hospital employees have to worry about "dead baby burnout?"
It's easy to react viscerally to these images, but when I think on it over and over again, I come to the same conclusion. There are only two ways to resolve this debate without endorsing discrimination on the basis of disability from the moment of conception onward. The first is to prohibit all abortions after a certain point- perhaps the point at which the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical assistance. The second is to allow abortion at any time during pregnancy, and to leave the decision to the pregnant woman, while ensuring that resources supporting adoption and other options are readily available.
Making exceptions to abortion law on the basis of disabilities suggests to women pregnant with a disabled child that perhaps it doesn't deserve to live. It discourages them from seeking out the perspectives of women raising children with severe disabilities and hearing the voices that say, "Yes, you can, I did!" The statistics kept on abortions due to disability encourage the 'everybody's doing it' mentality, and turn the choice to abort or not abort when a fetus is diagnosed with a disability into a poll or popularity contest, rather than the intimately personal and heart-wrenching decision it is for every individual faced with that pre-natal diagnosis.
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/07/12/11/121107ukbioethics.htm
"The country's Abortion Act of 1990 allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any time if two doctors agree there is a "substantial risk" of the baby being born with a 'serious handicap'.
What is considered a "serious handicap", however, is left up to the doctors to decide."
"For instance, pregnancy records released in October showed that a total of 156 babies with Down syndrome were born between 2002 and 2005 in the southwest portion of England. During the same period, doctors performed 194 abortions based on Down syndrome diagnoses in the same area.... Statistics released from that Anomaly Register for the Southwest also showed that 54 fetuses diagnosed with club feet, 26 with 'extra' or 'webbed' fingers or toes, and 37 with cleft lip or palate, were aborted during the same time period."
So, it's true, is it? Discrimination begins in the womb for children with disabilities. I'm not exactly surprised. I remember vividly when, as a young teen, I 'babysat,' a term that seems insulting when I look back on it, a woman older than myself who had cognitive and developmental disabilities. She communicated with some sign language and occasionally verbally, but required significant care. I was exhausted after only a few hours of keeping track of her- highly mobile, she ran faster than I did, and I found the fact that she wore adult diapers disturbing. What fourteen year old really wants to be told that she may have to change the diaper of a twenty-something? I wondered how her parents managed, and discussed the issue with my mother.
She responded, "I don't know."
I pressed further: "But Mom, what if I had been born with disabilities like that?"
My mother replied, "Then I hope I would have found out before you were born and in time to have an abortion."
I was shocked. I'd been expecting a motherly response, assurances that she would love me just as much, that she would have learned to cope; pretty much the polar opposite of the response I got.
Reading this article brought back the memories of my reaction to hearing those honest words from my mother. Can anyone decide, by the time a fetus is old enough to know if it will be born with a disability, if it is better off not being born at all?
"In November of 2006, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that the deliberate killing of babies with disabilities should be considered as a treatment option. The RCOG suggested in a Sunday Times of London article that 'active euthanasia' should be considered for the overall good of families, and to keep parents from the emotional and economic hardship of raising a child with disabilities."
As opposed to euthanasia after birth, I suppose abortion would be preferable; especially for the unfortunate medical professionals tasked with performing the hypothetical euthanasia. What would it do to a person to actually, physically kill a post-birth infant? Probably about the same thing it does to people to kill puppies when animal shelters are overcrowded- "Shelter worker burnout," it's called, and it's the reason both for high turnover in animal shelters and for frequent incidences of neglect in shelters. Are we really heading toward a world where hospital employees have to worry about "dead baby burnout?"
It's easy to react viscerally to these images, but when I think on it over and over again, I come to the same conclusion. There are only two ways to resolve this debate without endorsing discrimination on the basis of disability from the moment of conception onward. The first is to prohibit all abortions after a certain point- perhaps the point at which the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical assistance. The second is to allow abortion at any time during pregnancy, and to leave the decision to the pregnant woman, while ensuring that resources supporting adoption and other options are readily available.
Making exceptions to abortion law on the basis of disabilities suggests to women pregnant with a disabled child that perhaps it doesn't deserve to live. It discourages them from seeking out the perspectives of women raising children with severe disabilities and hearing the voices that say, "Yes, you can, I did!" The statistics kept on abortions due to disability encourage the 'everybody's doing it' mentality, and turn the choice to abort or not abort when a fetus is diagnosed with a disability into a poll or popularity contest, rather than the intimately personal and heart-wrenching decision it is for every individual faced with that pre-natal diagnosis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
