Genetic Preimplantation Selection before the Critic of the Docial Model of Disability
Keywords:disability, genetic selection, reproductive autonomy, social model of disability
This article analyzes the main reasons offered by the literature in relation to the question of whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and selection should be allowed in the context of assisted reproduction techniques to avoid the birth of children with disabilities. The bioethical literature faces a challenge from the disability discourse. When the oppressive social dimension of disability is taken into account, it results in a series of questions that could challenge the most settled conclusions of the bioethical debate. However, the social model has not been without criticism and one of them, the underestimation of the importance of biological traits origin against a disability of social origin, resonates particularly in the debate on preimplantation genetic selection.
Asch, A. (2019). 40. Disability Equality and Prenatal Testing Contradictory or Compatible? En O. K. Obasogie & M. Darnovsky (Eds.), Beyond Bioethics, pp. 361-375. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520961944-045
Barker, M. J., Wilson, R. A. (2019). Well-being, Disability, and Choosing Children. Mind, 128(510), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy039
Barnes, C., Mercer, G., Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Polity Press; 43b.
Barnes, E. (2016). The minority body: A theory of disability. Oxford University Press.
Bayefsky, M., & Jennings, B. (2015). Regulating Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in the United States. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137515445
Beauchamp, T. L., Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA.
Becerra, C. (2015). Selecting for disability. http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/encyclopedia/55542acc35ae9d9e7f000063
Birko, S., Lemoine, M-E., Nguyen, M.T., Ravitsky, V. (2018) Moving Towards Routine Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Challenges Related to Women’s Autonomy. OBM Genetics, 2(2): 018. https://doi.org/10.21926/obm.genet.1802018
Boardman, F. K. (2014). The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: The experiences of families living with genetic disease. Social science & medicine, 107, 18-25.
Boyle, R. J., Savulescu, J. (2001). Ethics of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person. Bmj, 323(7323), 1240-1243.
Buchanan, A. E. (Ed.). (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, S., Savulescu, J., Coady, C. A. J., Giubilini, A., Sanyal, S. (2016). The Ethics of Human Enhancement. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.001.0001
DeVidi, D., Klausen, C. (2017). No Mere Difference. Dialogue, 56(2), 357-379. https://doi.org/10/gf5n24
Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Harvard university press.
Elliston, S. (2012). The welfare of the child principle and the use of PGD: Selecting for disability. En Regulating Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (pp. 103-139). Routledge
El-Toukhy, T., & Braude, P. (2013). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in clinical practice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (2004). Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertility and Sterility, 82, S245
Garland-Thomson, R. (2012). The Case for Conserving Disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9(3), 339-355. https://doi.org/10/gf5n3c
Glover, J. (2006). Choosing children: Genes, disability, and design. OUP Oxford.
Goering, S. (2014). Eugenics. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/eugenics/
Gyngell, C., Douglas, T. (2018). Selecting Against Disability: The Liberal Eugenic Challenge and the Argument from Cognitive Diversity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(2), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12199
Habermas, J. (2014). The future of human nature. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, M. C. (2013). Reconciling the disability critique and reproductive liberty: The case of negative genetic selection. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 6(1), 121-143.
Hampton, S. J. (2005). Family eugenics. Disability & Society, 20(5), 553-561. https://doi.org/10/cb8q6k
Karnein, A. J. (2012). A theory of unborn life: From abortion to genetic manipulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, D. A. (2011). Medical Disparagement of the Disability Experience: Empirical Evidence for the “Expressivist Objection”. AJOB Primary Research, 2(2), 8-20. https://doi.org/10/c286mh
Krahn, T. M. (2011). Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis: The case of down’s syndrome. Medical Law Review, 19(2), 157-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwr009
Madeo, A. C., Biesecker, B. B., Brasington, C., Erby, L. H., Peters, K. F. (2011). The relationship between the genetic counseling profession and the disability community: A commentary. American journal of medical genetics Part A, 155(8), 1777-1785.
McGee, A. (2020). Using the therapy and enhancement distinction in law and policy. Bioethics, 34(1), 70-80. https://doi.org/10/gncz2t
McMahan, J. (2005). Causing Disabled People to Exist and Causing People to Be Disabled. Ethics, 116(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1086/454367
Nelson, J. L. (1998). The meaning of the act: Reflections on the expressive force of reproductive decision making and policies. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 8(2), 165-182.
Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2003). Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9(1), 40-47. https://doi.org/10/b5g256
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. OUP Oxford.
Robertson, J. A. (1994). Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton University Press.
Rubeis, G., Steger, F. (2019). A burden from birth? Non-invasive prenatal testing and the stigmatization of people with disabilities. Bioethics, 33(1), 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12518
Salas, S. P. (s. f.). Aspectos éticos, legales, y sociales del diagnóstico genértico pre-implantacional. En Bioética y Salud Pública en y para Ámerica Latina, p. 166. Santiago: FELAIBE.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). The case against perfection. Harvard University Press.
Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics, 15(5-6), 413-426. https://doi.org/10/fczfn2
Savulescu, J. (2007). In defence of Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 284-288. https://doi.org/10/dvz285
Savulescu, J., Bostrom, N. (2009). Human enhancement. OUP Oxford.
Savulescu, J., Dahl, E. (2000). Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis: A response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 1879-1880.
Scott, R. (2007). Choosing between possible lives: Law and ethics of prenatal and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Oxford: Hart.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). ‘Losing the plot’? Medical and activist discourses of contemporary genetics and disability. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(5), 669-688.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
Shakespeare, T. (2011). Choices, reasons and feelings: Prenatal diagnosis as disability dilemma. Alter, 5(1), 37-43. x. https://doi.org/10/ct8p5v
Sparrow, R. (2010). Better than men? Sex and the therapy/enhancement distinction. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20(2), 115-144. https://doi.org/10/csdpkw
Taylor-Sands, M. (2013). Saviour siblings: A relational approach to the welfare of the child in selective reproduction. London: Routledge.
Wilkinson, S. (2010). Choosing tomorrow’s children: The ethics of selective reproduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wolf, S. M., Kahn, J. P., Wagner, J. E. (2003). Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to create a stem cell donor: Issues, guidelines & limits. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31(3), 327-339.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Humanities Journal of Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).