NIH Scholar Suggests Abortions for Disabled Children



Washington, DC — Disability advocates and pro-life groups are up in arms

after a scholar from the National Institutes of Health said America would

benefit from aborting the blind and disabled.

In a speech earlier this month at the University of Rhode Island,

“biomedical ethicist” Dan W. Brock said his views are not discriminatory,

and he said any decision must be left to parents, without government

intervention.

Brock said that his beliefs are his own and do not represent those of the

National Institutes of Health or the federal government. He also said it is

not the first time he has faced criticism for his views.

The speech was meant, in part, to counter that criticism and offer a

defense for genetic testing, which Brock said is not like the eugenics

practiced by the Nazis. German dictator Adolf Hitler used eugenics, killing

disabled individuals and then Jews, with the goal of creating a perfect

society.

But two pro-life groups said Brock's theory could have a detrimental impact

on future generations.

“It's a hidden agenda that they want to rid our country of people who may

cause us to care for them and protect them and may even cost some money,” said Tom Lothamer, interim director of Baptists for Life. “If we have that

kind of a culture of death, then I believe our country is doomed. If we can

do away with the disabled, then who's next?”

Wendy Wright, spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, echoed those

sentiments. She said Brock's theories undermine the field of bioethics and

lead society down a dangerous path.

“It's particularly dangerous when you target people because of a

disability,” Wright said. “As we've seen throughout history, it's too easy

for people who don't have a moral compass to fall into that way of

thinking. Once people start down that slope, that inevitably expands to

other classes of people.”

Brock said this is not the first time he has been criticized by those in

the disability and pro-life communities. As for the argument that he is

promoting eugenics, “One thing doesn't always lead to every other thing,”

he said.

“One can distinguish between using this testing, either pre-conception or

post-conception, to prevent the birth of children with very serious

disabling diseases from any implications of how we should treat people who

are born and live with those diseases,” Brock said.

Other bioethics specialists have also challenged his views, including

Adrienne Asch, a professor at Wellesley College, who said Brock has failed

to understand how disabled individuals cope with their disabilities.

Brock, for instance, said blind individuals cannot enjoy the paintings at

an art gallery and people with cognitive disabilities are unable to perform

basic daily functions. For those reasons, he said, parents should give

genetic testing some thought.

“Even after we've made all the accommodations of justice and equality of

opportunity, there would still be some residual disadvantage from being

seriously cognitively disabled or being blind,” Brock said. “It's a

judgment not about the person; it's a judgment about the condition and a

judgment that it would be better if the children who are born don't have

that condition.”

Asch said blind individuals might not be able to see two-dimensional art,

but that does not mean they cannot appreciate other things in life.

“Not every human being can do everything,” Asch said, citing the

athleticism of a basketball player or the knowledge of a mathematician.

“Everybody has things they are able to experience and things they are not.”

For Penny Reeder, who is blind, Brock's theories are hurtful. She said if

genetic testing becomes prominent, parents would be faced with difficult

ethical decisions.

“How dare he say that he's not denigrating people with disabilities when

he's advocating aborting a pregnancy of a potential person with a

disability. It's just amazing to me,” said Reeder, who cited her job as a

magazine editor as evidence that blind people can succeed.

Lothamer said the issue also extends beyond bioethics into an area where

parents must decide if they should play the role of a higher being. But

Brock was quick to counter that assessment as well.

“Medicine is in the business of messing with nature and God's will,” he

said. “Medicine tries to intervene in what would otherwise happen by

natural processes or God's will. We normally think that if we can prevent

serious suffering, then artificial interventions are justified.”

Even Asch conceded that some parents would probably adopt Brock's way of

thinking, but said she hopes those parents also consider the positive

impact disabled individuals can have on society.

“I think people should get to make the decisions they want to make,” Asch

said. “I think they need to have better information about life with

disability before they make those decisions, but if they ultimately make

those decisions, then they make them.”

(This article courtesy of the Pro-Life Infonet email newsletter. For more information or to subscribe go to www.prolifeinfo.org or email infonet@prolifeinfo.org.)

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU