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.)