Brave World?
This morning’s article in the NY Times caught my eye: The Problem with an almost perfect genetic world.
I’ve always supported abortion. Don’t give me grief about it being sacrilegious, because in the first place, I’m not religious. And in the second, I firmly believe that if you’re not the mother who has to live with the consequences of having a disabled baby, you have no business interfering with her personal decision. Yada yada - shall not get into the whole argument here.
And as a collorary then, I’ve always believed that it is a good idea to take tests to see if your fetus is healthy, with no defects. Say, if the baby has down syndrome, then yes, abortion is a very likely action.
So reading that NY Times article was a bit of a shock. For once, the voices against abortion came not from the fundamental religious groups, or folks who love to argue over technical definitions of what a life is, but from the people with down syndrome themselves.
“We’re trying to make a place for ourselves in society at a time when science is trying to remove at least some of us,” said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities, who suffers from bipolar disorder. “For me, it’s very scary.”
The first thought that raced through my mind was: Hmm, yes, we are indeed denying these folks a chance to live. In itself, that was a valid argument, and one that made my bow my head a little in consternation. Yet, reading on, I found myself shaking my head in disgust at some of their reasonings:
Some bioethicists envision a dystopia where parents who choose to forgo genetic testing are shunned, or their children are denied insurance. Parents and people with disabilities fear they may simply be more lonely. And less money may be devoted to cures and education. … “If you can terminate pregnancies with a condition, who is going to put research dollars into it?” said Nancy Press, a professor of medical anthropology at Oregon Health and Science University.
Isn’t prevention better than cure?
1. So in order not to make those people who refuse genetic testing feel left out or discriminated against in terms of higher insurance bills, we should not condone testing?
2. So in order not to make them feel lonely, we should not condone testing? It’s like saying, I don’t want to feel left out, so come join me. I don’t want to be the only one with a broken arm, can you break your arm too?
3. I think the argument that if you terminate pregnancies with a condition, nobody is going to put research dollars into it, is the most specious of all. Again, I ask, isn’t prevention better than cure?
“Where do you draw the line?” said Mark A. Rothstein, director of the Bioethics Institute at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. “On the one hand we have to view this as a positive in terms of preventing disability and illness. But at what point are we engaging in eugenics and not accepting the normal diversity within a population?”
Valid question that. Yet, if I am to be a parent, diversity would not be my top concern if I find out my friend has down syndrome. The choice should be mine, and mine alone to make.
Aye, would discuss more, but my stomach’s giving me trouble again. Damn that clam chowder I had Friday.