When is the Promotion of Prenatal Testing for Selective Abortion Wrong?

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1353/ken.2020.0001
Javiera Perez Gomez
{"title":"When is the Promotion of Prenatal Testing for Selective Abortion Wrong?","authors":"Javiera Perez Gomez","doi":"10.1353/ken.2020.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medical professionals routinely offer prenatal genetic testing services to their expecting patients. Some bioethicists believe that when these professionals promote the use of such testing for abortion on grounds of disability, they express a devaluing message to and about extant disabled people. Supporters of this expressivist objection further maintain that, in expressing such a message, medical professionals reinforce negative attitudes about extant disabled people and thereby further stigmatize them. But while the expressivist objection has received quite a bit of support from disability rights theorists-in part because of its intuitive appeal-its current formulation suffers from various shortcomings that render it implausible. By invoking tools from the philosophy of language, I present the expressivist objection*: an improved and distinctive formulation of the expressivist objection that preserves some of its core insights. According to this improved formulation, the promotion of prenatal testing for selective abortion can at least sometimes be wrong.</p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ken.2020.0001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2020.0001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Medical professionals routinely offer prenatal genetic testing services to their expecting patients. Some bioethicists believe that when these professionals promote the use of such testing for abortion on grounds of disability, they express a devaluing message to and about extant disabled people. Supporters of this expressivist objection further maintain that, in expressing such a message, medical professionals reinforce negative attitudes about extant disabled people and thereby further stigmatize them. But while the expressivist objection has received quite a bit of support from disability rights theorists-in part because of its intuitive appeal-its current formulation suffers from various shortcomings that render it implausible. By invoking tools from the philosophy of language, I present the expressivist objection*: an improved and distinctive formulation of the expressivist objection that preserves some of its core insights. According to this improved formulation, the promotion of prenatal testing for selective abortion can at least sometimes be wrong.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
什么时候提倡选择性堕胎的产前检查是错误的?
医学专业人员通常会为他们的孕妇提供产前基因检测服务。一些生物伦理学家认为,当这些专业人士以残疾为由提倡使用这种检测进行堕胎时,他们向现存的残疾人表达了一种贬低的信息。这一表达主义反对意见的支持者进一步认为,医疗专业人员在表达这一信息时,强化了对现有残疾人的负面态度,从而进一步侮辱了他们。但是,尽管表现主义的反对意见得到了残疾人权利理论家的相当多的支持——部分原因是其直观的吸引力——但其目前的表述存在各种缺陷,使其难以置信。通过调用语言哲学的工具,我提出了表现主义的反对*:一种改进的、独特的表达主义反对的表述,保留了它的一些核心见解。根据这种改进的配方,促进选择性堕胎的产前检查至少有时是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
期刊最新文献
Contributors Editor's Note Data Solidarity Disrupted: Musings On the Overlooked Role of Mutual Aid in Data-Driven Medicine Allergic Intimacies: Food, Disability, Desire, and Risk by Michael Gill (review) Green Light Ethics: A Theory of Permissive Consent and its Moral Metaphysics by Hallie Liberto (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1