No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Normalizing Disability in Families
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
In “Selection against Disability: Abortion, ART, and Access,” Alicia Ouellette probes a particularly vexing point of intersection between ART and abortion: how negative assumptions about the capacities of disabled persons and the value of life with disability infect both prospective parents’ prenatal decisions about what pregnancies to pursue and fertility doctors’ decisions about providing services to disabled adults. This commentary first briefly describes what I view as Ouellette’s key points and her article’s most valuable contributions. It then suggests further expanding the frame of reference for Ouellette’s discussion. Viewing decisions about who can reproduce and what children will be born as fundamentally decisions about family suggests ways of drawing on intersectional approaches and growing public acceptance of nontraditional families to promote acceptance of people with disabilities as valued family members — without limiting reproductive liberties.
- Type
- Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015
References
Ouellette, A., “Selection against Disability: Abortion, ART, and Access,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurkiewicz, I. et al., “Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing – Is the Quest to Know a Fetus's Future Ethical?” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 3 (2014): 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nearly a decade ago I suggested that these practices illustrate ways that ART implicates equality concerns. Crossley, M., “Dimensions of Equality in Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies,” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice 9, no. 2 (2005): 273–289. Ouellette goes further by identifying how laws prohibiting sex-based selection connect the two practices.Google Scholar
See Ouellette, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Fordham, B., “Disability and Designer Babies,” Valparaiso University Law Review 45, no. 4 (2011): 1473–1528.Google Scholar
See Ouellette, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Czapanskiy, K., “Chalimony: Seeking Equity Between Parents of Children with Disabling Conditions and Chronic Illnesses,” N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Social Change 34, no. 2 (2010): 253–298.Google Scholar
See Ouellette, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Wessler, S., “Should a Mental Illness Mean You Lose Your Kid?” ProPublica, available at <http://www.propublica.org/article/should-a-mental-illness-mean-you-lose-your-kid> (last visited April 12, 2015).+(last+visited+April+12,+2015).>Google Scholar
S.B.1810, Pub. L. 110–374 (2008).Google Scholar
Leach, M., “Delaware and Maryland Join Massachusetts and Kentucky in Enacting Laws to Provide Information with a Down Syndrome Test Result,” available at <http://www.downsyndromeprenataltesting.com/delaware-and-maryland-join-massachusetts-and-kentucky-in-enacting-laws-to-provide-information-with-a-down-syndrome-test-result/> (last visited April 12, 2015).+(last+visited+April+12,+2015).>Google Scholar
Asch, A. Wasserman, D., “Informed Consent and Prenatal Testing: The Kennedy-Brownback Act,” AMA Journal of Ethics 11, no. 9 (2009): 721–724.Google Scholar
Id., at 723.Google Scholar
Emens, E., “Framing Disability,” University of Illinois Law Review 2012, no. 5 (2012): 1383–1441.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. Jesudason, S., “Movement Intersectionality: The Case of Race, Gender, Disability, and Genetic Technologies,” Du Bois Review 10, no. 2 (2013): 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 318.Google Scholar
Id. (describing the work of the organization Generations Ahead).Google Scholar