The next exclusion debate: Assessing technology, ethics, and intellectual disability after the human genome project

Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 121-128

  Munger, Kelly M ^a   Gill, Carol J ^a   Ormond, Kelly E ^b   Kirschner, Kristi L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; Disability policy; Ethics; Genetic technology; Human genome project; Prenatal testing

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DISABILITY; DOWN SYNDROME; ETHICIST; ETHICS; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC DISORDER; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INTELLECTUAL IMPAIRMENT; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL GENETICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; POLICY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL STRUCTURE; TECHNOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ETHICS, PROFESSIONAL; FEMALE; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; HUMANS; MENTAL RETARDATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 34447622863     PISSN: 10804013     EISSN: 10982779     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.20146     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Asch A. 2000. Why I haven't changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: reflections and refinements. In Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. p 234-259.
2. Asch A. 2003. Disability equality and prenatal testing: Contradictory or compatible? Symposium: genes and disability-defining health and the goals of medicine. Florida State Univ Law Rev 30:315-342.
3. Battaglia A, Carey JC. 2003. Diagnosing evaluation of developmental delay/mental retardation: An overview. Am J Med Genet C 117:3-14.
4. Beach Center on Disability. 2006. Interview: the human genome project and the disability community: what are the concerns? beach center quarterly newsletter. [Online]. Available at: http://www.beachcenter.org/News/default. aspact=detail&intResourceID=1816 &story=true Accessed June 30.
5. Behr SK, Murphy DL. 1993. Research progress and promise: the role of perceptions in cognitive adaptation to disability. In Turnbull AP, Patterson JM, Behr SK, editors. Cognitive coping, families, and disability. Baltimore: Brookes.
6. Bérubé M. 1996. Life as we know it: a father, a family, and an exceptional child. New York: Vintage.
7. Braddock DL, Parish SL. 2001. An institutional history of disability. In Albrecht, GL, Seelman KD, Bury M, editors. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. p 1-68.
8. Brantlinger EA. 1995. Sterilization of people with mental disabilities: issues, perspectives, and cases. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
9. Carlson L. 2001. Cognitive ableism and disability studies: feminist reflections on the history of mental retardation. Hypatia 16:124-146.
10. Carmichael B. 2003. The Human Genome Project-threat or promise? J Intell Disabil Res 47:505-508.
11. Caruso TM, Westgate MN, Holmes, LB. 1998. Impact of prenatal screening on the birth status of fetuses with Down syndrome at an urban hospital, 1972-1994. Genet Med 1: 22-28.
12. Chase A. 1980. The legacy of malthus. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13. Chen EA, Schiffman JF. 2000. Attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities. J Genet Couns 9:137-152.
14. Clapton J. 2003. Tragedy and catastrophe: contentious discourses of ethics and disability. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:540-547.
15. Davis, S. 1997. The human genome project: examining the arc's concerns regarding the project's ethical, legal, and social implications. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/resource/arc. shtm. Accessed June 30, 2006.
16. Dormandy E, Marteau, TM. 2004. Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the test. Prenat Diagn 24:864-868.
17. Elks MA. 2004. Believing is seeing: visual conventions in Barr's classification of the "feeble-minded". Ment Retard 42:371-382.
18. Finucane B, Haas-Givler B, Simon, EW. 2003. Genetics, mental retardation, and the forging of new alliances. Am J Med Genet C 117:66-72.
19. Genetests. [Online]. Available at:http://wwwgenetests.com. Accessed Dec 19, 2006.
20. Gonter C. 2004. The expressivist argument, prenatal diagnosis, and selective abortion: An appeal to the social construction of disability. Macalester J Philos 13.
21. Grobman WA, Dooley SL, Welshman EE, et al. 2002. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff? Prenat Diagn 13:1195-2000.
22. Hall S, Abramsky L, Marteau TM. 2003. Health professionals' reports of information given to parents following the prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome anomalies and outcomes of pregnancies: a pilot study. Prenat Diagn 23: 535-538.
23. Harris J. 1993. Is gene therapy a form of eugenics? Bioethics 7:178-187.
24. Health and Environmental Research Committee. 1987. Report on the Human Genome Initiative for the Office of Health and Environmental Research [Online]. Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/herac2. shtml. Accessed May 19, 2006.
25. Hillyer B. 1993. Feminism and disability. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
26. Holland A, Clare ICH. 2003. The Human Genome Project: considerations for people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:515-525.
27. Jaques AM, Sheffield LJ, Halliday JL. 2005. Informed choice in women attending private clinics to undergo first-trimester screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 25: 656-664.
28. Jennings B. 2000.Technology and the genetic imaginary: prenatal testing and the construction of disability. In Parens E, Asch A, editors. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. p 124-136.
29. Kelley SDM, Lambert SS. 1992. Family support in rehabilitation: a review of research, 1980-1990. Rehabil Couns Bull 25:98-119.
30. Kevles D. 1985. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Knopf.
31. Kuppermann M, Nease RF Jr., Gates E, et al. 2004. How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes? Prenat Diagn 24:424-429.
32. Lawson K. 2001. Contemplating selective reproduction: the subjective appraisal of parenting a child with a disability. J Reprod Infant Psychol 19:73-82.
33. Lombardo PA. 2003. Facing Carrie Buck. Hastings Center Report 33:14-17.
34. Macer D. 1991. Whose genome project? Bioethics 5:183-211.
35. Marteau TM, Nippert I, Hall S, et al. 2002. Outcomes of pregnancies diagnosed with Klinefelter syndrome: the possible influence of health professionals. Prenat Diagn 22:562-566.
36. Michie S, Marteau TM. 1996. Genetic counseling: some issues of theory and practice. In Marteau T, Richards, M. editors. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the New Human Genetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Milberg A. 2000. Letter to a baby that was thrown from a bridge. Mouth Mag 57.
38. Morris, J. 1992. Disabled lives - tyrannies of perfection. New Internationalist, 233, July. [Online]. Available at: http://www.newint.org/ issue233/tyrannies.htm. Accessed June 30, 2006.
39. Moser HW. 1995. A role for gene therapy in mental retardation. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 1:4-6.
40. Nelson JL. 2000. Prenatal diagnosis, personal identity, and disability. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 10:213-228.
41. Ormond K, Ross L. 2006. Ethical issues related to prenatal genetic diagnosis. In Feetham SL, Miller SM, McDamel SH, Rolland JS, editors. Individuals, families and the new genetics (in press).
42. Parens E, Asch A, editors. 2000. Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
43. Raymond FL. 2003. Genetic services for people with disabilities and their families. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:509-514.
44. Reinders HS. 2003. Introduction to intellectual disability, genetics and ethics. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:501-504.
45. Reist, MT. 2006. Defiant birth: women who resist medical eugenics. North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.
46. Saxton M. 1997. Feminist bio-ethics and disability. [Online]. Available at: http://www.rehab international.org/publications/Leadership_Women/ SAXTONMarsha.html. Accessed March 13, 2006.
47. Scorgie K, Sobsey D. 2000. Transformational outcomes associated with parenting children who have disabilities. Ment Retard 38: 195-206.
48. Shakespeare T. 1998. Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disabil Soc 13:665-681.
49. Shiloh S, Gerad L. Goldman, B. 2006. Patients' information needs and decision-making processes: what can be learned from genetic counselees? Health Psychol 25:211-219.
50. Skotko B. 2005. Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:670-677.
51. Stainton T, Besser H. 1998. The positive impact of children with an intellectual disability on the family. J Intellect Dev Disabil 23:57-70.
52. The Arc. Genetic issues in mental retardation. a report on the arc's human genome education project. [Online]. Available at: http://thearc.org/pdf/ gbr01.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2006.
53. Trent JW. 1994. Inventing the feeble mind: a history of mental retardation in the united states. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
54. Villar A, Epstein CJ. 2005. Animal models of Down syndrome and other genetic diseases associated with mental retardation. In Butler MG, Meaney FJ, editors. Genetics of developmental disabilities. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. p 163-222.
55. Weil E. March 12, 2006. A wrongful birth? New York Times. p 48-53.
56. Wendell S. 1996. The rejected body: feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.
57. Wilson JC. 2002. Rewriting the genetic bodytext: disability, textuality, and the human genome project. Cultur Critique 50: 22-39.
58. Zindler L. 2005. Ethical decision making in first trimester pregnancy screening. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 19:122-131.
59. Zuckoff M. 2002. Choosing naia: a family's journey. Boston, MA: Beacon.