Disability advocacy and reproductive choice: Engaging with the expressivist objection

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 13-16

  Peterson, Madelyn ^a,b  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Specialised Obstetric and Gynaecological Imaging   (Australia)

Author keywords

Advocacy; Disability rights; Ethics; Reproductive choice

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONGENITAL DISORDER; DISABLED PERSON; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHILOSOPHY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOECONOMICS; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHILOSOPHY, MEDICAL; POSTMODERNISM; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL VALUES; VALUE OF LIFE; WOMEN'S RIGHTS;

EID: 84862269505     PISSN: 10597700     EISSN: 15733599     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-011-9412-7     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Asch, A. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1649-1657. (Pubitemid 29508210)
2. Biesecker, B., & Hambi, L. (2000). What difference the disability community arguments should make for the delivery of prenatal genetic information. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 341-357). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
3. Clapton, J. (2003). Tragedy and catastrophe: contentious discourses of ethics and disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(7), 540-547. (Pubitemid 37236147)
4. Edwards, S. (2004). Disability, identity and the "expressivist objection". Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 418-420.
5. Gottlieb, R. (2002). The tasks of embodied love: moral problems in caring for children with disabilities. Hypatia, 17(3), 225-237.
6. HGSA (2010). Accreditation of Masters in Genetic Counselling Programs Document 2010GL01. Last updated: January 2011 Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Retrieved 05 June 2011, from https://www.hgsa.org.au/website/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/2010GL01-Masters-Programs.pdf.
7. Holm, S. (2008). The expressivist objection to prenatal diagnosis: can it be laid to rest? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(1), 24-25.
8. Madeo, A., Biesecker, B., Brasington, C., Erby, L., & Peters, K. (2011). The relationship between the genetic counseling profession and the disability community: A commentary. Am J Med Genet Part A published online: 12 MAY 2011, doi:10.1002/ajmg. a.34054.
9. Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2003). Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 9, 40-47. (Pubitemid 36298307)
10. Patterson, A., & Satz, M. (2002). Genetic counseling and the disabled: feminism examines the stance of those who stand at the gate. Hypatia, 17(3), 118-143.
11. Peterson, M. (2008). Response. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(2-3), 223-224.
12. Raz, A. (2005). Disability rights, prenatal diagnosis and eugenics: a crosscultural view. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(3), 183-187. (Pubitemid 40909686)
13. Shakespeare, T. (1998). Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society, 13(5), 665-681. (Pubitemid 128541153)
14. Shakespeare, T. (2008). Debating disability. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(1), 11-14.
15. Turnbull, D. (2000). Genetic counselling: ethical mediation of eugenic futures? Futures, 32, 853-865.