I denne teksten blir følgende spørsmål tatt opp til drøfting: Er det å ta medisinsk teknologi i bruk for å selektere et døvt barn mer etisk problematisk enn det motsatte; å bruke teknologien for å sikre seg et hørende barn? På bakgrunn av fire premisser konkluderer jeg med at både seleksjon for døvhet og for hørsel er tilnærmet like etisk problematisk. De fire premissene er 1) at seleksjonskriteriet sykdom eller skade bør erstattes av autentisitetsbetraktninger, 2) at døve og hørende har (...) samme potensial for autentisk livsutfoldelse, selv om det ikke kan avvises at døvhet kjennetegnes ved manglende hørsel, 3) at seleksjon innebærer fravalg av liv som har autentisk potensialitet enten som døv eller hørende, og 4) at dette fravalget involverer en etisk kostnad. Konklusjonen har enkelte andre implikasjoner og en restproblematikk som belyses avslutningsvis. (shrink)

The world of disability theory is currently divided between those who insist it reflects a physical fact affecting life quality and those who believe disability is defined by social prejudice. Despite a dialogue spanning bioethical, medical and social scientific literatures the differences between opposing views remains persistent. The result is similar to a figure-ground paradox in which one can see only part of a picture at any moment. This paper attempts to find areas of commonality between the opposing camps, and (...) thus to rearrange the figures of the paradox at a fundamental level. The purpose is first to identify areas in which common ground can be achieved, and secondarily, to clarify the areas in which disagreement continues. While a general and unified theory of physical difference/disability is beyond the scope of this paper the result may advance that general goal. (shrink)

Recently, scholars have argued that disability activists' redefinition of disability' as a social problem, rather than a medical problem, is maleficent, unjust, and inconsistent. It seems that the discussion on whether disability is a medical or a social category is not settled and that disability is an essentially contested concept. However, the question is: What is the social aspect in disability? It appears that there is some confusion as to what the social is in a social definition of disability. The (...) article pursues possible reasons for this confusion by investigating the critique of the social model. This is followed by a discussion on what a possible space for the social might be in a social definition of disability. Such a space is illuminated by using the framework of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health. The article suggests that disability as a social category is not inconsistent if reframed within a social relational model of disability. (shrink)

This thesis explores the concept of "Sanctity of Life" from the perspective of what "life," in particular human life, means today. With the rapid advances in science and modern medical practice, the concept of life has undergone many changes, shaking the foundations of what before made us view life as sacred. Modern thought has brought new forms of understanding to the concept of life.

Disability activists' redefinition of “disability” as a social, rather than a medical, problem attempts to reassign causality. We explicate the untenable implications of this approach and argue this definition is maleficent, unjust, and inconsistent. Thus, redefining disability as a socially caused phenomenon is, from a moral point of view, ill-advised.

Although most people believe that it is morally wrong to intentionally create children who have an impairment, it is widely held that we cannot criticize such procreative choices unless we find a solution to Parfit’s non-identity problem. I argue that we can. Jonathan Glover has recently argued that, in certain circumstances, such choices would be self-defeating even if morally permissible. I argue that although the scope of Glover’s argument is too limited, it nevertheless directs attention to a moral defect in (...) the attitudes that could motivate such procreative choices, attitudes that, properly characterized, turn out to be person-affecting in character. I conclude by arguing that prospective parents who want to create a child with an impairment face a dilemma. If they want to avoid the charge that their aim is morally defective, they must deny that the desired impairment is harmful. But this would commit them to endorsing the controversial claim that it is morally permissible or even required to turn normal children into impaired ones. (shrink)

The drawbacks of using the concepts of models in discussing the problems of disabled people are discussed. It is suggested that the terms “impairment”, “disability”, and “handicap” can unify the different models and enhance the position of people with disabilities in society.

Verstoßen pränatale und präimplantive Selektion von Behinderten gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot? Die Antwort wird meist von der Frage nach dem Status des Embryos abhängig gemacht: Ist der Embryo Träger der Menschenwürde und des Rechts auf Leben, dann könne eine Entscheidung der Mutter gegen das Kind (soweit sie überhaupt gerechtfertigt werden kann) dem Diskriminierungsvorwurf nur entgehen, wenn sie nicht spezifisch im Blick auf den Behindertenstatus des Embryos fällt. Der vorliegende Beitrag 1. setzt nicht voraus, dass der Embryo kein Träger der Menschenwürde und (...) des Rechts auf Leben ist; 2. argumentiert, dass der Mutter die Berücksichtigung des Behindertenstatus gleichwohl nicht vorgeworfen werden kann, da dergleichen im privaten Bereich auch sonst häufig berücksichtigt wird und es gute Gründe gibt, das nicht generell zu verbieten; 3. macht deutlich, dass der starke intuitive Widerstand speziell gegen die Präimplantationsdiagnostik in der deutschen öffentlichen Debatte in etwas anderem als der Sorge um die Rechte der verworfenen Embryonen wurzelt und dass eine dementsprechende Umorientierung der Debatte dringend erforderlich ist. (shrink)