Centre Of Bioethical Research & Analysis (COBRA), news & events

Healthcare Ethics Research

Article taken from Research Matters Volume 3, Issue1, 2005

The Pacific Center for Health Policy and Ethics at the University of Southern California - in conjunction with the International Association of Bioethics - has awarded the Mark S. Ehrenreich Prize for Healthcare Ethics Research to Dr Richard Hull (member of the Philosophy Department and Director of COBRA) in recognition of accomplishments in Healthcare Ethics Research. The prize aims to give early recognition to outstanding researchers who are beginning a career in healthcare ethics. It was presented at the final plenary session of the Seventh World Congress of Bioethics, Sydney, Australia in November 2004. The theme of the World Congress of Bioethics was 'Deep Listening' and Dr Hull's winning paper was entitled 'Cheap Listening: reflections on the concept of wrongful disability'. The paper tackles some current research that suggests that, given the advent of new genetic technologies, it is wrong to have disabled children. One conceptual strategy that tends to be adopted is that of 'avoidability via substitution'. The idea is that, whether through delaying pregnancy or through termination of pregnancy, if we can substitute a non-disabled child for a disabled one then we should. Indeed, it is wrong not to. The paper argues that the whole idea of 'avoidability via substitution' doesn't stand up very well to logical analysis. As a result - and for a raft of other reasons too - we should not be claiming that it is wrong to have children with disabilities. The paper further suggests that a critical question that needs to be addressed as genetic technologies develop is that of what we consider to be an acceptable range of human capability. Addressing that question requires very sensitive ethical analysis, which may help to determine where we might be sympathetic with respect to decisions not to bring certain types of life about and where we might be less so, or not at all. It might also equip us to more coherently and emphatically resist some of the potential excesses afforded by technological development. Moreover, in considering the critical question of what we perceive to be an acceptable range, the paper argues that we should be acutely aware of the social context that may help to define it, a context that need by no means be inevitable, or just. It is perhaps no coincidence, argues Dr Hull, that changing society to be more inclusive and just with respect to its diverse membership would not be cheap.

• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Accessibility