ReviewJournal of medical ethics2001
One principle and three fallacies of disability studies.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biases in bioethics: a narrative review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Review
- Why NIPT should be publicly funded.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Human Enhancement: Enhancing Health or Harnessing Happiness?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Limits to human enhancement: nature, disease, therapy or betterment?BMC medical ethics · 2017Review
- The Perfect Womb: Promoting Equality of (Fetal) Opportunity.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
- Harms to "Others" and the Selection Against Disability View.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2017Article
- Queerin' the PGD clinic : human enhancement and the future of bodily diversity.The Journal of medical humanities · 2013Article
- Eugenics and the genetic challenge, again: all dressed up and just everywhere to go.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2011Article
- Consequentialism without consequences: ethics and embryo research.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2010Article
- Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Review
- Looking for the meaning of dignity in the Bioethics Convention and the Cloning Protocol.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2005Article
- There is a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing child.Journal of medical ethics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
My critics in this symposium illustrate one principle and three fallacies of disability studies. The principle, which we all share, is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others. No disability, however slight, nor however severe, implies lesser moral, political or ethical status, worth or value. This is a version of the principle of equality. The three fallacies exhibited by some or all of my critics are the following: (1) Choosing to repair damage or dysfunction or to enhance function, implies either that the previous state is intolerable or that the person in that state is of lesser value or indicates that the individual in that state has a life that is not worthwhile or not thoroughly worth living. None of these implications hold. (2) Exercising choice in reproduction with the aim of producing children who will be either less damaged or diseased, or more healthy, or who will have enhanced capacities, violates the principle or equality. It does not. (3) Disability or impairment must be defined relative either to normalcy, "normal species functioning", or "species typical functioning". It is not necessarily so defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.