Discussion Post #2: Can we Fix it? Yes we Can!
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Holly Susan
Jan 29, 2011, 4:59:56 PM1/29/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Greetings -
A little housekeeping before the fun begins...
1. Please remember to reply to this discussion post instead of
starting a new thread.
2. Please read and build off the ideas of others.
3. I will be cleaning up all the new threads from Post #1 by moving
them under the parent post. Please let me know if you have any
trouble accessing something.
------
Please read the Eugenics discussion article listed on the Google site
for Discussion Forum #2 to discuss the ethical implications of medical
interventions with related to disabilities. When you read the paper,
think about the concepts that the
author presents in terms of "disability" and "impairments".
1. What do you think the cultural implications of the concept of
disability?
2. What do you think the salient elements of the genetics arguments
are?
3. What might be the "sides" that people take here in this debate?
Feel free to use this discussion space to think about the degree to
which disability and impairment impact society, and classrooms in
particular.
I can't wait to read your responses to this one!
Warmly,
Holly
A little housekeeping before the fun begins...
1. Please remember to reply to this discussion post instead of
starting a new thread.
2. Please read and build off the ideas of others.
3. I will be cleaning up all the new threads from Post #1 by moving
them under the parent post. Please let me know if you have any
trouble accessing something.
------
Please read the Eugenics discussion article listed on the Google site
for Discussion Forum #2 to discuss the ethical implications of medical
interventions with related to disabilities. When you read the paper,
think about the concepts that the
author presents in terms of "disability" and "impairments".
1. What do you think the cultural implications of the concept of
disability?
2. What do you think the salient elements of the genetics arguments
are?
3. What might be the "sides" that people take here in this debate?
Feel free to use this discussion space to think about the degree to
which disability and impairment impact society, and classrooms in
particular.
I can't wait to read your responses to this one!
Warmly,
Holly
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Emily Brooks
Jan 30, 2011, 12:33:23 PM1/30/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
I feel that disability has a negative connotation in our society. I
was curious about the definition of the term so I looked it up. Every
definition included the words “not able” “unable” “lacking” and
“unqualified.” This negative language translates into a negative
perspective. With prenatal screening and the debate on genetics and
disability, I think people take the sides: should a person who we
knowingly will have “impairments” be born into this world? Some would
say yes, some would say no.
On page 671 of Tom Shakespeare’s article I am very intrigued by his
discussion of the environmental factors that influences peoples
genetics. I have a first hand experience with this issue. I have a 13-
year-old cousin, Mary, who is classified as “mentally retarded.” She
was born with many cognitive and physical delays and disabilities.
But, from the day she was born, Mary has been given so many
opportunities, opportunities that not every child with her
circumstances gets. My aunt quit her job and brought Mary to physical
theory, occupational therapy, an audiologist and speech pathologist—
she has seen countless doctors since she was an infant. My aunt made
it her mission to find Mary a great school. She went to 7 different
elementary schools, none of which were just right for her (she is now
at a great school that specializes in learning disabilities).
Today Mary is a teenager. Even with the amazing opportunities she has
had in her life, it is still unclear if she will be able to life an
independent life when she gets older. She may be more independent and
have more cognitive or physical capacity than other people who have
similar genetic circumstances but were not given the environmental
opportunities she has. But even with these environmental factors she
was so lucky to have, her life will always depend on others to help
her and be limited compared to other able-bodied and able-minded
individuals.
Schools and our society need to accommodate, understand, and share
compassion and empathy for people who may have impairments or
disabilities, especially in classrooms. Even though Mary is my cousin,
I don’t know if I would have the skill set to work with Mary in my own
classroom. We need people in our school systems who have the
qualifications and training to properly accommodate for people who do
have these exceptionalities. Just as society has placed a negative
connotation on disabilities, I think some schools have too. Part of
Mary’s disability is she doesn’t understand social cues and has little
self-control over her voice and noises she makes in social situations.
In one school, her aid expected her and tried to force her to sit
quietly at a desk in the corner of the room, away from the rest of the
classroom. Every time Mary talked out of turn (which was often) she
got a “point” taken away. Essentially Mary was being punished for her
disability! And she denied the opportunity to actually learn in her
classroom. Now, it is true that maybe the “mainstream” classroom
couldn’t and didn’t offer her what she needed, but he disability
wasn’t taken into any consideration in any of her schools. This is a
perfect example of the perception that there are “normal” kids, and
kids who aren’t normal are supposed to be molded to be as “normal” as
possible. Mary may never learn to folly control the noises she makes.
This should be accepted in her classrooms and her learning
opportunities should meet her where she is, not where other people may
want her to be or where other students may be. Does that make sense?
Changing gears….I completely and whole-heartedly agree with Tom
Shakespeare’s position on abortion and his discussion of the different
sides. I think people who are “pro-life” assume that people who are
“pro-choice” will always choose abortion. It is about having the
choice. My aunt and uncle did not know that Mary would have the
disabilities she did until birth, and if they did I think they would
have chosen to have her since they had the financial resources to take
care and meet her many and changing needs. Not everyone would have
made that decision. A family who didn’t have those resources may have
chosen otherwise. Why bring a child into this world that you KNOW you
cannot fully support? Shakespeare says a reason to terminate “is
impairment, along with family circumstances, age, economic situation
and so forth” (pg. 671). I personally feel that children should be
brought into this life only if they are wanted and have parents who
are able to look after them and give them what they need. Mary and her
family live in suburban Chicago—there are countless schools and great
doctors nearby. If they lived somewhere rural, or somewhere that
didn’t have those resources nearby, what would have happen? I am not
advocating for extremes—I am simply stating that society should
respect the decision of an individual to decide if their circumstances
will adequately serve their child.
I respect Shakespeare’s call for involving disabled people within the
debate of disability rights. I think this is a necessity. I wonder,
though, with the social connotations surrounding disability, how many
disabled people feel they have a voice? How can get people involved
who may already feel powerless? I wonder how politics would react to
people who are “not able” “unable” “lacking” and “unqualified” (as the
definition goes) having a say in the debate and potentially in
decision making? I would be interested in other people’s reactions to
this.
Life is such a tricky thing. Is Mary’s life worth living? Absolutely—
of course! She has a bright and beautiful personality, an amazing
sense of humor, and great attitude toward life. She is an incredible
person. But, will Mary be denied opportunities in her life? Yes. Will
she need daily assistance to do simple tasks like hygienically take
care of her self? Yes. And, does she have those resources (family
support, money, multiple great doctors and therapists) to live her
life to the fullest? Yes. Not everyone does.
was curious about the definition of the term so I looked it up. Every
definition included the words “not able” “unable” “lacking” and
“unqualified.” This negative language translates into a negative
perspective. With prenatal screening and the debate on genetics and
disability, I think people take the sides: should a person who we
knowingly will have “impairments” be born into this world? Some would
say yes, some would say no.
On page 671 of Tom Shakespeare’s article I am very intrigued by his
discussion of the environmental factors that influences peoples
genetics. I have a first hand experience with this issue. I have a 13-
year-old cousin, Mary, who is classified as “mentally retarded.” She
was born with many cognitive and physical delays and disabilities.
But, from the day she was born, Mary has been given so many
opportunities, opportunities that not every child with her
circumstances gets. My aunt quit her job and brought Mary to physical
theory, occupational therapy, an audiologist and speech pathologist—
she has seen countless doctors since she was an infant. My aunt made
it her mission to find Mary a great school. She went to 7 different
elementary schools, none of which were just right for her (she is now
at a great school that specializes in learning disabilities).
Today Mary is a teenager. Even with the amazing opportunities she has
had in her life, it is still unclear if she will be able to life an
independent life when she gets older. She may be more independent and
have more cognitive or physical capacity than other people who have
similar genetic circumstances but were not given the environmental
opportunities she has. But even with these environmental factors she
was so lucky to have, her life will always depend on others to help
her and be limited compared to other able-bodied and able-minded
individuals.
Schools and our society need to accommodate, understand, and share
compassion and empathy for people who may have impairments or
disabilities, especially in classrooms. Even though Mary is my cousin,
I don’t know if I would have the skill set to work with Mary in my own
classroom. We need people in our school systems who have the
qualifications and training to properly accommodate for people who do
have these exceptionalities. Just as society has placed a negative
connotation on disabilities, I think some schools have too. Part of
Mary’s disability is she doesn’t understand social cues and has little
self-control over her voice and noises she makes in social situations.
In one school, her aid expected her and tried to force her to sit
quietly at a desk in the corner of the room, away from the rest of the
classroom. Every time Mary talked out of turn (which was often) she
got a “point” taken away. Essentially Mary was being punished for her
disability! And she denied the opportunity to actually learn in her
classroom. Now, it is true that maybe the “mainstream” classroom
couldn’t and didn’t offer her what she needed, but he disability
wasn’t taken into any consideration in any of her schools. This is a
perfect example of the perception that there are “normal” kids, and
kids who aren’t normal are supposed to be molded to be as “normal” as
possible. Mary may never learn to folly control the noises she makes.
This should be accepted in her classrooms and her learning
opportunities should meet her where she is, not where other people may
want her to be or where other students may be. Does that make sense?
Changing gears….I completely and whole-heartedly agree with Tom
Shakespeare’s position on abortion and his discussion of the different
sides. I think people who are “pro-life” assume that people who are
“pro-choice” will always choose abortion. It is about having the
choice. My aunt and uncle did not know that Mary would have the
disabilities she did until birth, and if they did I think they would
have chosen to have her since they had the financial resources to take
care and meet her many and changing needs. Not everyone would have
made that decision. A family who didn’t have those resources may have
chosen otherwise. Why bring a child into this world that you KNOW you
cannot fully support? Shakespeare says a reason to terminate “is
impairment, along with family circumstances, age, economic situation
and so forth” (pg. 671). I personally feel that children should be
brought into this life only if they are wanted and have parents who
are able to look after them and give them what they need. Mary and her
family live in suburban Chicago—there are countless schools and great
doctors nearby. If they lived somewhere rural, or somewhere that
didn’t have those resources nearby, what would have happen? I am not
advocating for extremes—I am simply stating that society should
respect the decision of an individual to decide if their circumstances
will adequately serve their child.
I respect Shakespeare’s call for involving disabled people within the
debate of disability rights. I think this is a necessity. I wonder,
though, with the social connotations surrounding disability, how many
disabled people feel they have a voice? How can get people involved
who may already feel powerless? I wonder how politics would react to
people who are “not able” “unable” “lacking” and “unqualified” (as the
definition goes) having a say in the debate and potentially in
decision making? I would be interested in other people’s reactions to
this.
Life is such a tricky thing. Is Mary’s life worth living? Absolutely—
of course! She has a bright and beautiful personality, an amazing
sense of humor, and great attitude toward life. She is an incredible
person. But, will Mary be denied opportunities in her life? Yes. Will
she need daily assistance to do simple tasks like hygienically take
care of her self? Yes. And, does she have those resources (family
support, money, multiple great doctors and therapists) to live her
life to the fullest? Yes. Not everyone does.
Message has been deleted
Eleanore Tiehen
Feb 5, 2011, 11:10:33 AM2/5/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
As stated in the article, impairment is a medical condition of the
body, while the term disability is linked to discrimination and
prejudice in society. I think the cultural implications of the
concept of disability are negative. The word disability itself has
the prefix dis- that means, “expressing negation.” Culturally, the
implications of the concept of disability involve social
implications.
My uncle had Downs Syndrome and my mother has told me that before he
was born my grandparents were very social and had people over often.
After they had a child with a disability, they rarely had people over,
and spent more time on his health care and advocating for his
education. In reality, the social implications are there, but does
that mean these people don’t get a chance? In addition to the social
implications, which affect the lives of not only the individual with
the disability, but also their caregivers, is the economic
implication.
While it is expensive to care for a person with a disability, it is
not impossible. With early interventions and therapeutic programs,
some people with disabilities can in turn give back to society by
being trained to perform certain jobs. People with disabilities
should not be viewed as a “problem that needs to be taken care of,”
but as a challenge to society to give the most vulnerable a quality of
life that is respected as unique and valuable. According to Tom
Shakespeare, “It is important to argue that living as a disabled
person is a viable and valuable form of existence, but that existing
without any possibility of a real life is not worth living at
all” (page 6).
Shakespeare touches on the many sides and combinations of arguments in
this debate. He includes the perspective of several groups that
advocate for people with disabilities. Each argument is contextual:
terminating a pregnancy is acceptable if x condition exists, but
unacceptable if y condition exists. The suggestion that the social
and financial implications of having a child with a disability are not
worth the life of the child is debatable. Each pregnancy situation is
different, a family cannot predict the future of how they will cope or
react to having a child with a disability, and genetic testing can be
wrong. All of these factors must be taken into account before
decisions are made.
This article reminds me of a Jodi Picoult novel I read over the summer
titled, Handle with Care. The mother of a child with a bone disorder
sues her OBGYN for not informing her of her child’s impairment while
in the womb. The mother could have terminated the pregnancy had she
known about the disorder.
body, while the term disability is linked to discrimination and
prejudice in society. I think the cultural implications of the
concept of disability are negative. The word disability itself has
the prefix dis- that means, “expressing negation.” Culturally, the
implications of the concept of disability involve social
implications.
My uncle had Downs Syndrome and my mother has told me that before he
was born my grandparents were very social and had people over often.
After they had a child with a disability, they rarely had people over,
and spent more time on his health care and advocating for his
education. In reality, the social implications are there, but does
that mean these people don’t get a chance? In addition to the social
implications, which affect the lives of not only the individual with
the disability, but also their caregivers, is the economic
implication.
While it is expensive to care for a person with a disability, it is
not impossible. With early interventions and therapeutic programs,
some people with disabilities can in turn give back to society by
being trained to perform certain jobs. People with disabilities
should not be viewed as a “problem that needs to be taken care of,”
but as a challenge to society to give the most vulnerable a quality of
life that is respected as unique and valuable. According to Tom
Shakespeare, “It is important to argue that living as a disabled
person is a viable and valuable form of existence, but that existing
without any possibility of a real life is not worth living at
all” (page 6).
Shakespeare touches on the many sides and combinations of arguments in
this debate. He includes the perspective of several groups that
advocate for people with disabilities. Each argument is contextual:
terminating a pregnancy is acceptable if x condition exists, but
unacceptable if y condition exists. The suggestion that the social
and financial implications of having a child with a disability are not
worth the life of the child is debatable. Each pregnancy situation is
different, a family cannot predict the future of how they will cope or
react to having a child with a disability, and genetic testing can be
wrong. All of these factors must be taken into account before
decisions are made.
This article reminds me of a Jodi Picoult novel I read over the summer
titled, Handle with Care. The mother of a child with a bone disorder
sues her OBGYN for not informing her of her child’s impairment while
in the womb. The mother could have terminated the pregnancy had she
known about the disorder.
betsy hagan
Feb 5, 2011, 12:55:10 PM2/5/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Ellie, you mentioned Jodi Picoult's book and the book that keeps
cropping up in my mind is The Giver by Lois Lowry. This book has
always disturbed me because of its eugenic/utopian setting. The
concept of eugenics is extremely distressing to me because of the
expectations and actions it can generate. These expectations lead
some to believe and work for the eradication of all things
'undesirable'. In the book The Giver, a baby is terminated because
it tended to be fussy and there was no place for fussy babies in
utopia...
To me, abortion or selective termination and others related
concepts have contributed to our delusion that we in fact have the
power to control and choose our happiness. And I am not sure our
choices always lead to happiness but rather to a conflicted and
hardened society that views children and people with disabilities as
unwanted, unwelcome and unnecessary. Abortion is a loaded and
emotional topic as the Shakespeare notes and the current debate on
genetic testing is equally divisive. Shakespeare points out the
collective social and cultural effects of many individual decisions to
terminate pregnancies and its levels of complexity. Voices are
silenced, social barriers increase and civil rights are disregarded.
Our society does not value disabled people and this will not change
with more genetic testing but further increase expectations of a
desirable ONLY population. And just who is defining desirable here?
It is horrifying to me to see the trends moving towards more fetal
testing because for those who don't choose to terminate, the
expectation and atmosphere is increasingly hostile. For example, a
very good friend of mine discovered she was pregnant with her third
child. Unfortunately, her husband was in between jobs so she was
uninsured for this birth. At 20 weeks, she learned her baby was
anencephalic. The sonogram showed her baby had no brain stem. Her
doctors immediately and aggressively moved to send her to abort her
child. She chose not to. She knew her baby would not live long but
did not feel it was her job to terminate this life. She felt it was
her job to give this little boy life no matter how long he was going
to live or how expensive this birth would cost her family. She
carried the baby to term with no insurance and gave life to a little
boy who lived for about six hours. She had to change doctors because
there was no support or understanding for her decision to proceed with
the pregnancy. Now if you asked her, she would tell you this was one
of the greatest joys of her life to date. She felt like she faced
this adversity and hardship with courage and made the right
decision.
Another friend, having her first baby in her mid thirties was given
all the usual tests for an older woman expecting. One test came back
irregular and the advice came back to have amniocentesis to determine
if the baby had Downs Syndrome or not. She went ahead and had the
test and discovered her baby was completely normal but then
miscarried--no one told her the risks of amniocentesis, it was just
understood that you have this test when you are older in the event
your baby may be downs. It didn't seem to matter to anyone to let her
know that the test often results in a spontaneous abortion. She
blames herself completely for the miscarriage. She has not been able
to get pregnant again. And you better believe she has serious
regrets.
It frightens me to think that some geneticists and doctors have
discovered how to isolate various tests to determine things like
sickle cell anemia and then favor termination for these affected
babies--doesn't this sound like genocide to you? Shakespeare talks of
something that happened in Cyprus on page 669 where fetuses with
thalassaemia (a blood related disease like sickle cell) were
eliminated due to a possible 'population-level improvement'. He also
mentions that some of these tests are cost-prohibitive but for how
long? And for what people groups? Scary, scary, scary!
To me, the only way forward is one where we work to accept one
another-as is. We all carry some sort of disability and mutated genes
within us (671). Creating expectations for a 'tidy' population
devalues individuals and causes more problems. Working to eliminate
suffering is one thing, working to create perfection is entirely
another matter. We talk about a quality of life for those with
disabilities all the while not even bothering to mention those among
us, who are perfectly healthy in every way, but do not always lead
happy or productive lives.
cropping up in my mind is The Giver by Lois Lowry. This book has
always disturbed me because of its eugenic/utopian setting. The
concept of eugenics is extremely distressing to me because of the
expectations and actions it can generate. These expectations lead
some to believe and work for the eradication of all things
'undesirable'. In the book The Giver, a baby is terminated because
it tended to be fussy and there was no place for fussy babies in
utopia...
To me, abortion or selective termination and others related
concepts have contributed to our delusion that we in fact have the
power to control and choose our happiness. And I am not sure our
choices always lead to happiness but rather to a conflicted and
hardened society that views children and people with disabilities as
unwanted, unwelcome and unnecessary. Abortion is a loaded and
emotional topic as the Shakespeare notes and the current debate on
genetic testing is equally divisive. Shakespeare points out the
collective social and cultural effects of many individual decisions to
terminate pregnancies and its levels of complexity. Voices are
silenced, social barriers increase and civil rights are disregarded.
Our society does not value disabled people and this will not change
with more genetic testing but further increase expectations of a
desirable ONLY population. And just who is defining desirable here?
It is horrifying to me to see the trends moving towards more fetal
testing because for those who don't choose to terminate, the
expectation and atmosphere is increasingly hostile. For example, a
very good friend of mine discovered she was pregnant with her third
child. Unfortunately, her husband was in between jobs so she was
uninsured for this birth. At 20 weeks, she learned her baby was
anencephalic. The sonogram showed her baby had no brain stem. Her
doctors immediately and aggressively moved to send her to abort her
child. She chose not to. She knew her baby would not live long but
did not feel it was her job to terminate this life. She felt it was
her job to give this little boy life no matter how long he was going
to live or how expensive this birth would cost her family. She
carried the baby to term with no insurance and gave life to a little
boy who lived for about six hours. She had to change doctors because
there was no support or understanding for her decision to proceed with
the pregnancy. Now if you asked her, she would tell you this was one
of the greatest joys of her life to date. She felt like she faced
this adversity and hardship with courage and made the right
decision.
Another friend, having her first baby in her mid thirties was given
all the usual tests for an older woman expecting. One test came back
irregular and the advice came back to have amniocentesis to determine
if the baby had Downs Syndrome or not. She went ahead and had the
test and discovered her baby was completely normal but then
miscarried--no one told her the risks of amniocentesis, it was just
understood that you have this test when you are older in the event
your baby may be downs. It didn't seem to matter to anyone to let her
know that the test often results in a spontaneous abortion. She
blames herself completely for the miscarriage. She has not been able
to get pregnant again. And you better believe she has serious
regrets.
It frightens me to think that some geneticists and doctors have
discovered how to isolate various tests to determine things like
sickle cell anemia and then favor termination for these affected
babies--doesn't this sound like genocide to you? Shakespeare talks of
something that happened in Cyprus on page 669 where fetuses with
thalassaemia (a blood related disease like sickle cell) were
eliminated due to a possible 'population-level improvement'. He also
mentions that some of these tests are cost-prohibitive but for how
long? And for what people groups? Scary, scary, scary!
To me, the only way forward is one where we work to accept one
another-as is. We all carry some sort of disability and mutated genes
within us (671). Creating expectations for a 'tidy' population
devalues individuals and causes more problems. Working to eliminate
suffering is one thing, working to create perfection is entirely
another matter. We talk about a quality of life for those with
disabilities all the while not even bothering to mention those among
us, who are perfectly healthy in every way, but do not always lead
happy or productive lives.
Tiffany (india) Starke
Feb 5, 2011, 7:21:13 PM2/5/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Choices and Rights: eugenics, genetics, and disability equality.....
“A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO DECIDE”
Let me begin my response by emphasizing that I am in full support of a
woman's right to DENY, CHANGE HER MIND, REFUSE, ABORT, LOVE and/or
KEEP LIFE that lives within her body. The right to choose is a human
necessity.
A woman who becomes aware that the fetus manifesting inside her, is
developing physical abnormalities, can be truly devastating. The
impact that such information delivers to her psyche alone, is enough
for panic and thoughts of instant abortion. Do we dare argue with her
choice and decision? Do we dare make a case convincing her that
regardless of the known handicaps and her unwillingness to live a life
of constant heartache and unbearable social reclusion, that there's no
justification for abortion?
Now, I'm sure that there are some of you who will think, how dare I!
And some, whose eyebrows will rise because you find yourself in
opposition. I welcome that. Don't get me wrong, I believe that life is
worth saving. However, I also believe that there are circumstances in
which the decision to terminate the unborn, is just.
We are not in control of our genetics and there is no guarantee how
ours will mix with another when we consider procreating. When a woman
takes advantage of testing during pregnancy and trust its ability to
clue her into fetal health and abnormality, she takes the mental risk
that her pregnancy has now become...tentative.
Would you consider this kind of screening to be moral or immoral?
Would you find yourself considering abortion if you found yourself in
the instance in carrying a disabled fetus? If you believe yourself to
be incapable of enduring a lifetime with a disabled child, are you
selfish.....?
Emily Brooks
Feb 6, 2011, 11:56:15 AM2/6/11
to foundations-of-spe...@googlegroups.com
Betsy - I have read the book The GIver and understand your uncomfortable feelings about the utopian society in the book. I feel the say way and think that every individual needs to be valued and appreciated for who she or he is. I think that every one of us has an anecdotal story about someone who either choose to have an abortion, or not, and are either happy with their decision, or have regrets. Sometime I think hearing the personal and touching stories of others can often lead to generalizations about how EVERY person would feel in that circumstance. Not everyone uninsured women who knew their baby would only live months would choose to have that child. I am happy that your friend had the choice to have it and i am saddened that her doctors didn't respect that choice, and she had to find new ones. She is so lucky she had that choice--not everyone is as lucky as she is to make the choice that best suits them.
Part of the discussion is looking at the child, right? How do we know how much suffering, pain, and discomfort that baby boy went thorough living for six months with anencephaly, and dying from it? So, I think that when we look at these really complex issues from all sides, we see that they even become more complex.
Tiffany - I agree with lots of what you wrote. I definitely think there is line when it comes to screening during pregnancy. If the actual screening process can lead to a termination of pregnancy, I think you need to be really carful about those decisions and consider the fact that it may be counteractive to your choice to have a child. I don't think they are immoral. Your last question is something
Just like as teachers, we need to realize that our jobs are not about us. They are about students. And, although I am not a mother, I know that I will feel the same way if I do have kids....it wont always be about me, it will be about my children. The last question you bring up, "If you believe yourself to be incapable of enduring a lifetime with a disabled child, are you selfish.....?" is something that I think about all the time. There is a misconception that women who have abortions are selfish because they want what is best for them. I don't think that is selfish at all--I think it is actually responsible and proactive to make the choice that you cannot fully support a life right now. Terminating your pregnancy so that you don't bring into this world a child that you cannot give yourself fully to--disability or not--should be looked highly upon.
I don't know of any women who WANTS to be in a position of having an abortion. It is a choice that requires a lot of deliberation and a whole host of complex factors.
Betsy
Feb 6, 2011, 12:58:26 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Thanks for replying. An anacephaly baby does not experience any
pain other than the pain of childbirth, and this child happened to be
born by a c section so his suffering was minimal. He lived 6 hours and
was held and loved on by every member of his family. The cost of this
birth was actually considerable and took the family many years to pay
it off. An abortion on the other hand, is extremely painful to the
baby--there is not any anesthetic used in abortions, so I can only
imagine the suffering -- not to mention a life silenced. I personally
do not understand why our laws make an exception and allow for women
to end another person's life. So, yes, put me in the box, I don't
think abortion is just or merciful to the unborn or women. There is
indeed a lot of complexity to this issue but at the heart of it, I
believe we should value and respect all human life.
Having been active in Crisis Pregnancy Centers for years, I can
assure you that sadly, many women do use abortion as birth control
without any second thoughts. In DC alone, 41% of all pregnancies end
in abortion. I am not judging anyone however, as I have met far too
many women heartbroken by abortion but I think it undermines a society
that would seek to honor those with disabilities and differences.
pain other than the pain of childbirth, and this child happened to be
born by a c section so his suffering was minimal. He lived 6 hours and
was held and loved on by every member of his family. The cost of this
birth was actually considerable and took the family many years to pay
it off. An abortion on the other hand, is extremely painful to the
baby--there is not any anesthetic used in abortions, so I can only
imagine the suffering -- not to mention a life silenced. I personally
do not understand why our laws make an exception and allow for women
to end another person's life. So, yes, put me in the box, I don't
think abortion is just or merciful to the unborn or women. There is
indeed a lot of complexity to this issue but at the heart of it, I
believe we should value and respect all human life.
Having been active in Crisis Pregnancy Centers for years, I can
assure you that sadly, many women do use abortion as birth control
without any second thoughts. In DC alone, 41% of all pregnancies end
in abortion. I am not judging anyone however, as I have met far too
many women heartbroken by abortion but I think it undermines a society
that would seek to honor those with disabilities and differences.
Meredith Blunda
Feb 6, 2011, 3:21:16 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
After reading Tom Shakespeare’s, “Choices and Rights: eugenics,
genetics and disability equality” and the previous posts from
classmates, it is clear that there is no easy answer to the genetics
debate. What most strongly resonated with me was his point that “a
nuanced position is necessary in understanding both disability, and
genetic causation, one which confronts both individual endowment and
environmental/structural factors” (Shakespeare 671). There is no broad
yes or no answer in this debate, no one solution that is going to be
found. We need to be looking at the smaller nuances of the individual
situations that occur.
This leads me to address what others have been discussing in their
posts, when it comes to abortion rights. Since there are such
variations between the circumstances that arise between women and
fetal abnormalities – these nuances cannot be grouped into one
decision. Each woman, each family has her own set of complications
that I, as an individual, will never know. Each fetal complication, as
Shakespeare said, cannot be classified together: “terminological
distinctions – between genetic disease, and impairment, or between
impairment and chronic illness, or between disabled people, and
diseased people – are mainly academic, and mask the real continuities
and distinctions which need to be articulated” (671). This leads me to
believe in a woman’s right to make her own choice, whatever that
choice may be. We have been raised in a society that values freedom
and independence, so I believe this issue shouldn't be any different.
I respect the beliefs that everyone has posted today, and believe that
each person should be able to make the choices that they believe in.
Going along with that, no one should be able to take those choices
away from someone that does not feel they can provide a stable,
fulfilling life for a child, for whatever personal complications. As
Shakespeare said on page 672, “it is important not to see choice in a
vacuum: individual choices are structured and influenced by wider
social judgments and pressures.” Legislators and outside individuals
have no knowledge of the context of each individual woman’s choice,
and I don’t believe it is their place to make a judgment on anyone but
their own lives.
Of course, I wish we lived in a world where those personal and
environmental complications did not have to happen, and it saddens me
deeply that those choices happen, but those are not my choices to
make. Instead, what I can focus on, what is in my control, is
improving today’s society for disabled children in my classroom. Since
“it is argued that it is social barriers which create disabilities,”
then we should feel empowered as teachers to break down those social
barriers in school (669). Shakespeare talks about his hopes of an
“inclusive and barrier-free society” which we can create within the
walls of our classrooms each day with the strategies we learn in
classes like this one (679).
genetics and disability equality” and the previous posts from
classmates, it is clear that there is no easy answer to the genetics
debate. What most strongly resonated with me was his point that “a
nuanced position is necessary in understanding both disability, and
genetic causation, one which confronts both individual endowment and
environmental/structural factors” (Shakespeare 671). There is no broad
yes or no answer in this debate, no one solution that is going to be
found. We need to be looking at the smaller nuances of the individual
situations that occur.
This leads me to address what others have been discussing in their
posts, when it comes to abortion rights. Since there are such
variations between the circumstances that arise between women and
fetal abnormalities – these nuances cannot be grouped into one
decision. Each woman, each family has her own set of complications
that I, as an individual, will never know. Each fetal complication, as
Shakespeare said, cannot be classified together: “terminological
distinctions – between genetic disease, and impairment, or between
impairment and chronic illness, or between disabled people, and
diseased people – are mainly academic, and mask the real continuities
and distinctions which need to be articulated” (671). This leads me to
believe in a woman’s right to make her own choice, whatever that
choice may be. We have been raised in a society that values freedom
and independence, so I believe this issue shouldn't be any different.
I respect the beliefs that everyone has posted today, and believe that
each person should be able to make the choices that they believe in.
Going along with that, no one should be able to take those choices
away from someone that does not feel they can provide a stable,
fulfilling life for a child, for whatever personal complications. As
Shakespeare said on page 672, “it is important not to see choice in a
vacuum: individual choices are structured and influenced by wider
social judgments and pressures.” Legislators and outside individuals
have no knowledge of the context of each individual woman’s choice,
and I don’t believe it is their place to make a judgment on anyone but
their own lives.
Of course, I wish we lived in a world where those personal and
environmental complications did not have to happen, and it saddens me
deeply that those choices happen, but those are not my choices to
make. Instead, what I can focus on, what is in my control, is
improving today’s society for disabled children in my classroom. Since
“it is argued that it is social barriers which create disabilities,”
then we should feel empowered as teachers to break down those social
barriers in school (669). Shakespeare talks about his hopes of an
“inclusive and barrier-free society” which we can create within the
walls of our classrooms each day with the strategies we learn in
classes like this one (679).
OMM
Feb 6, 2011, 3:30:55 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
On Feb 6, 3:21 pm, Meredith Blunda <mcblu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After reading Tom Shakespeare’s, “Choices and Rights: eugenics,
> genetics and disability equality” and the previous posts from
> classmates, it is clear that there is no easy answer to the genetics
> debate. What most strongly resonated with me was his point that “a
I want to share a story with you. My first job with DCPS was co-
teaching with a teacher name Ms. James in a non-categorical class.
The principal really wanted to give me a job and her only placement
was in this particular class. I had never truly experienced a non-
categorical class setting where the students were as profound. I came
to work the next day eager to impact each student and make a
difference in their lives. The first day I walked into the building I
was directed to the class with the class attendance. As I walked into
the room several people came to me and introduced themselves. I
thought to myself it sure is a lot of people in this class. Around
about 9:00 several bus attendants started to bring children in the
class. As they came in I noticed that these children were profoundly
disabled and immediately my heart sank to my stomach. As Ms. James
started to introduce the children to me, I can only think to self,
"What have I gotten myself in?" One student was severally mentally
retarded, one had a missing eye and was living with cancer, one had
down-syndrome, one was blind/bound to a wheel chair/and could not move
any of his limbs, and two had cerebral palsy but would never be able
to walk or feed themselves. My heart immediately went out to them,
but I did not want to work with this population. Now at that moment,
I had to be completely honest with myself, I was completely ignorant
to this population. After awhile with the students, I learned a lot.
I learned that they too want to be loved, they too have their own
unique personalities, they too look for acceptance and someone just to
care and teach them. As I started to see them grow through the year,
I was ecstatic. Their "aha" were as simple as one of them realize
they can pick up finger foods by themselves, when one of them open the
bathroom door and sit on the toilet without being prompted, when one
of them acknowledge your existence by their touch, or when one just
respond to music as if they just heard it for the first time. I took
from that experience a lot and that they do have a voice, it just
can’t be heard. This is why it is important for advocates to fight
for their equality. However, I felt sorry for the parents who chose
not to screen and had to deal with the pain of watching their child
live in a world that they could never truly enjoy. I saw parents who
were only 25 age daily. Each of these parents trying to be strong,
but yet they were burden by finances, time, and tiredness. So to step
out of my shoes and put myself in their shoes, it is a difficult
choice.
People with disabilities will never be eliminated from the earth nor
will women stop having babies with profound disabilities. I believe
that before we make such a strong argument on whether we should woman
should abort or keep; we should gain knowledge and look at the pros
and the cons. It is the doctor duty to explain to me eugenics and the
necessary steps, but it is up to me to make that choice. It should
not be forced and it should be an option to all women.
In conclusion, "it is important to realise the various interest groups
involved in this debate, including disabled people, parents and family
of disabled people, and carriers of recessive genetic conditions.
Each will have slightly different perspectives, and there will be
variations in opinion within each group. (Kerr et al., 1998b).
kande9un
Feb 6, 2011, 5:56:07 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Betsy, You mentioned in your post how disheartening it is that there
has been a serious increase and push to test fetus' for genetic
disorders. I agree with your sentiment in your post and am very
discouraged to read that a lot of women don't realize they are always
being tested or are given little choice and on top of that are looked
down upon if they do choose to not get tested (675). It is also
frightening to read that many obstetricians pressure women into
aborting their child--because they think that their child will not
have a good quality of life or that their life will be value-less and
that society and parents should not pay the price for bringing this
disabled child into the world (679). This brings up a big issue I
have with genetics testing and aborting fetuses--this quality of life
or value-less life card we as society like to use or play. Who is to
judge what makes a life worth living? Just because someone has a
disability or an impairment, does that make their life have less value
than someone without a genetic disorder? Does that mean they aren't
contributing members of our community? For example, my boyfriend was
a live-in caretaker for a man with Spinal Muscal Atrophy (form of
muscular dystrophy) for a year. Although this man could not bath
himself, eat by himself, get himself dressed etc. he is a brillant man
(a finalist for becoming a Rhodes Scholar)--a Georgetown Grad and a
successful economic consultant in big firm in downtown DC. His
parents knew that they were going to have a child with a severe
disability, and they decided to have him despite the recommendations
of their doctors and despite the fact that their previous son died of
the same disease. And today despite his extreme physical disabilities
he is a motivated, successful and contributing member of our society
and a role model for those who suffer from similar disabilities. Just
think if his parents had decided to abort their fetus? This is just
one example of a severly disabled person making a life for himself, a
life with lots of value, and shouldn't be give every child that
chance?
I like how Shakespeare brings up the fact that many people acquire
disabilities or impairments throughout their lives due to accidents or
illness--does that mean we should get rid of them? Because now they
have a disability? I also like how he brings up women's and civil
rights, as well as gay and lesbian issues--don't all these populations
(as well as others) face tough lives and a disability of sorts because
of the way society views them? What I am trying to get at, just like
the article suggests, is that genetic testing is a very slippery
slope. Think about what is being tested today, and what is deemed as
"disabled" and "impaired" and how this has changed over time. It
seems as if we continue to sink money into genetics testing that
perhaps this "disabled" and "impaired" list will only continue to
grow, and that in turn we will be weeding out people to create some
dominate and superior race--like Betsy mentioned, that kind of sounds
like genocide.
I agree that our society has not treated people with disabilities or
impairments very well and that we have not made it easy to live in our
country, and that bringing a child into the world with a disability or
impairment is going to cost a lot of money and that there are a lot of
social implications, however with all of this said, I do not believe
that women should be playing judge on who gets to come into this world
and who doesn't. I think that we as a society need to make some
serious changes so that those with disabilities/impairments
assimiliate much easier into our communities, especially schools. I
believe that the reason why so many people are so apt to get tested
and apt to abort their child if the tests show that their will be a
disability is because our society makes it very difficult to raise a
child with a disability or impairment, not to mention the costs
associated with raising this disabled child. We as a society need to
empower those with disabilites to speak up and to help make change for
their population--for as Shakespeare states on page 673, many
decisions are made with out consulting the "the best experts on life
as a disabled person" (673). Also, if more money was spent on helping
to empower disabled people and creating an "inclusive and barrier-free
society and promoting the civil rights and independent living of
disabled people" instead of on genetic research and testing, then
perhaps less people would be so inclined to abort their disabled or
impaired fetus.
This leads me to my classroom and educating disabled children. I
realize that it may be difficult to mainstream all disabled and
impaired children and that perhaps they would not be serviced or
supported in todays classrooms or schools as they are currently set
up--however I think this is what we need to work towards--the
inclusion of ALL children! We need to change the way in which schools
are set up and the way in which classes are constructed--so that they
can be accepting and nuturing for all children. Just think of the
implications or the results of assimilating disabled children into all
schools and classrooms. Yes, there would have to be a lot of thought
put into how schools and teachers could best do this and there would
need to be lots of money put into developing and providing resources
to reach and support all learners, but if we could start this
inclusion and acceptance in schools at an early age, the dominoe
effect throughout the rest of society would be great!
What do you all think? Is this possible? Could this happen? Could
we really make learning accessible for all children and include all
children into our classrooms? Maybe this is a naive idea, but perhaps
in some capacity it could be done and perhaps there are school
districts already doing this. If you know of schools who do this
well, please share!
> > known about the disorder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
has been a serious increase and push to test fetus' for genetic
disorders. I agree with your sentiment in your post and am very
discouraged to read that a lot of women don't realize they are always
being tested or are given little choice and on top of that are looked
down upon if they do choose to not get tested (675). It is also
frightening to read that many obstetricians pressure women into
aborting their child--because they think that their child will not
have a good quality of life or that their life will be value-less and
that society and parents should not pay the price for bringing this
disabled child into the world (679). This brings up a big issue I
have with genetics testing and aborting fetuses--this quality of life
or value-less life card we as society like to use or play. Who is to
judge what makes a life worth living? Just because someone has a
disability or an impairment, does that make their life have less value
than someone without a genetic disorder? Does that mean they aren't
contributing members of our community? For example, my boyfriend was
a live-in caretaker for a man with Spinal Muscal Atrophy (form of
muscular dystrophy) for a year. Although this man could not bath
himself, eat by himself, get himself dressed etc. he is a brillant man
(a finalist for becoming a Rhodes Scholar)--a Georgetown Grad and a
successful economic consultant in big firm in downtown DC. His
parents knew that they were going to have a child with a severe
disability, and they decided to have him despite the recommendations
of their doctors and despite the fact that their previous son died of
the same disease. And today despite his extreme physical disabilities
he is a motivated, successful and contributing member of our society
and a role model for those who suffer from similar disabilities. Just
think if his parents had decided to abort their fetus? This is just
one example of a severly disabled person making a life for himself, a
life with lots of value, and shouldn't be give every child that
chance?
I like how Shakespeare brings up the fact that many people acquire
disabilities or impairments throughout their lives due to accidents or
illness--does that mean we should get rid of them? Because now they
have a disability? I also like how he brings up women's and civil
rights, as well as gay and lesbian issues--don't all these populations
(as well as others) face tough lives and a disability of sorts because
of the way society views them? What I am trying to get at, just like
the article suggests, is that genetic testing is a very slippery
slope. Think about what is being tested today, and what is deemed as
"disabled" and "impaired" and how this has changed over time. It
seems as if we continue to sink money into genetics testing that
perhaps this "disabled" and "impaired" list will only continue to
grow, and that in turn we will be weeding out people to create some
dominate and superior race--like Betsy mentioned, that kind of sounds
like genocide.
I agree that our society has not treated people with disabilities or
impairments very well and that we have not made it easy to live in our
country, and that bringing a child into the world with a disability or
impairment is going to cost a lot of money and that there are a lot of
social implications, however with all of this said, I do not believe
that women should be playing judge on who gets to come into this world
and who doesn't. I think that we as a society need to make some
serious changes so that those with disabilities/impairments
assimiliate much easier into our communities, especially schools. I
believe that the reason why so many people are so apt to get tested
and apt to abort their child if the tests show that their will be a
disability is because our society makes it very difficult to raise a
child with a disability or impairment, not to mention the costs
associated with raising this disabled child. We as a society need to
empower those with disabilites to speak up and to help make change for
their population--for as Shakespeare states on page 673, many
decisions are made with out consulting the "the best experts on life
as a disabled person" (673). Also, if more money was spent on helping
to empower disabled people and creating an "inclusive and barrier-free
society and promoting the civil rights and independent living of
disabled people" instead of on genetic research and testing, then
perhaps less people would be so inclined to abort their disabled or
impaired fetus.
This leads me to my classroom and educating disabled children. I
realize that it may be difficult to mainstream all disabled and
impaired children and that perhaps they would not be serviced or
supported in todays classrooms or schools as they are currently set
up--however I think this is what we need to work towards--the
inclusion of ALL children! We need to change the way in which schools
are set up and the way in which classes are constructed--so that they
can be accepting and nuturing for all children. Just think of the
implications or the results of assimilating disabled children into all
schools and classrooms. Yes, there would have to be a lot of thought
put into how schools and teachers could best do this and there would
need to be lots of money put into developing and providing resources
to reach and support all learners, but if we could start this
inclusion and acceptance in schools at an early age, the dominoe
effect throughout the rest of society would be great!
What do you all think? Is this possible? Could this happen? Could
we really make learning accessible for all children and include all
children into our classrooms? Maybe this is a naive idea, but perhaps
in some capacity it could be done and perhaps there are school
districts already doing this. If you know of schools who do this
well, please share!
>
> - Show quoted text -
Message has been deleted
kande9un
Feb 6, 2011, 6:04:01 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Tiffany,
You bring up some really good and hard questions--ones that I have a
hard time answering and reflecting on. My post is pretty one-sided,
but I wrote that all without having to face any of those decisions
about genetics testing or facing results from a test that stated my
child had downs syndrome. I can't say what I would do, but I do hope
that our society starts to change its views on disabled people and
starts to include and value their lives instead of looking down upon
them as being of no or lesser value! I also hope that women look into
the option of adoption instead of abortion--yes if women are feeling
unfit to bringing a child into this world, then maybe they could hand
that baby off to someone who does feel prepared--instead of decided
what is right for that child.
A tough topic for sure--and not one that is easily discussed or
decided upon. It is all a matter of circumstance and situation (as I
think Meredith mentioned)--there is no judge--there is only your life
and your circumstances.
Great discussion topic though for sure--thanks for the interesting
article Holly!!
On Feb 5, 7:21 pm, "Tiffany (india) Starke" <teacherzp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Holly- Hide quoted text -
You bring up some really good and hard questions--ones that I have a
hard time answering and reflecting on. My post is pretty one-sided,
but I wrote that all without having to face any of those decisions
about genetics testing or facing results from a test that stated my
child had downs syndrome. I can't say what I would do, but I do hope
that our society starts to change its views on disabled people and
starts to include and value their lives instead of looking down upon
them as being of no or lesser value! I also hope that women look into
the option of adoption instead of abortion--yes if women are feeling
unfit to bringing a child into this world, then maybe they could hand
that baby off to someone who does feel prepared--instead of decided
what is right for that child.
A tough topic for sure--and not one that is easily discussed or
decided upon. It is all a matter of circumstance and situation (as I
think Meredith mentioned)--there is no judge--there is only your life
and your circumstances.
Great discussion topic though for sure--thanks for the interesting
article Holly!!
On Feb 5, 7:21 pm, "Tiffany (india) Starke" <teacherzp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Drew Smith
Feb 6, 2011, 11:11:30 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
After reading this article, I was truly impressed with the way Tom
Shakespeare was able to define the stark differences between a medical
impairment, a disability and a cultural stigma. Fair or not, the term
“disability” often carries a much heavier cultural weight than it does
as a physical impairment. I think we need to continually remind
ourselves that while many people within our society might have
physical impairments, this in no way makes them disabled. I agree
with Shakespeare when he suggests, “disabled people themselves need to
debate these issues and confront the differences between
impairments” (670). I think most of us either have a family member,
friend or coworker that may have an impairment, but in reality are no
different than us at all.
I feel that I have both thought about both genetics and abortion very
separately up until this article (and I really only ever thought of
eugenics in terms of Nazis during the Holocaust). In the cases of
genetics and abortion separately, I have never been able to define my
point of view on either subject in a clear manner. In my opinion, the
issues are simply too complex to declare one way or the other. I
greatly respect the opinions and thoughts of those from this
discussion and truthfully do not know where I completely stand on the
issue of abortion.
When combining genetics and abortion though, testing to determine
one’s choice is dangerous. Females have every right to utilize any
information that helps them better prepare for their families future.
I think I agree with Shakespeare’s view in that “a position which
accepts women’s rights to choose, but opposes social and cultural
pressures for selective determination of disabled people” (666). I
feel lucky to live in a society that values and creates choice.
Regardless of the “sides” that can be taken it is more important to
realize all of the space that lies between those two sides.
Shakespeare was able to define the stark differences between a medical
impairment, a disability and a cultural stigma. Fair or not, the term
“disability” often carries a much heavier cultural weight than it does
as a physical impairment. I think we need to continually remind
ourselves that while many people within our society might have
physical impairments, this in no way makes them disabled. I agree
with Shakespeare when he suggests, “disabled people themselves need to
debate these issues and confront the differences between
impairments” (670). I think most of us either have a family member,
friend or coworker that may have an impairment, but in reality are no
different than us at all.
I feel that I have both thought about both genetics and abortion very
separately up until this article (and I really only ever thought of
eugenics in terms of Nazis during the Holocaust). In the cases of
genetics and abortion separately, I have never been able to define my
point of view on either subject in a clear manner. In my opinion, the
issues are simply too complex to declare one way or the other. I
greatly respect the opinions and thoughts of those from this
discussion and truthfully do not know where I completely stand on the
issue of abortion.
When combining genetics and abortion though, testing to determine
one’s choice is dangerous. Females have every right to utilize any
information that helps them better prepare for their families future.
I think I agree with Shakespeare’s view in that “a position which
accepts women’s rights to choose, but opposes social and cultural
pressures for selective determination of disabled people” (666). I
feel lucky to live in a society that values and creates choice.
Regardless of the “sides” that can be taken it is more important to
realize all of the space that lies between those two sides.
OMM
Feb 6, 2011, 11:33:07 PM2/6/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Amanda Washington
Feb 7, 2011, 1:01:37 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
I was particularly moved by this article. I think that the cultural
implications of the concept of disability are that an individual
cannot life a "full" lifestyle because of a physical impediment. The
author explained a comparison between ethnicity and impairment stating
that, "it would be wrong to eliminate ethnic diversity, on the basis
that racism can cause problems for black people." (Shakespeare 670).
I found this a very interesting point because I think society equates
having a disability as being a physical trait that causes difficulty
throughout life. Comparing that to the idea of one's ethnicity is
interesting because skin color is a physical trait AND can be an
impediment in mainstream society. I think that many people might
disagree with me but after reading about disability in this light, I
was against simply terminating a person's life because of a physical
trait.
I think there will always be an argument about the quality of life and
whether a person with a disability has a lesser quality of life. I
don't take away the right for a woman to choose, however, I do think
it a shame that a person who might go through life with challenges
because of a physical trait is considered less valuable than anyone
elses. On Jan 29, 4:59 pm, Holly Susan
implications of the concept of disability are that an individual
cannot life a "full" lifestyle because of a physical impediment. The
author explained a comparison between ethnicity and impairment stating
that, "it would be wrong to eliminate ethnic diversity, on the basis
that racism can cause problems for black people." (Shakespeare 670).
I found this a very interesting point because I think society equates
having a disability as being a physical trait that causes difficulty
throughout life. Comparing that to the idea of one's ethnicity is
interesting because skin color is a physical trait AND can be an
impediment in mainstream society. I think that many people might
disagree with me but after reading about disability in this light, I
was against simply terminating a person's life because of a physical
trait.
I think there will always be an argument about the quality of life and
whether a person with a disability has a lesser quality of life. I
don't take away the right for a woman to choose, however, I do think
it a shame that a person who might go through life with challenges
because of a physical trait is considered less valuable than anyone
elses. On Jan 29, 4:59 pm, Holly Susan
Emily Machado
Feb 7, 2011, 4:07:43 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Drew, I definitely agree with you on Shakespeare’s point about the
distinction between a disability and an impairment. I had never
before thought about the fact that a disability could be socially
constructed and based primarily on the reactions of others. Before, I
used the terms interchangeably and didn’t think about the differences
between them.
1. What do you think the cultural implications of the concept of
disability?
I can’t seem to find a clear-cut answer about my opinion on this
article. I came into it feeling “pro-choice” about abortion under any
circumstances, but now wonder about the potential social consequences
and cultural implications of abortions based on genetic factors.
Would people selectively screen out diseases that do include a high
quality of life? Would people screen for factors like gender? I do
agree with Shakespeare that “there are various reasons why a
termination might be appropriate” (p. 671). However, I think that
parents should be effectively counseled to know what life would be
like with a child with a severe impairment. The decision is a deeply
personal one, and prospective parents deserve a balanced presentation
of facts, not a “eugenic attitude” from a clinician (p. 668).
2. What do you think the salient elements of the genetics arguments
are?
I suppose that one of the salient arguments about using genetics is to
help parents become educated and prepared for any potential
impairments that their child may have. However, I saw many more
arguments against genetics in the Shakespeare article. The most
salient argument against the use of genetics, in my opinion, is that
genetic testing does not offer any “effective cures or therapeutic
interventions” (p. 666). As it stands, the only real option after
seeing these genetic results is to terminate pregnancy. How can we
advocate for genetic screening when the only way to use its knowledge
is to terminate a pregnancy? While I do support termination in a
situation like Tay-Sachs, which would cause only suffering for a
child, how do we know that people would continue with pregnancies once
they found out that their child had another impairment? Would all
impaired fetuses be terminated?
3. What might be the "sides" that people take here in this debate?
There are a number of sides that we can take in this debate. We could
argue for genetics as a means to make sure that parents are educated
about the potential impairments of their child, but we could also
argue that this could lead to the termination of pregnancies for
impairments that do not turn out to be disabilities. We could take
the side that termination is acceptable in all instances, or we could
argue that termination should only occur when children will endure
pain and suffering. With an issue so complex, there are an infinite
number of sides we could take.
distinction between a disability and an impairment. I had never
before thought about the fact that a disability could be socially
constructed and based primarily on the reactions of others. Before, I
used the terms interchangeably and didn’t think about the differences
between them.
1. What do you think the cultural implications of the concept of
disability?
article. I came into it feeling “pro-choice” about abortion under any
circumstances, but now wonder about the potential social consequences
and cultural implications of abortions based on genetic factors.
Would people selectively screen out diseases that do include a high
quality of life? Would people screen for factors like gender? I do
agree with Shakespeare that “there are various reasons why a
termination might be appropriate” (p. 671). However, I think that
parents should be effectively counseled to know what life would be
like with a child with a severe impairment. The decision is a deeply
personal one, and prospective parents deserve a balanced presentation
of facts, not a “eugenic attitude” from a clinician (p. 668).
2. What do you think the salient elements of the genetics arguments
are?
help parents become educated and prepared for any potential
impairments that their child may have. However, I saw many more
arguments against genetics in the Shakespeare article. The most
salient argument against the use of genetics, in my opinion, is that
genetic testing does not offer any “effective cures or therapeutic
interventions” (p. 666). As it stands, the only real option after
seeing these genetic results is to terminate pregnancy. How can we
advocate for genetic screening when the only way to use its knowledge
is to terminate a pregnancy? While I do support termination in a
situation like Tay-Sachs, which would cause only suffering for a
child, how do we know that people would continue with pregnancies once
they found out that their child had another impairment? Would all
impaired fetuses be terminated?
3. What might be the "sides" that people take here in this debate?
argue for genetics as a means to make sure that parents are educated
about the potential impairments of their child, but we could also
argue that this could lead to the termination of pregnancies for
impairments that do not turn out to be disabilities. We could take
the side that termination is acceptable in all instances, or we could
argue that termination should only occur when children will endure
pain and suffering. With an issue so complex, there are an infinite
number of sides we could take.
Betsy
Feb 7, 2011, 5:21:57 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Here is an interesting tidbit in the midst of our discussion!
How many of you saw that wonderful commercial of the little boy
dressed up as Darth Vader during the Super Bowl by Volkswagen?
Here it is if you didn't see it yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
This little boy, Max Pagehasm has a congenital heart defect that is
called Tetralogy of Fallot. This condition happens to be one those
pre-natal screening tests given to pregnant moms...you can read more
about him at
www.nbclosangeles.com/entertainment/televison/Childrens-Hospital-Patient-Stars-in-Super-Bowl
How many of you saw that wonderful commercial of the little boy
dressed up as Darth Vader during the Super Bowl by Volkswagen?
Here it is if you didn't see it yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
This little boy, Max Pagehasm has a congenital heart defect that is
called Tetralogy of Fallot. This condition happens to be one those
pre-natal screening tests given to pregnant moms...you can read more
about him at
www.nbclosangeles.com/entertainment/televison/Childrens-Hospital-Patient-Stars-in-Super-Bowl
T. Starke
Feb 7, 2011, 5:29:35 PM2/7/11
to foundations-of-spe...@googlegroups.com
I don't necessarily agree that there an infinite numbers of sides to take in this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
Keith McNamara
Feb 7, 2011, 5:59:07 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
On Feb 7, 5:29 pm, "T. Starke" <teacherzp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily agree that there an infinite numbers of sides to take in
> this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO
> ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
and how the “disability rights” camp and the geneticist/scientists
camp hold diametrically opposite views (general considered “pro-life”
and “pro-choice” in our modern parlance) to be a very interesting way
of outlining the debate. Clearly the ability to “screen” for certain
desirable and undesirable traits is by its nature morally problematic,
whether you think there is a meaningful distinction to be made between
screening for medical conditions or other biological traits like sex.
Either way, what is “desirable” or not has as much to with societal
expectations as it does with the very personal and unique decisions
individuals make when faced with whether to test and what do once the
results have arrived.
And thus the dilemma. As Shakespeare illustrates, the choice of
individuals is inevitably shaped by the expectations of others,
including the decisions doctors make “for them” and the attitudes
people have toward decisions that are not part of mainstream norms.
For example, the decision not to terminate an anencephalic birth (as
mentioned in Betsy’s post) would be a difficult decision for any
parent to make. But it would be doubly so when faced with the social
scorn of medical personnel and others in the community. Obviously the
pressures would be very different if the parents lived in a community
(apparently like many in the UK) that place blame on parents who don’t
terminate in difficult cases, than if they lived in certain parts of
the U.S. where termination for any reason is unthinkable.
2. What do you think the salient elements of the genetics arguments
are?
the only decision to make is whether or not to terminate. Even if
screening led to potential parents becoming better informed about the
challenges they could face (as opposed to a clinical cost/benefit
analysis), it’s still not clear such information would allow better
choices in such situations.
One thing I agree with completely is Shakespeare’s advocacy that
disabled people (or their families) play a central role in these
debates. Their perspectives are more valuable in debates about the
“desirability” of living with certain conditions than any abstractions
by scientists, geneticists, or policymakers.
3. What might be the "sides" that people take here in this debate?
a British author and appears to reflect societal attitudes in the UK
about these issues. However complex and nuanced Shakespeare’s
treatment of the issue of pre-natal genetic testing is, it would be a
debate taken up by a small majority in this country. Over here, there
is far more political resistance to the legalization of abortion in
any case. You would be hard pressed to find the kind of issues
Shakespeare describes be a part of American mainstream dialogue; there
are far too many who hold the view such discussion of when and if
termination of pregnancy is morally permissible or warranted as a
moral non-starter.
Alida Maravi
Feb 7, 2011, 6:00:52 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
It is so interesting to read all of the different viewpoints on this
discussion, especially on such a sensitive topic. I have to say that
I agree with Tiffany's post. While it is important to acknowledge the
prejudice and discrimination endured by people with "disabilities" (I
am not sure if this is a PC term anymore), I do think that we should
keep this issue separate from genetic testing and considering the
possibilities and future of a child that, if born, will inevitably be
brought up in a society where people with disabilities will be at a
disadvantage (whether it be physically, mentally, emotionally,
socially, etc.). Societal norms are not going to change over night,
especially because of the way our global society and economy is
designed. Jobs and basic day to day routines are designed for people
who do not suffer from physical or mental disabilities, and I am not
saying that this is right - quite the contrary I think this is a form
of prejudice and is wrong. But these are realities and what I kept
asking myself when reading the article was that there had been little
to no mention or consideration of the feelings or emotional suffering
that could (and most likely would) be experienced by a person with a
disability growing up in our prejudiced society. If I was a mother
put in this situation, I feel as if the question that would keep
ringing in my head would be "is this child going to be happy or is it
going to be miserable growing up in a world with limited opportunities
for him or her. I am reading "An Unquiet Mind" as my second novel for
the literature papers and in it, the author describes what it is like
to have the hereditary illness, Manic Depression. In the novel, she
attempts to commit suicide and falls into depressions so dark all she
can think about is death (when she is not on medication). When she
does take her medication, she resists it because it makes her feel
zombie-like and not herself. While the author is lucky enough to find
a somewhat stable balance, I wonder if I would want my child to grow
up going through these experiences that are so intolerable, not for
me, but for him or her. In the book, the author discusses a trip to
the doctor where she was discouraged by her physician not to have
children because her manic depressive illness was hereditary. The
author was enraged and in all of her arguments, I feel as if she kind
of missed the point. She kept saying things like "Of course I wonder
what my children would do if I suffered from another manic depressive
episode, of course I would worry about their health and safety if I
was not able to care for them..." but I don't think this is the main
point at issue. I feel as if the main consideration should be the
potential suffering that could be endured by a child with a
disability, not the parents' opinion. If someone has made the
commitment to potentially have a child, shouldn't that person's main
concerns be the well-being of the child - both physically and
emotionally?
discussion, especially on such a sensitive topic. I have to say that
I agree with Tiffany's post. While it is important to acknowledge the
prejudice and discrimination endured by people with "disabilities" (I
am not sure if this is a PC term anymore), I do think that we should
keep this issue separate from genetic testing and considering the
possibilities and future of a child that, if born, will inevitably be
brought up in a society where people with disabilities will be at a
disadvantage (whether it be physically, mentally, emotionally,
socially, etc.). Societal norms are not going to change over night,
especially because of the way our global society and economy is
designed. Jobs and basic day to day routines are designed for people
who do not suffer from physical or mental disabilities, and I am not
saying that this is right - quite the contrary I think this is a form
of prejudice and is wrong. But these are realities and what I kept
asking myself when reading the article was that there had been little
to no mention or consideration of the feelings or emotional suffering
that could (and most likely would) be experienced by a person with a
disability growing up in our prejudiced society. If I was a mother
put in this situation, I feel as if the question that would keep
ringing in my head would be "is this child going to be happy or is it
going to be miserable growing up in a world with limited opportunities
for him or her. I am reading "An Unquiet Mind" as my second novel for
the literature papers and in it, the author describes what it is like
to have the hereditary illness, Manic Depression. In the novel, she
attempts to commit suicide and falls into depressions so dark all she
can think about is death (when she is not on medication). When she
does take her medication, she resists it because it makes her feel
zombie-like and not herself. While the author is lucky enough to find
a somewhat stable balance, I wonder if I would want my child to grow
up going through these experiences that are so intolerable, not for
me, but for him or her. In the book, the author discusses a trip to
the doctor where she was discouraged by her physician not to have
children because her manic depressive illness was hereditary. The
author was enraged and in all of her arguments, I feel as if she kind
of missed the point. She kept saying things like "Of course I wonder
what my children would do if I suffered from another manic depressive
episode, of course I would worry about their health and safety if I
was not able to care for them..." but I don't think this is the main
point at issue. I feel as if the main consideration should be the
potential suffering that could be endured by a child with a
disability, not the parents' opinion. If someone has made the
commitment to potentially have a child, shouldn't that person's main
concerns be the well-being of the child - both physically and
emotionally?
> I don't necessarily agree that there an infinite numbers of sides to take in
> this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO
> ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
> this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO
> ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
Amanda Washington
Feb 7, 2011, 6:03:41 PM2/7/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
I understand what Tiffany is saying about there only being two
sides...to have or to abort. However, I see what Emily is saying, as
well. In either situation the parents decide whether to have the
child or to abort the child, however, I think that Emily is driving
the point that these decisions will be made because of an infinite
number of positions. With such a higher level of genetic screening as
relates to impairments, I think that the debate whether to abort or
not to abort and WHY to do wither of the two becomes much wider.
sides...to have or to abort. However, I see what Emily is saying, as
well. In either situation the parents decide whether to have the
child or to abort the child, however, I think that Emily is driving
the point that these decisions will be made because of an infinite
number of positions. With such a higher level of genetic screening as
relates to impairments, I think that the debate whether to abort or
not to abort and WHY to do wither of the two becomes much wider.
> I don't necessarily agree that there an infinite numbers of sides to take in
> this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO
> ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
> this discussion/debate.There are only two sides that I see....TO HAVE and TO
> ABORT. Either decision is circumstantial and rest on the woman effected, no?
colson
Feb 7, 2011, 8:38:17 PM2/7/11
to foundations-of-spe...@googlegroups.com
#3 Choices and rights:
Cultural implications of the Concept of Disability:
1. So many people respond so very harshly when the conversation is about disabilities on any level or to any degree. This maybe the source of all of this discussion on both moral and ethical support for the disable. It is true that being less than Caucasian and privileged really complicates the problem if advocating for the disable. The use of eugenics and what has become the standard testing for specific diseases causing serious disabilities clearly could be disastrous if left to immoral or unethical individuals.
In America, unlike China, the treatment of disabilities fall on the lines of ethics and morals and the mother’s rights. There is much to be considered. There are often financial concerns that are overwhelming. Oftentimes, there is an additional drain on family and extended family for physical and mental support. I am unable to discuss eugenics in a painless vain because the picture that is created by the very definition of Eugenics is one of insanity, arrogance, and selfishness. This concept makes me feel that someone is playing God and that is too much power.
Even with the existence of IDEA there must be continued advocacy for student with disabilities and their families.
Salient points ?
2.The genetic argument did not gain any support from me. The conditions under which there is a need for testing can all be found under the traditional battery of test given by a team of obstetricians. Technology has advanced to the point where the amounts of data available is just unbelievable. The parents can be afforded all of this information. Whatever decisions to be made and treatments to be started can be based upon tons of information. I am just not at peace with selective births. This has the feel, sound, and smell like creating a superior being.
Sides to be considered
3. Society can take the positions discussed by Shakespeare. There will always be so many positions to take. This is scary. Yes, there are people who would love to select the physical and mental characteristics of children. There are also the parents who are just concerned about having a normal healthy child. The choice then is within the family or the mother. Next, there are the researchers who are trackers of specific cells that carry specific diseases or traits of diseases. There is also the concern presented by Pro Life supporters. The view that we are talking about taking a life.
Most of the concern over abortions and choice is based upon our feelings toward children with disabilities. I understand that there are always additional responsibilities involved with children born with disabilities or children with traits of diseases that will develop later in life. However, the moral and ethical sides of these issues are not light discussions.
Impact on classroom
4. WOW! I do not know. I do believe that many mothers would abort their fetus if they knew the possible levels of severity involved in some of the more profound diseases and disabilities. This would mean that some of the more complex or profound conditions would not be in our schools. This would alter Special Education as we know it.
If we were to look at eugenics, then there is the possibility of loosing variety in physical and mental presence of our students. I would not like that classroom.
OMM
Feb 12, 2011, 10:04:34 PM2/12/11
to Foundations of Special Education 541
Tiffany I love your post! You really put it out there. I dare not
question this. I too believe we should have that choice to deny,
change our mind, refuse, abort, love and/or keep the life that exist
in us. With saying this, I think that it should just be our choice
and not an activist or doctor's choice. If a woman is vulnerable it
is easy to convince her of what the outcome of her child's life is. If
a woman is not vulnerable, she may choose it because of the financial,
social, time and life issues. If I was to step into a these shoes, I
would probably choose not too have the child. This world is so ugly
with normality, why would I want my child to suffer with abnormalities
in a world so ugly. Love your post!
question this. I too believe we should have that choice to deny,
change our mind, refuse, abort, love and/or keep the life that exist
in us. With saying this, I think that it should just be our choice
and not an activist or doctor's choice. If a woman is vulnerable it
is easy to convince her of what the outcome of her child's life is. If
a woman is not vulnerable, she may choose it because of the financial,
social, time and life issues. If I was to step into a these shoes, I
would probably choose not too have the child. This world is so ugly
with normality, why would I want my child to suffer with abnormalities
in a world so ugly. Love your post!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages