chapter 5(ish)

Although I haven't finished the Against Health reading yet, chapter 5 is interesting - but much of what it has to say I feel is a point worth debating in a philosophy text or classroom. Much of what this chapter deals with reminded me a lot of Nicholas Agar's Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Take for example: Agar gives a story about two deaf parents who want selective IVF (or what this chapter calls preimplantation genetic diagnosis, PGD) for their future child so that it will be deaf as well; another story is about a couple who chooses to have a child free from genetic disabilities. Agar does not really say which one is right, but his overall mood is that if science is able to eventually rid society of terrible ailments and genetic disabilities (e.g. DMD-Duchenne muscular dystrophy) that procedures like PGD will benefit society at-large.

It would seem to me however, that PGD is simply prolonging "society's" prejudice toward those who have a disablity, be it a physical or mental impairment. Furthermore, the cost factor of these screenings (let alone the cost of IVF) would further separate class lines and make the idea of "bettering society" in reality one of "placing those who are less well-off a little further behind." (the 2nd to last sentence actually says this same thing more or less).

But the question I have is (although much is hypothetical): if two parents who have a disability want their child to have that same disability - is that wrong?

To me, the question cannot be answered - its equivalent to asking someone how they feel about the death penalty or abortions. By that, I mean everyone has a different opinion. Biotechnological procedures like PGD are what many are deeming as "(new)genics" or "new eugenics" - a way of weeding out those who are unfit - or in the case of PGD in this chapter, weeding out disabilities that are unfit and racializing prescription drugs...all in the good name of health.