The expressivist objection to prenatal diagnosis: can it be laid to rest?

Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):24-25 (2008)
Tom Shakespeare’s book Disability rights and wrongs is very rich and interesting and ought to be compulsory reading for anyone interested in the relation between disability and medical ethics.1In my short contribution to this symposium on the book, I will focus on a particular aspect of his discussion of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy.In chapter 6 of Disability rights and wrongs, a chapter entitled Questioning prenatal diagnosis, the author discusses a wide range of issues concerning the relation between disability and prenatal diagnosis. One of the arguments he discusses is the so-called “expressivist objection” to prenatal diagnosis—that is, the claim that prenatal diagnosis expresses a discriminatory or negative attitude towards people with disability. After having analysed the expressivist objection, Shakespeare, in line with a range of other authors, concludes that the argument is not sound: Nor should we interpret a decision to have a test or a termination as expressing disrespect or discrimination towards disabled people.1Is it thus time now to lay the expressivist objection to rest? In the following, I will suggest that it may be too early to completely dismiss the objection, partially because it is often misrepresented by its opponents, who argue against implausibly strong versions of the objection.THE OBJECTION UNFOLDEDWhat does the expressivist objection essentially claim? The core of the claim is, as described above, that prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy expresses certain attitudes towards disabled people. What is taken to express these attitudes may be the social practice of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy either …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2006.019984
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,211
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Caroline Whitbeck (1981). What is Diagnosis? Some Critical Reflections. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (3):319-329.
D. Heyd (1995). Prenatal Diagnosis: Whose Right? Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (5):292-297.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

33 ( #128,180 of 1,935,135 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #269,953 of 1,935,135 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.