The Ableism of Quality of Life Judgments in Disorders of Consciousness: Who Bears Epistemic Responsibility?

American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 7 (1):59-61 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this peer commentary on L. Syd M. Johnson’s “Inference and Inductive Risk in Disorders of Consciousness,” I argue for the necessity of disability education as an integral component of decision-making processes concerning patients with DOC and, mutatis mutandis, all patients with disabilities. The sole qualification Johnson places on such decision-making is that stakeholders are educated about and “understand the uncertainties of diagnosis and prognosis.” Drawing upon research in philosophy of disability, social epistemology, and health psychology, I argue that this educational qualification is insufficient to address systemic ableism and other forms of epistemic bias in quality of life judgments.

Similar books and articles

The scientific study of consciousness.Christopher D. Frith - 2003 - In Maria A. Ron & Trevor W. Robbins (eds.), Disorders of Brain and Mind 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 197-222.
The biopolitics of bioethics and disability.Shelley Tremain - 2008 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2-3):101-106.
Ever Present: Attention and Alertness in the Unawake.Raymond McDaniel - 2013 - Anthropology of Consciousness 24 (2):208-213.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-26

Downloads
799 (#18,772)

6 months
94 (#47,557)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joel Michael Reynolds
Georgetown University