A couple of months ago, during a report I presented for Newsnight on BBC 2, Sir John Sulston, the 2002 Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine, spoke about aborting impaired foetuses. He said: “I would say if we can select children who are not going to be severely disadvantaged then we should do so. But I think it has to be done by voluntary choice…”
Currently the law says the deadline for an abortion is 24 weeks, unless tests indicate that the foetus may be impaired, in which case an abortion can be carried out right up to the due date. Since the broadcast, I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve remarked that they didn’t realise ideas like Sulston’s were still around.
Sulston justifies his view by claiming scientific objectivity. But his argument is fundamentally subjective, as it depends on what we think is a “severe disadvantage”.
There is a history of basing discrimination on biological differences, such as being female, black, disabled, and so on. It could be argued that people from any of these categories will experience severe disadvantages because of society.
But while it is considered unacceptable to abort foetuses on gender or race grounds, it is now commonplace to terminate foetuses with predicted impairments.
I believe this is down to sheer prejudice. It is still commonly assumed that disabled people’s quality of life is somehow less. Not so long ago, the same was said about women and black people’s lives.
Furthermore, it could be argued that children born into families in poverty will be “severely disadvantaged” when compared to their wealthier counterparts. Does this mean that poorer couples should also be exercising the “voluntary choice” advocated by Sulston for disabled couples?
“Choice” can be an ambiguous word in medical circles. I completely respect a woman’s right to choose, but maintain that the deadline for abortion should be the same, irrespective of impairment.
Crucially, choices are dependent on information, and by presenting tragic portrayals of disabled people’s lives, medics are denying parents a truly informed choice. It is scandalous that bleak scenarios, similar to the one presented to my mother 30 years ago, are still around today.
You have to ask yourself why disabled adults aren’t involved in the production of information for prospective parents. Why hasn’t a peer support service been established by the NHS so that prospective parents can talk to disabled adults with the same impairment as their child? Why does the medical profession ignore positive first hand accounts of living with impairment by instead continually pushing a eugenicist agenda?
I agree that as a disabled person I experience disadvantage. However this has nothing to do with how my body works. It is caused by inaccessible housing, transport and services. Furthermore, I believe I’m “severely disadvantaged” by living in a world where eugenicist views such as Sulston’s are given credence.
I really struggle to understand the mentality of a father of two, who disputes the right of another social group to bring children into this world. His outlook is at odds with article eight of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to respect for family life.
The right to procreate and start a family should not be dictated by the medical profession.
Laurence and Adele’s son Tom was born on 11 November 2004
A couple of months ago, during a report I presented for Newsnight on BBC 2, Sir John Sulston, the 2002 Nobel Prize winner for Physiology or Medicine, spoke about aborting impaired foetuses. He said: “I would say if we can select children who are not going to be severely disadvantaged then we should do so. But I think it has to be done by voluntary choice…”
Currently the law says the deadline for an abortion is 24 weeks, unless tests indicate that the foetus may be impaired, in which case an abortion can be carried out right up to the due date. Since the broadcast, I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve remarked that they didn’t realise ideas like Sulston’s were still around.
Sulston justifies his view by claiming scientific objectivity. But his argument is fundamentally subjective, as it depends on what we think is a “severe disadvantage”.
There is a history of basing discrimination on biological differences, such as being female, black, disabled, and so on. It could be argued that people from any of these categories will experience severe disadvantages because of society.
But while it is considered unacceptable to abort foetuses on gender or race grounds, it is now commonplace to terminate foetuses with predicted impairments.
I believe this is down to sheer prejudice. It is still commonly assumed that disabled people’s quality of life is somehow less. Not so long ago, the same was said about women and black people’s lives.
Furthermore, it could be argued that children born into families in poverty will be “severely disadvantaged” when compared to their wealthier counterparts. Does this mean that poorer couples should also be exercising the “voluntary choice” advocated by Sulston for disabled couples?
“Choice” can be an ambiguous word in medical circles. I completely respect a woman’s right to choose, but maintain that the deadline for abortion should be the same, irrespective of impairment.
Crucially, choices are dependent on information, and by presenting tragic portrayals of disabled people’s lives, medics are denying parents a truly informed choice. It is scandalous that bleak scenarios, similar to the one presented to my mother 30 years ago, are still around today.
You have to ask yourself why disabled adults aren’t involved in the production of information for prospective parents. Why hasn’t a peer support service been established by the NHS so that prospective parents can talk to disabled adults with the same impairment as their child? Why does the medical profession ignore positive first hand accounts of living with impairment by instead continually pushing a eugenicist agenda?
I agree that as a disabled person I experience disadvantage. However this has nothing to do with how my body works. It is caused by inaccessible housing, transport and services. Furthermore, I believe I’m “severely disadvantaged” by living in a world where eugenicist views such as Sulston’s are given credence.
I really struggle to understand the mentality of a father of two, who disputes the right of another social group to bring children into this world. His outlook is at odds with article eight of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to respect for family life.
The right to procreate and start a family should not be dictated by the medical profession.
Laurence and Adele’s son Tom was born on 11 November 2004