Prenatal testing when being marketed tells the expectant mother that it gives accurate information about her health and also that of her baby. However, what is often initially omitted is the accuracy and meaning of a ‘positive’ result for the possibility of a disorder being developed. The result serves the purpose of providing the potential mother (parents) with necessary information not solely about the likely disorders but offers a new dimension for deciding if she wants to bring her child to full term with the possible disorders lingering. Several sophisticated techniques have been developed for the purpose of detecting the presence of abnormalities in an unborn fetus. These procedures have resulted in prenatal diagnosis and the option for
…show more content…
Do I wish that Dwight had a lesser impacting disability or no disability- of course I do. However, I do not think that his life is lesser or that he would have been better off had he not been born. Still, this is my feeling and not that of his parents who abandoned him because he was not the child they wanted, and in doing so, avoided a heavy financial burden. This I can fully understand- this then forced me to face the question of what is morally wrong with a pregnant woman not wanting her child to live just as how Dwight has to live the rest of his life, that is, depending on persons (strangers) for simple things like, a shower, moving around and eating? What’s wrong with a pregnant woman wanting more for her ‘potential’ child. The Disability Rights Critique (DRC) document attempts to answer this by arguing that disabilities are a part of the ‘natural sphere of life and should be embraced as much as any desired trait. The wanting or rather acting on this warning sends the message that persons with disabilities, regardless of how severe, are less worthy that those who are in fact considered to be ‘normal’ by …show more content…
Testing offers the potential parent information that would be helpful before and after the birth of the fetus. If a potential mother is an avid future planner and wants to know exactly what the future holds for her fetus, the test provides answers to these questions or at least a clearer picture of what the future would be for the child in terms of ‘normalcy’ or abnormality. With the provided information, the potential mother is able to decide on the future of this potential child. This ranges from carrying the child to term if abnormalities are detected and begin preparations for the challenges that any abnormality would bring or as is the case with many, the termination of the pregnancy. Suter highlights this positive as she claims that it helps parents who decide to keep the potential child to receive early and adequate counselors who help to shape the preparations that would be needed, while offering physicians with valuable information, which allows them to better prepare for the many “difficulties associated with delivering a child with complications.” Why would and how could one be against prenatal testing if it offers a potential parent important information about the potential child, and equips that potential parent with a vital tool for planning? The DRC while acknowledging the positives of the testing has listed numerous negatives, which have chipped away at
Do I wish that Dwight had a lesser impacting disability or no disability- of course I do. However, I do not think that his life is lesser or that he would have been better off had he not been born. Still, this is my feeling and not that of his parents who abandoned him because he was not the child they wanted, and in doing so, avoided a heavy financial burden. This I can fully understand- this then forced me to face the question of what is morally wrong with a pregnant woman not wanting her child to live just as how Dwight has to live the rest of his life, that is, depending on persons (strangers) for simple things like, a shower, moving around and eating? What’s wrong with a pregnant woman wanting more for her ‘potential’ child. The Disability Rights Critique (DRC) document attempts to answer this by arguing that disabilities are a part of the ‘natural sphere of life and should be embraced as much as any desired trait. The wanting or rather acting on this warning sends the message that persons with disabilities, regardless of how severe, are less worthy that those who are in fact considered to be ‘normal’ by …show more content…
Testing offers the potential parent information that would be helpful before and after the birth of the fetus. If a potential mother is an avid future planner and wants to know exactly what the future holds for her fetus, the test provides answers to these questions or at least a clearer picture of what the future would be for the child in terms of ‘normalcy’ or abnormality. With the provided information, the potential mother is able to decide on the future of this potential child. This ranges from carrying the child to term if abnormalities are detected and begin preparations for the challenges that any abnormality would bring or as is the case with many, the termination of the pregnancy. Suter highlights this positive as she claims that it helps parents who decide to keep the potential child to receive early and adequate counselors who help to shape the preparations that would be needed, while offering physicians with valuable information, which allows them to better prepare for the many “difficulties associated with delivering a child with complications.” Why would and how could one be against prenatal testing if it offers a potential parent important information about the potential child, and equips that potential parent with a vital tool for planning? The DRC while acknowledging the positives of the testing has listed numerous negatives, which have chipped away at