Counterpoint: On Not Wanting to Be Injured and Insulted

Abstract

In this article the author examines some of the political and philosophical strategies used in Gregor Wolbring's discussion (this issue) of disability rights approaches to bioethics, concentrating on his argument concerning the similarity of feminist and disability rights approaches to preimplantation and prenatal selection techniques. Altough supportive of Wolbring's general approach, the author suggests that there are some analytical problems in Wolbring's argument relating to the political efficacy of social constructionism and the concept of disability. The author believes that Wolbring's position may veer toward a radical individualism in bioethics that could undermine Wolbring's overall political project of advancing the rights and status of people with disabilities.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashcroft, R.E. (1999). Genetic information and “genetic identity .” In A. Thompson & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Genetic information: Acquisition, access and control (pp. 207—218). New York: Plenum.

Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.

Elliott, C. (1999). A philosophical disease: Bioethics, culture and identity. London: Routledge.

Evans, J.H. (2002). Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Feinberg, J. (1985). Offense to others. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

Gilman, S.L. (1990). Jewish self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the hidden language of the Jews. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gostin, L.O. (2000). Public health law: Power, duty, restraint. Berkeley: University of California Press.

10.

Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Hare, R.M. (1993a). Possible people. In R. M. Hare (Ed.), Essays on bioethics (pp. 67—83). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

12.

Hare, R.M. (1993b). When does potentiality count? In R. M. Hare (Ed.), Essays on bioethics (pp. 84—97). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

13.

Leahy, M. , & Cohn-Sherbok, D. (Eds.). (1996). The liberation debate: Rights at issue. London: Routledge.

14.

Radcliffe-Richards, J. (1980). The sceptical feminist: A philosophical inquiry . London: Routledge.

15.

Rapp, R. (1999). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. London: Routledge.

16.

Ree, J. (1999). I see a voice: Language, deafness and the senses—A philosophical history. London: HarperCollins.

17.

Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Sainsbury, M. (2000). Logical Forms: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell.

19.

Shakespeare, T. (1999). “Losing the plot?” Medical and activist discourses of contemporary genetics and disability. In P. Conrad & J. Gabe (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on the new genetics (pp. 171—190). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

20.

Stevens, M.T. (2000). Bioethics in America: Origins and cultural politics . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

21.

Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (1991). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.