The dream of every expectant mother is to give birth to a healthy baby when the nine months elapse. However, the culture of uncertainty among expectant mothers has engulfed their thoughts of the possibility of giving birth to children with disabilities. As a result, they have turned to clinics for prenatal screening with a hope of getting a clean bill of health from medical practitioners about their current situation. All these efforts are not in vain in their minds as long as they are assured their babies will not have Down’s syndrome. These frantic efforts paintan image of a society that dread disability. With the bold writings on the societal wall, people with disabilities have legitimate worries about the way in which prenatal screening is handled in our culture.
This essay explores some medical ethics with regard to the perspective of persons with disabilities view on medical screening. I will first explore what medical ethics entails, then evaluate whether prenatal screening is necessary and whether it is discriminatory as claimed. Based on the benefits, success, statistical data, I will defend the perspective of physically challenged individuals by highlighting numerous success records of families with children suffering from Down’s syndrome.
According to Synder and Gauthier (2008), ethics can be defined as a moral principle that dictates human behavior and classifying it as either good or bad based on the end result and the motive behind the cause of action. There is more compelling need to find out what motivated the emergence of prenatal screening. Also, to find out how it has achieved its objectives. To begin with, there is a need to understand activities surrounding prenatal screening.
Whereas prenatal screening is meant to inform expectant mothers about the current medical condition of their unborn babies, it has contravened its purpose by going further to convince affected women on the need to have the pregnancy in check periodically. It is ironic that there is little doctors can always do to avert the fate of the unborn babies owing to the inability to realize a balanced hormone system in these fetuses, but they have always gone a step higher to advise these women on the need to have an abortion. It is so disturbing why doctors would suggest something like that when the life of the mother is not endangered whatsoever by the possibility of giving birth to a disabled child.
The actions of these doctors to force these women to get rid of their unborn babies unravels the grand master plan behind the prenatal screening from a safety perspective to eliminating people with disabilities (Kaplan and Saxton, 2005). In fact, disability groups have labelled this as a form of selective abortion meant to deny these unborn the fundamental right to life. If the screening in its noble initiative was on course, it should be used as a means to prepare affected mothers to safe deliveries and be advised on how to raise such children. On the contrary, this has not been the case and is far from being the case as long as the medical code of ethics is under the feet. Doctors seem on course to reprogram the world population by dictating who should be born and who not to as evident from the procedural techniques applied once a mother has been found to be carrying a child with potential disability.
Once the prenatal screening has revealed possible traces of disability, these mothers are taken round with well-manipulated medical report to coerce them to bow to the call to have the pregnancy terminated. It raises more doubts than truth, why a certified medical practitioner would be more interested in the future of the unborn before birth knowing very well, most corrective medication only works after birth of children with full organs even if disabled. The pretense of showing more concern to the unborn then proceeding to deny them life is unethical and criminal act which should attract a maximum penalty in the criminal justice system.
The avoidance of Down’s syndrome discussion during prenatal screening consultation does not reflect ethical behavior of medical practitioners. The medical code of ethics requires practitioners to exhaustively explore various options during consultation and make patient aware of medical conditions that may affect them in one way or another. Evidently, doctors have completely gone dump on this issue depicting a society that does not want productive discussions on serious medical issues surrounding disability.
Lack of commitment by doctors who are in the best position to create an awareness campaign on Down’s syndrome and to instill confidence among the most likelyto be affected couples is best viewed as professional misconduct. Instead of explaining that disability is not the end of a child’s life or the onset of family breakages, they have taken a silent approach to let the ill-informed expectant mothers to worry about the unity of their families when they give birth to disabled children. The ever bulging worries of the stereotyped high financial cost of raising a physically challenged person and loss of societal status of “blessed parent” have forcibly force these mothers to quickly agree to anything these practitioners say without raising a second thought or advancing next possible option to their condition.
Consequently, these mothers fail to get the best medical help that could possibly help them make sound decisions that will protect both the unborn and the family social life. The doctor’s option is then seen as the “best” while in reality, it is the worst, unprofessional and violates the medical code of ethics to grant the patient with the opportunity to make own decision on what possible causes of action they prefer or the type of medication as provided for in their professional code of conduct.
The medical practitioners defense that the inability to fully or partially discuss Down’s syndrome during prenatal screening is contributed by an organization’s duty of care. They argue that during such screening, any discussion about the condition does not add value considering that these women are full of fear and anxiety. This reasoning is completely out of context. It does not serve the interest of the mother and the unborn. Rather, it satisfies the practitioner’s unspoken interest to “wipe” children who could be born with a disability and achieve “perfect society” they envision.
Similarly, their defense of lack of sufficient knowledge about Down’s syndrome reflects unprofessionalism and deceptive culture bred in the medical fraternity concerning the condition. Disability groups have refuted these claims, saying these medical practitioners are expensively trained on several medical conditions and always advising expectant mothers on the same. However, they only disown their knowledge and experience with the condition at a point when it is needed the most by expectant mothers for sound decision making.
Most disable groups feel judged and targeted because of their present conditions. These feelings are informed by prenatal genetic diagnosis. No existing law in the 21st century promote discrimination of any member of the society whatsoever. Medical practitioners’ persistence on the need to subject the disabled to these testing with an aim to ensure they deliver healthy babies free of disability is seen as part of a grand masterplan to embrace zero tolerance on disabilities. There is no acceptable behavior in forcing individuals to accept and participate in test which they are already questioning its integrity and ulterior motive.
These tests are causing discomfort among the disability community with the manner in which they are done. Evident from their harrowing experience, these tests are not voluntary and enforced when the mother has no alternative. Some governments have made these test mandatory claiming to be improving the life of expectant mothers to guarantee safe deliveries. Regretfully, the unborn are denied the opportunity to see the light of the day with the now ‘selective abortion” practiced by these unprofessional practitioners who no longer after saving life and now using shorthand explanations to end promising lives.
Some of these compulsory tests are labelled as government initiatives which continue to cause jittery among the disabled thinking they stare extinction. Since the inception of these prenatal genetic screening, nothing great has ever been achieved that the community can celebrate. Instead, it has caused panic and fear among the physically challenged persons making them feel inferior among the population because the results of these screening always end up with a loss of pregnancy under unclear circumstances after a confirmation that the unborn will likely suffer from some forms of disabilities.
It is so disheartening to see how science is now used against humans yet, it is meant to improve human life and offer solutions to dominant problems facing the society. The growing hatred of individuals with disability is not only a form of discrimination, it is causing disunity among the existing populations. Although human beings have at least experienced four evolutionary stages, the perception of disabled members of the society has not changed much with the increasing discrimination and lack of equal opportunity to advance and leada normal life.
Science which has been widely used to enhance their lives has now turn to haunt them with prenatal screenings and eliminating them before delivery. Perception of other members of the society about the disabled is completely skewed. People are associating disability with increased financial burden, contributing to high number of broken marriages, and being seen as a lesser being. The truth of the matter is that the traditional and current perception of people with disability is completely misguided and based on heresy.
Many people forget the fact that just like a normal situation has a remedy, disability is not a burden and affected people always adjust and live a comfortable life just like other members of the society. Previous studies have revealed that families that have a person suffering from Down’s syndrome live a happy life and members are more united and supportive compared to the “normal” family and records low divorce rate contrary to majority population expectation.
Undeniably, people with disabilities have legitimate worries about the way in which prenatal screening is handled in our culture. In her article "Beyond the Pale, Tainted Whiteness Cognitive Disability and Eugenic Sterilization", Stubblefield argue that the modern society if field with moral degradation. The desire to achieve a “perfect” society has ruined our mental institution. It is difficult to trust medical practitioners and it is much more difficult to trust the state that should protect us.The current medical fraternity is not sincere in its objective in conducting the screening due to the end result of most of these undertaking which always lead to an advisory to have the pregnancy terminated. Furthermore, the professionals have become dump on the matter and do not want to shed light on the medical conditions and prepare parents on how to accept such disorders when they eventually occur.
The medics have caused fear among the expectant mothers with their growing silence on the issue leading the mothers with no option than to entirely rely on their final say fearing for their lives and that of the baby at the same time. There is no shortage of medical knowledge on Down’s syndrome and claims by doctors are completely unprofessional and will remain a technique on the minds of the disability community as a means to circumvent justice in case of fatality.
Medics are obliged to give patients the right information about their health and various medical conditions at all time to facilitate quick and informed decision making process. The current argument as to whether to discuss Down’s syndrome during prenatal screening is a plot by the medical practitioners to deny these women undergoing screening the right information they need to know that will influence their decision. However, with the current system where doctors are moderating the kind of medical information to give patients, the disability groups must be worry of the conduct of these doctor’s as it does not reflects professionalism in any way.
Bibliography
Kaplan, Deborah, and Marsha Saxton. "CGS : Disability Community and Identity: Perceptions of Prenatal Screening." CGS : Disability Community and Identity: Perceptions of Prenatal Screening. 2005. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2003.
Madeo, Anne C., Barbara B. Biesecker, Campbell Brasington, Lori H. Erby, and Kathryn F. Peters. "The Relationship between the Genetic Counseling Profession and the Disability Community: A Commentary." Am. J. Med. Genet. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 155, no. 8 (2011): 1777-785. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34054.
Snyder, John E., and Candace C. Gauthier. Evidence-based Medical Ethics: Cases for Practice-based Learning. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2008.
Stubblefield, Anna. "“Beyond the Pale”: Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization." Hypatia 22, no. 2 (2007): 162-81.
Thomas, Gareth. "Somatosphere." SomatosphereUnInhabitable Worlds The Curious Case of Downs Syndrome Comments. July 29, 2015. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://somatosphere.net/2015/07/uninhabitable-worlds-the-curious-case-of-downs-syndrome.html.
