tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447392662850613354.post1712818885659067425..comments2024-02-25T10:24:30.868-05:00Comments on Special needs disability parenting BLOOM: I'm not okay with disability hate being confused with scienceBLOOM - Parenting Kids With Disabilitieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06901482901008135659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447392662850613354.post-80583112671488961722017-03-13T14:17:26.159-04:002017-03-13T14:17:26.159-04:00I agree - Singer is most definitely contributing t...I agree - Singer is most definitely contributing to systems of discrimination against people with disabilities. Historically (and to this day), people who are marginalized based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. have had language like this thrown at them - equating them to animals, saying that they're not worth the time to raise, and ultimately, many face violence as a consequence of these types of ideologies. This interview is indicative of a person who is, at the very least, promoting and encouraging the bigotry and prejudice of society. Even though Singer says that 'in general' he doesn't believe a life with a disability is of less value, I don't know how else anyone could explain what he means in the excerpt. It's laughable that he thinks that by asking, "why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being" is an alternative explanation.<br /><br />Here's a surprise for you Singer - I deny it. I know a massive community of people with disabilities and their allies who will deny it too. <br /><br />Amongst all of the research and fact-checking failures that Louise mentions, here's one more that Singer misses. From the World Health Organization: "Factors which place people with disabilities at higher risk of violence include stigma, discrimination, and ignorance about disability, as well as a lack of social support for those who care for them." <br /><br />Here's the link for this resource as well: http://www.who.int/disabilities/violence/en/<br /><br />In my opinion, it takes an incredibly awful, self-absorbed and ignorant person to feel like they can rate other humans on how 'valuable' they are.<br />Melissa Ngonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447392662850613354.post-41435483646253916852017-02-27T21:08:24.572-05:002017-02-27T21:08:24.572-05:00I commend Louise Kinross for her rigorous and insi...I commend Louise Kinross for her rigorous and insightful critique of Peter Singer’s more recent commentary on disability. Singer’s arguments in this domain are problematic in a number of ways. First of all, he uses a utilitarian consequentialist framework that privileges so-called “ends” and discounts the “means” to those ends. Those means are morally relevant. Even if it was true that some disabled children’s lives (and their families’ lives) are very difficult, there should be limits to the actions that can be performed to “relieve” those difficulties. For example, to date, we have prohibited the euthanasia of children in Canada because they are tremendously vulnerable and generally unable to freely choose that their lives be ended. My argument is explicitly corroborated by the Canadian Paediatric Society Position Statement on Treatment decisions regarding infants, children and adolescents, which states, “All infants, children and adolescents – regardless of physical or mental disability – have dignity, intrinsic value, and a claim to respect, protection, and medical treatment that serves their best interests” (my underlining). Decisions regarding children should be based on THEIR best interests, which should be protected regardless of physical or mental disability. Moreover, Singer’s arguments rely heavily on his imagined preferences of “most people”. As Louise Kinross has highlighted, a growing body of evidence is demonstrating that these imagined preferences are seriously uninformed. Research is demonstrating that predominant sources of distress among disabled people has less to do with their disability and more to do with surrounding prejudice and barriers that are imposed upon them. The value and quality of their lives are not fixed and bound to their specific disabilities but are rather related to how their communities recognize and accommodate the adaptations they require to facilitate their inclusion in social life. Bravo Louise for highlighting how Singer’s arguments are problematic!<br /><br />Franco A. Carnevale, RN, PhD (Psych), PhD (Phil) <br />Clinical Ethicist(Pediatric), Nurse, Psychologist<br />Professor, McGill University<br />Principal Investigator, VOICE: Views On Interdisciplinary Childhood Ethics<br />Website: https://www.mcgill.ca/voice Twitter: @childethics <br /><br />REFERENCE<br />Canadian Paediatric Society. (2004). Treatment decisions regarding infants, children and adolescents. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9, 99-103.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08665102408472785934noreply@blogger.com