Abstract
Abnormality as a concept has been used in many cultures for a long time. Many synonyms and antonyms of abnormality exist. Abnormality is used to judge abilities and morphologies of the human body and other biological entities such as animals and nonliving objects. Behaviors of biological entities from humans to nature are judged as abnormal, as are how people relate to each other and to animals and to nature. The use of abnormality as a judgment raises numerous ethical issues. Who decides what is abnormal? What is a variation, what a deviation? What is an ethical reaction toward abnormality? Who decides what is ethical? What about judgment conflicts on what is abnormal on the local and global level? This entry concludes that there are still unresolved issues of how to use and react to the label of abnormality, unresolved ethical, social, cultural, economic, legal, and other issues that apply to existing and emerging discourses and meanings of abnormality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Appel, M., Kronberger, N., & Aronson, J. (2011). Stereotype threat impairs ability building: Effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(7), 904–913.
Buechler, S. M. (1990). Women’s movements in the United States: Woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Canadian Down Syndrome Society. (2007). Down syndrome redefined. Canadian Down Syndrome Society webpage. Retrieved from http://www.cdss.ca/information/general-information/what-is-down-syndrome.html. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Erasing 76 crimes blog. (2015). 80 countries where homosexuality is illegal. Retrieved from http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Humanity Plus formerly World Transhumanist Association. (2005). What is transhumanism? Humanity Plus formerly World Transhumanist Association. http://humanityplus.org/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Huxley, J. (1957). Transhumanism. In New bottles for new wine (pp. 13–17). London: Chatto & Windus.
Kelleher, S., & Wilson, D. (2005). Suddenly sick a special report. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://cmlhope.com/2005/06/27/suddenly-sick-a-special-report-by-susan-kelleher-and-duff-wilson-%EF%BF%BD-june-26-june-30-2005/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Kelso, G. A., & Brody, L. R. (2014). Implicit processes and emotions in stereotype threat about women’s leadership. In J. Zheng (Ed.), Exploring implicit cognition: Learning, memory, and social cognitive processes: Learning, memory, and social cognitive processes (pp. 118–137). Hershey: IGI Global.
Lancet, T. (1847). Pathological Society of London.: Monday, April 5, 1847. – DR. Williams in the chair. The Lancet, 49(1233), 409–411. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)87178-1.
Liao, S. M., Sandberg, A., & Roache, R. (2012). Human engineering and climate change. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(2), 206–221.
Martinot, D., Bagès, C., & Désert, M. (2012). French children’s awareness of gender stereotypes about mathematics and reading: When girls improve their reputation in math. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 210–219.
Parens, E., & Asch, A. (1999). The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and Recommendations. Hastings Center Report, 29(5), S1–S22.
Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus. (2009). Abnormality. Retrived from http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/abnormality. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Trimper, J. B., Wolpe, P. R., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2014). When “I” becomes “We”: Ethical implications of emerging brain-to-brain interfacing technologies. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 7(4). doi:10.3389/fneng.2014.00004.
United Nations. (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Wolbring, G. (2003). Disability Rights Approach Toward Bioethics? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3), 174–180.
Wolbring, G. (2004). The animal farm philosophy of genetic discrimination. Law and the Human Genome Review, July-Dec; (21), 165–184.
Wolbring, G. (2005). HTA Initiative #23 The triangle of enhancement medicine, disabled people, and the concept of health: A new challenge for HTA, health research, and health policy. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) webpage: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR). Retrieved from http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR23.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Wolbring, G. (2010). Nanotechnology and the transhumanization of health, medicine, and rehabilitation. In D. Lee Kleinmann, J. Delborne, K. Cloud-Hansen & J. Handelsman (Eds.) Controversies in Science & Technology: Volume 3. From Evolution To Energy, (pp. 290–303). New Rochelle: Mary Ann Liebert.
Wolbring, G. (2012). Ethical theories and discourses through an ability expectations and ableism lens: The case of enhancement and global regulation. Asian Bioethics Review, 4(4), 293–309.
Further Readings
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Eugenics Archives What Sorts of people should there be. Retrieved from http://Eugenicsarchive.ca. Accessed 15 May 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Wolbring, G. (2015). Abnormality. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_1-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_1-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities