Abstract
This paper considers the disability rights critique of genetic testing in the context of different communities and the issue of nondirectiveness. Despite the wide usage of genetic diagnosis in Israel, no public debate has emerged there concerning disability rights and prenatal testing. The common attitude that emerged from interviews with Israeli representatives of organizations “of’’ and “for’’ people with genetic diseases and congenital disabilities can be described as a two-fold view of disability: support of genetic testing during pregnancy, and support of the disabled person after birth. This two-fold view is explained as a secular construction situated in legal, economic and cultural contexts. The paper concludes by considering the implications of the “two-fold view’’ of disability for the profession of genetic counseling. It is argued that awareness of the existence of conflicting views among clients—such as the view of the ‘disability critique’ as well as of the “two-fold view of disability’’—should strengthen the significance of nondirectiveness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amir, D., & Binyamini, O. (1992a). Abortion approval as ritual of symbolic control. In C. Feinman (Ed.), The criminalization of women’s body (pp. 1–25). Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press.
Amir, D., & Binyamini, O. (1992b). The abortion committees: Educating and controlling women. J Women Crim Justice, 3, 5–25.
Asch, A. (1988). Reproductive technology and disability. In S. Cohen & N. Taub (Eds.), Reproductive laws for the 1990s (pp. 59–101). Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
Asch, A. (1994). The human genome and disability rights. Disability rag and resource (pp. 12–15). Jan/Feb.
Ben-Eliezer, U. (1995). A nation in arms: State, nation and militarism in Israel’s first years. Comp Stud Soc Hist, 37, 264–285.
Ben-Zvi, B. (1995). Over-protection versus discrimination in legislation for the disabled (in Hebrew). Soc Secur, 43, 45–53.
Benjamin, C., Colley, A., Donnai, D., Kingston, H., Harris, R., & Kerzin-Storrar, L. (1993). Neurofibromatosis type-1: Knowledge, experience and reproductive decisions of affected patients and families. J Med Genet, 30, 567–574.
Biesecker, B., & Hambi, L. (2000). What difference the disability community arguments should make for the delivery of prenatal genetic information? In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 341–357). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Blumberg, L. (1994). The politics of prenatal testing and selective abortion. Sex Disabil, 12(2), 135–153.
Bolderson, H., & Mabbett, D. (1991). Social policy and social security in Australia, Britain and the U.S.A. Aldershot: Avebury.
Buchanan, A. (1996). Choosing who will be disabled: Genetic intervention and the morality of inclusion. Soc Philos Policy, 13, 18–46.
Chen, E., & Schiffman, J. (2000). Attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities. J Genet Couns, 9(2), 137–152.
Conway, S., Allenby, K., & Pond, M. (1994). Patient and parental attitude toward genetic screening and its implications at an adult cystic fibrosis centre. Clin Genet, 45, 308–312.
Furu, T., Kaariainen, H., Sankila, E., & Norio, R. (1993). Attitudes toward prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion among patients with retinitis pigmentosa or choroideremia as well as among their relatives. Clin Genet, 43, 160–165.
Gal, J. (2001). The perils of compensation in social welfare policy: Disability policy in Israel. Soc Serv Rev, 75(2), 225–246.
Kahn, S. M. (2000). Reproducing Jews: A cultural account of assisted conception. Durham: Duke University Press.
Levy-Schreiber, E., & Ben-Ari, E. (2000). Body-building, character-building and nation-building: Gender and military service in Israel. Stud Contemp Judaism, 16, 171–190.
National Down Syndrome Congress (1994). Position Statement on Prenatal Testing and Eugenics: Families’ Rights and Needs. http://members.carol.net/ndsc/eugenics.html
Parens, E., & Asch, A. (2003). Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev, 9(1), 40–47.
Parens, E., & Asch, A. (Eds.). (2000). Prenatal testing and disability rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Parens, E., & Asch, A. (1999). The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep, 29(5), S1–S22.
Raz, A. (2004). ‘Important to test, important to support’: Attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel, Soc Sci Med, 59(9), 1857–1866.
Sher, C., Romano-Zelekha, O., Manfred, S., & Shohat, T. (2003). Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. Am J Med Genet, 120A(3), 418–422.
Shohat, M., et al. (2003). Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: Ten year experience in the Israeli population. Am J Med Genet, 122A(3), 215–222.
Shuval, J., & Anson, O. (2000). Social structure and health in Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
Varnet, S., & Naon, S. (1996). Recipients of the general disability benefit, 1994–1995 (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: National Insurance Institute.
Ward, L. (2002). Whose right to choose? The ‘New’ genetics, prenatal testing and people with learning difficulties. Crit Pub Health, 12(2), 187–200.
Weiss, M. (2002). The chosen body: The politics of the body in Israeli society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wertz, D. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: A survey of genetic professionals around the world. Sci Con, 3–4, 493–510.
Zlotogora, J., & Leventhal, A. (2000). Screening for genetic disorders among Jews: How should the Tay-Sachs screening program be continued? Isr Med Assoc J, 2, 665–667.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raz, A.E. Disability Rights, Prenatal Diagnosis and Eugenics: A Cross-Cultural View. J Genet Counsel 14, 183–187 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-0573-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-0573-0