Responses
Equality and disability symposium
One principle and three fallacies of disability studies
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 12 February 2002
- Published on: 12 February 2002A brief clarification in responseDear EditorShow More
In this journal's recent symposium on disability Prof. John Harris vigorously defended his general view on "disability" and "harm" before a range of critics, including me. This letter is not offered as a rejoinder to his argument but instead presents a brief clarification of a point he obviously misinterpreted.
A part of my argument for the protection of persons of difference - especially tho...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- Is there a coherent social conception of disability?
- Asperger syndrome and the supposed obligation not to bring disabled lives into the world
- Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people
- When choosing the traits of children is hurtful to others
- Harris, harmed states, and sexed bodies
- Deciding against disability: does the use of reproductive genetic technologies express disvalue for people with disabilities?
- Is there a moral obligation to select healthy children?
- Genetic selection for deafness: the views of hearing children of deaf adults
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- Is there an ethical difference between preimplantation genetic diagnosis and abortion?