Having read three articles by Dr. Eva Kittay on topics of disability, ethics of selective abortion for disability, and the delusion of choice in family planning, attending her lecture on racism and cognitive disability, and meeting her at a graduate meet-and-greet, the idea of “human equality” kept recurring in my thoughts on our progress in technological human enhancements.
We have, somewhere seared in the back of our minds, the ideal understanding from the United States Constitution, that all men are created equal. But it can be argued that though we all do, or in reality should, have equal opportunity to better our lives, we are not created equally. Not everyone born into the world is physically healthy or mentally able to develop. There are social constructions placing more intrinsic value in a person because of their skin color, their family’s socioeconomic status, and sometimes even their culture and heritage. Though we may all have a right to life, there are many decisions and processes that play into how a life is lived.
But what happens when the desires of society are in conflict with those of parents with potential disabled offspring? With advanced technology in prenatal testing, some would argue that it is imperative that parents screen for potential cognitive or physical disabilities, some see it as an issue to be resolved with a trusted medical physician, and others believe policies governing these types of choices in life are best to help parents during tough decisions.
The advent of prenatal testing processes is both a blessing and a curse. To be able to monitor the health and progress of a fetus can be helpful and reassuring to parents: it can allow for parents to prepare for the baby in terms of clothing, whether the child is male or female; prepare for funding if the child has a higher risk for possible illnesses or disease; and depending on how one sees it, can permit to-be-parents an option to abort a fetus in case of severe developmental issues. Yet negativities also arise with technology as such: there are cases of aborting a child because of sexual preference; it is unknown the long-term side effects from testing procedures and equipment; and even the argument of “playing God” through the micromanaging of a baby’s development or financial gains of doctors, insurance companies, and the health industry. I find the choice of whether to proceed with prenatal testing and bracing for the information it would bring is a choice parents need to discuss when planning for a family.
But Kittay also brings up the illusion of choice because: 1) we frequently over- or underestimate the desirability of what we choose; 2) we are regularly influenced by the framing of a choice; and 3) we make choices on assumptions that the action we choose is a way of bringing about a desired result. So even though we go through so much planning and preparation prior to beginning a family (such as selecting a mate), these choices that we make are minimal in control that we actually have; the effects of the choices we make are unpredictable. There is so much chance and possibility out there we cannot control.
It is with the unknown that new innovations can arise from trying to help those with disabilities; it is through patience in care and giving that we are able to learn about worldviews outside of our own; and if we can learn to let go of our need to control our future and the future of our children due to unchangeable inequalities, which will always be present, we can work on bettering our lives. Ultimately, I believe Kittay would like us to be more open to possibilities and diversities when it comes to human life and the inequality that we are all born with and into.