Monday, January 7, 2008

Low expected quality of life

The notion of quality of life, given currency by other developments in
health care, offered a convenient “child-centered” rationale for prenatal
testing and selective abortion: couples should be concerned not only
about whether to have children, or indeed about whether it is moral to
do so (e.g., Brock, 1995; Purdy, 1996), but also about the quality of life
that a particular child could be expected to have. If the chromosomal or
genetic constitution of a fetus appeared to preclude a life of reasonable
quality, it was appropriate to abort. Until recently, selective abortion
escaped the controversy that has accompanied efforts to limit the medical
care given to severely impaired neonates (e.g., Kuhse and Singer,
1985) – a limitation also justified by low expected quality of life – in part
because newborns are generally accorded higher legal and moral status
than fetuses. Despite the continuing controversy over abortion in general,
abortion for disease and impairment was seen, even by many who
were troubled or ambivalent about abortion in general, as a responsible
exercise of reproductive choice (see Asch, 1999).

1 comment:

Helga said...

In abortion some people or usually teen agers think that abortion is the only way to get on the situation they're on. But for me its not right.. You started the cause so you must face the consequence.
I was one of those teens who got pregnant so early but thank god he got me in the right way..
Now i live a happy life with my kids..

Regards,

compression stockings