Skip to main content
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2001 Dec;27(6):383–387. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.383

One principle and three fallacies of disability studies

J Harris 1
PMCID: PMC1733465  PMID: 11731601

Abstract

My critics in this symposium illustrate one principle and three fallacies of disability studies. The principle, which we all share, is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others. No disability, however slight, nor however severe, implies lesser moral, political or ethical status, worth or value. This is a version of the principle of equality. The three fallacies exhibited by some or all of my critics are the following: (1) Choosing to repair damage or dysfunction or to enhance function, implies either that the previous state is intolerable or that the person in that state is of lesser value or indicates that the individual in that state has a life that is not worthwhile or not thoroughly worth living. None of these implications hold. (2) Exercising choice in reproduction with the aim of producing children who will be either less damaged or diseased, or more healthy, or who will have enhanced capacities, violates the principle or equality. It does not. (3) Disability or impairment must be defined relative either to normalcy, "normal species functioning", or "species typical functioning". It is not necessarily so defined.

Key Words: Disability • impairment • handicap • equality • social conception of disability • harmed condition conception of disability

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (94.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Edwards S. D. Prevention of disability on grounds of suffering. J Med Ethics. 2001 Dec;27(6):380–382. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Harris John. The concept of the person and the value of life. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1999 Dec;9(4):293–308. doi: 10.1353/ken.1999.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jones R. B. Impairment, disability and handicap--old fashioned concepts? J Med Ethics. 2001 Dec;27(6):377–379. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Koch T. Disability and difference: balancing social and physical constructions. J Med Ethics. 2001 Dec;27(6):370–376. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES