Skip to main content
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2001 Dec;27(6):370–376. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.370

Disability and difference: balancing social and physical constructions

T Koch 1
PMCID: PMC1733470  PMID: 11731598

Abstract

The world of disability theory is currently divided between those who insist it reflects a physical fact affecting life quality and those who believe disability is defined by social prejudice. Despite a dialogue spanning bioethical, medical and social scientific literatures the differences between opposing views remains persistent. The result is similar to a figure-ground paradox in which one can see only part of a picture at any moment. This paper attempts to find areas of commonality between the opposing camps, and thus to rearrange the figures of the paradox at a fundamental level. The purpose is first to identify areas in which common ground can be achieved, and secondarily, to clarify the areas in which disagreement continues. While a general and unified theory of physical difference/disability is beyond the scope of this paper the result may advance that general goal.

Key Words: Bioethics • disability • eugenics • paradox • social construction theory

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (111.9 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bird T. D. Outrageous fortune: the risk of suicide in genetic testing for Huntington disease. Am J Hum Genet. 1999 May;64(5):1289–1292. doi: 10.1086/302388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Harris J. Is there a coherent social conception of disability? J Med Ethics. 2000 Apr;26(2):95–100. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.2.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Koch T. Future states: the axioms underlying prospective, future-oriented, health planning instruments. Soc Sci Med. 2001 Feb;52(3):453–465. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00154-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Koch T. Life quality vs the 'quality of life': assumptions underlying prospective quality of life instruments in health care planning. Soc Sci Med. 2000 Aug;51(3):419–427. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00474-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kuppermann M., Nease R. F., Learman L. A., Gates E., Blumberg B., Washington A. E. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;96(4):511–516. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00969-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Newell C. The social nature of disability, disease and genetics: a response to Gillam, Persson, Holtug, Draper and Chadwick. J Med Ethics. 1999 Apr;25(2):172–175. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.2.172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Reindal S. M. Disability, gene therapy and eugenics--a challenge to John Harris. J Med Ethics. 2000 Apr;26(2):89–94. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.2.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Young J. M., McNicoll P. Against all odds: positive life experiences of people with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Health Soc Work. 1998 Feb;23(1):35–43. doi: 10.1093/hsw/23.1.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES