Far be it from me to take on noted philosopher Michael Berube', but it is completely and utterly astonishing for
Berube' to take a thwack at bioethicists and write:
This then is yet another version of the classic "trolley problem," in which we are asked to decide whether it is better that people with X disability not be born at all (because the prospective mothers wait two months and have different children altogether) while some people with X disability go "uncured" in utero, or better that people with X disability be "cured" in utero while others are born with the disability because their mothers went untreated.I suppose this is the stuff of which bioethical debates are made, but may I be so rude as to point out that there is no such trolley? This thought experiment may be all well and good if the object is to ask people about the moral difference between foregoing a pregnancy that will result in a fetus with disabilities and treating a disabled fetus in utero (and miraculously "curing" it!). But it does not correspond to any imaginable scenario in the world we inhabit.
To somehow manage to go through all these intellectual peregrinations about pregnancy and prenatal care, without ever once mentioning the word "abortion." Or in-vitro fertilization. Or any of a gazillion other technologies coming.
Berube' also makes the classic mistake of showing how some people somehow turned harsh necessity into some flavor of virtue by embracing that disability about which they could do nothing, and telling others that they have found a beautiful life without it.
Berube' is apparently blissfully unaware of the current research into the
hedonic set point, the notion that almost all of us have, much like we have a set weight, a set happiness, and only utterly drastic changes or incessant outside influence can somehow shift that set point. No matter how terrible our circumstances, or how grand, without great effort we are gifted with a certain hedonic state: a mean optimism, a mean chearfulness, to which all our sorrows and joys regress over time. Disability has been one of the hot spots of this research: despite losing sight, or mobility, or speech, in the long term individuals remain unfazed by circumstance. Disability only gives some (but not all, possibly not many) the chance to express their joy in life and garner amazement from others, in a way that the fully abled
merely annoy us.
I don't see how Berube's point somehow invalidates the fact that
disability is an antonym of ability.
Berube writes: "There is no scenario - I repeat, no scenario, none whatsoever - in which any woman knows that, if she foregoes conception now, she will have a normal child later on." Natural limitations are just those, and they cease to be limitations once our knowledge and technology catch up to desire. There will come a day when any child born with a disability is one whose parents chose to passively sit by and "let nature take its course," arbitrarily chosing what is "natural" and what is not, in the same way that some parents choose now to not vaccinate but enjoy the widespread benefits of public hygiene-- and they will be just as culpable for the suffering, disability, and attenuated lifespand that child consequently endures.
There are damned few disabled people who agree that the world is better off having the blind, the deaf, and the lame, than having procedures that restore site, hearing, and mobility. Leon Kass once wrote that the disabled, the suffering, and the dying are moral tonics for the rest of us, and a world without them would be a smaller, darker world. I think a world with suffering is small and dark enough as it is, thank you; my responsibility is to alleviate it. Berube' stands uncomfortably close to Kass in this latest missive, and I can't stand there with him.