Search

The impression of bioethicists as "dangerous," as articulated in Mouth Magazine in 1994, has continued to be a theme in the disability movement. We respond to three common responses by bioethicists to this impression—namely, this is from the past, and bioethicists are different now; this is an angry and extremist position; and the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability rights and justice efforts have solved historical inequities. We draw on the historical record and on our collective experiences as bioethicists engaged in clinical consultation and education and as the founding, former, and current directors of a program focused on disability and rehabilitation ethics to argue that ableism and unexamined assumptions about people with disabilities have persisted in bioethics despite decades of counternarratives, research, and divergent perspectives. Ableism and such assumptions can lead to health care decisions that are prone to bias, mistreatment, and a lack of consideration of viable options for living with disability. As the field of bioethics moves toward certification examinations and as new generations join the field's ranks, these problems need to be rectified with solutions at the individual, interpersonal, and structural levels. It is past time to take disability seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The possible integration of genomic sequencing (including whole‐genome and whole‐exome sequencing) into the three contexts addressed in this special report—state‐mandated screening programs, clinical care, and direct‐to‐consumer services—raises related but distinct legal issues. This essay will outline the legal issues surrounding the integration of genomic sequencing into state newborn screening programs, parental rights to refuse and access sequencing for their newborns in clinical and direct‐to‐consumer care, and privacy‐related legal issues attending the use of sequencing in newborns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten‐year mark, it is appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The third of three commentaries on 'A Defense of Genetic Discrimination,' from the July-August 2013 issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two cases in 2012 involved employment discrimination claims. In one, a Catholic diocese had refused to renew the contract of a teacher who had sought in vitro fertilization. In another, earlier case, a Lutheran elementary school had terminated the contract of a teacher for 'damaging her working relationship' with the school by 'threatening to take legal action' when she was not permitted to return to work after disability leave related to narcolepsy. In both cases, the employers have argued that the employee's discrimination claims should be dismissed solely because of the religious character of the employer organization. The specific legal defenses in each suit differ somewhat, but ultimately they both rely on the First Amendment to exempt religious employers from civic responsibilities imposed by law on other private employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]