One principle and three fallacies of disability studies

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,...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Harris, John (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2001
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2001, Volume: 27, Issue: 6, Pages: 383-387
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816122580
003 DE-627
005 20230427025714.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2001 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/jme.27.6.383  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816122580 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816122580 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Harris, John  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a One principle and three fallacies of disability studies 
264 1 |c 2001 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a 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. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 27(2001), 6, Seite 383-387  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:27  |g year:2001  |g number:6  |g pages:383-387 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718796  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/27/6/383.full.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via free pdf)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.27.6.383  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/6/383.abstract  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185576420 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816122580 
LOK |0 005 20220908053331 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#66594548136355EE3A3DA8427252A08B9575D7FE 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718796 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 

Similar Items

more