Reproductive Genetics, Wrongful Life, and Wrongful Birth: A Summary Analysis of “Bill S-201: An Act to Prohibit and Prevent Genetic Discrimination” by Jennifer Ann Rinaldi
Summary:
Rinaldi’s (2009) article provides legal evidence of various cases involved in litigation related to ‘wringful death” and wrongful birth” issues in genetics reproductive rights. This article provides evidence of the negative biases of disability cases that can be harmful by devaluating the life of the disabled individual. A focus on various legal cases, such as R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] and Arndt v. Smith, [1997], that the burden of wrongful life and wringful death inordinately shift the shame of ‘existing” onto the disabled person in the Canadian court of law. A focus on financial compensation and feral of physician responsibility is a troubling issue that does not take into account the psychological effects of these court cases on the genetic rights of the disabled person. Rinaldi (2009) expresses the concern that the disabled individual’s legal rights are deferred by having parents and physicians as the primary actors in a court of law. Discussion and Critique: Rinaldi’s (2009) article defines the lack of legal representation of the disabled person, which tends to be referred to the physician and parents in terms of wrongful life and wrongful death. …show more content…
This perspective certainly sheds light on the problem of blame associated with the disabled individual’s on the physician or parents, which tends to infer the burden of the disabled child/infant. Arndt v. Smith (1997) provides an important case in which the mother was not properly informed of a physician’s lack of genetic testing to identify birth defects. In this case, Rinaldi (2009) effectively defines the lack of focus on the infant/child rights, which devalue the disabled individual as a “burden: In this light, the infant born is understood to be a burden. I presented the social model of disability and how this model unearths societal attitudes about human . variation (Rinaldi, 2009, p.5). In this manner, I found the ethical and legal ramification of wrongful life and wringful death suits to be detrimental to the psychological well-being of disabled people through this course of legal action. Certainly, R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] also defines the problem of physician counseling on the matter of pregnancy terminatio0n, which also infers that mothers and physicians wield too much legal power over the rights of the disabled individual. In a critical perspective, Rinaldi (1998) tends to make legal generalizations about the failure of parents and physicians to properly inform each other of pre-existing medical conditions or genetic problems in R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] and Arndt v. Smith, [1997: “In these cases, physicians did not cause the disability” (p.3). Certainly, it would be a disservice to the disabled fetus/infant/child that parents and physicians should not be responsible for their actions in terms of providing greater healthcare benefits for the disabled. Also, the issue of disability must also rely …show more content…
2. In the future, could it be possible to bring a third party counsel for disabled persons to represent their rights in cases involving parents and physicians?
3.Should legal cases involve and ethical and psychological examination of the financial aspects of the evaluation of life, which respect the rights of the disabled individual?
4.Should physicians and the parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy based on their own limited genetic evaluations of life during a
Summary:
Rinaldi’s (2009) article provides legal evidence of various cases involved in litigation related to ‘wringful death” and wrongful birth” issues in genetics reproductive rights. This article provides evidence of the negative biases of disability cases that can be harmful by devaluating the life of the disabled individual. A focus on various legal cases, such as R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] and Arndt v. Smith, [1997], that the burden of wrongful life and wringful death inordinately shift the shame of ‘existing” onto the disabled person in the Canadian court of law. A focus on financial compensation and feral of physician responsibility is a troubling issue that does not take into account the psychological effects of these court cases on the genetic rights of the disabled person. Rinaldi (2009) expresses the concern that the disabled individual’s legal rights are deferred by having parents and physicians as the primary actors in a court of law. Discussion and Critique: Rinaldi’s (2009) article defines the lack of legal representation of the disabled person, which tends to be referred to the physician and parents in terms of wrongful life and wrongful death. …show more content…
This perspective certainly sheds light on the problem of blame associated with the disabled individual’s on the physician or parents, which tends to infer the burden of the disabled child/infant. Arndt v. Smith (1997) provides an important case in which the mother was not properly informed of a physician’s lack of genetic testing to identify birth defects. In this case, Rinaldi (2009) effectively defines the lack of focus on the infant/child rights, which devalue the disabled individual as a “burden: In this light, the infant born is understood to be a burden. I presented the social model of disability and how this model unearths societal attitudes about human . variation (Rinaldi, 2009, p.5). In this manner, I found the ethical and legal ramification of wrongful life and wringful death suits to be detrimental to the psychological well-being of disabled people through this course of legal action. Certainly, R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] also defines the problem of physician counseling on the matter of pregnancy terminatio0n, which also infers that mothers and physicians wield too much legal power over the rights of the disabled individual. In a critical perspective, Rinaldi (1998) tends to make legal generalizations about the failure of parents and physicians to properly inform each other of pre-existing medical conditions or genetic problems in R.H. v. Hunter, [1996] and Arndt v. Smith, [1997: “In these cases, physicians did not cause the disability” (p.3). Certainly, it would be a disservice to the disabled fetus/infant/child that parents and physicians should not be responsible for their actions in terms of providing greater healthcare benefits for the disabled. Also, the issue of disability must also rely …show more content…
2. In the future, could it be possible to bring a third party counsel for disabled persons to represent their rights in cases involving parents and physicians?
3.Should legal cases involve and ethical and psychological examination of the financial aspects of the evaluation of life, which respect the rights of the disabled individual?
4.Should physicians and the parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy based on their own limited genetic evaluations of life during a