Bruce Uditsky: Well, I don't think we've all used the word "eugenics." I 
think Dick's... we know, most of us, what the technical definition of 
"eugenics" is. That's not what the argument is actually about, really.
Dick Sobsey: But, that's all that I'm saying is that... Bruce: You're right.
Dick Sobsey: ...when we're arguing with people and they're saying "Oh no, we're 
not eugenic, because that's not what we're doing," when in reality it
doesn't make us like what they're doing any better. Yet they don't define it that way.
Sam Salone: There's no point offending people if you're trying to persuade them.
Bruce Uditsky: Well I've never held that view, but... (laughter) I think the deeper 
issue if you want is the idea that what this is about actually. Is it 
about, for example, you know individual autonomy or parental autonomy, 
etc.? Or is it about something, a different ethic actually or other ethics. 
And I think in fact there is systemic devaluation of people with 
disabilities. It's evident pretty much universally. And I think it's 
represented in some of the actions that are taken to actually shorten or 
end lives and prevent people from even being born. And I think that is much 
different than simply, individual autonomy may be wrapped up in 
there, but I think there's a bigger systemic issue both conscious and 
unconscious within human beings and their societies, and that we're 
struggling... Those of us that hold one view are in fact struggling against 
the dominant view that doesn't value people with disabilities as being 
equal and necessary to the human race, actually, for the benefit of the broader community.
Simo Vehmas: I agree. I think there are two points: there's a normative 
dimension and an empirical dimension here. First of all, people in general
tend to think that people with impairments have miserable lives, that 
impairment wrecks up your life. And that's based on stereotypes, based on 
the fact that most people haven't met disabled people in their lives, 
people with disabilities have been segregated, excluded from communities,
etc. etc. And another point is a normative point that, what makes people 
think that impairment is so horrible? What do they actually value in life? 
And I think that these two things that need to be... I think most people
don't even really think about these kind of things. They just assume that
impairment is awful and it will imply a bad life. And I'm confident that 
most people don't think any further.
Anne Hughson: It might be useful, seeing as you use the term normative, to take a moment to tell us about the history of normativity. 
Simo Vehmas: Mmm, sorry?  Anne Hughson: Well just speak a 
little bit about what is the history of this notion of normative. Because
it has a specific history, too.
Simo Vehmas: I'm not sure what you mean... Anne Hughson: I'll go to Rob then.... Simo Vehmas: The history of normativity, in the 
Western conception or Western philosophy, there's certain conceptions of 
what is a good human life. And we tend to think that that includes that you 
have 5 senses, and you can move around, and especially that you can 
think clearly, reason, and understand what Plato wrote. So, and there's a 
long history not just in Greek, Roman philosophy, but also in Christianity that thinks
it's the mental capacity that makes us human, that makes us the picture of 
God or whatever, it's the thing that's in the Bible. So, and these are very
deep rooted ideals and 
norms about human beings.
Sam Salone: So what do you call it though, when you do have a statistic, I did the 
numbers myself, I can look at Ontario birthing rates, U.S. birthing rates,
survival rates of these kids with trisomy-13 and 18, U.S. versus Ontario.
They didn't line up. Something is happening in Ontario that isn't 
happening in the U.S. statistically. So, there is a disposal of children
who have low I.Q.s. That's the reality. They are disposing of children, by
killing them, or allowing them to die, or withholding...
Simo Vehmas: Is this public? Is this public knowledge? Do people know this?
Anna MacQuarrie: Yes and no, and that's part of the challenge I'm trying to raise, in 
the sense that we continue to allow it to be seen as one family's 
experience, and when it gets brought up doctors and ethicists and people 
say, "Oh my goodness, that never happens, that's so rare," but when you 
talk with families, it happens all the time.
Sam Salone: And you know what, this is growing as an issue now, this is what I 
think. Medical science has progressed to a point where we can save their 
lives, trisomy 13, 18, they wouldn't live. Like, my daughter wouldn't be 
alive even 40 years ago. Tetralogy of Fallot repair of the heart was not a 
routine operation. Now anybody gets it. Any child who has Tetralogy of Fallot,
they're not going to die, because there's a simple, not simple, it's a 
sophisticated, but routine... So, as medical technology develops and
advances happen, this is going to be an exploding issue. We're just seeing 
the beginning, in our society, of what I think is going to mushroom at this 
rate, if these medical advancements continue to enable the saving of lives 
of developmentally type disabled kids who would have otherwise died because 
of biological reasons, you know failure of the heart. So I think it's an 
interesting observation, but you're hitting on something here that's of
more... extrapolating to the future, I think there's... it's a good thing
you're doing this now, is what I'm saying because we'd better have this
figured out before we know more about how to save lives.
