A critique of arguments supporting disability avoidance

Abstract

Many prominent bioethicists argue that positive consequences follow from avoiding disability in offspring by preconceptual, preimplantation or prenatal means. This paper critiques two variants of these positions: ‘Open future’ arguments that avoiding disability is in the interest of the persons who will be affected by it if born and ‘non‐person‐affecting’ claims that failures to avoid disability in offspring are wrong for reasons independent of their effect on affected offspring. Difficulties with both person‐affecting and non‐person‐affecting accounts are discussed in support of the charge that these arguments do not show that positive consequences follow from disability avoidance.