(silence)
Bruce Uditsky: I wanted to raise a couple of points, actually. One is with
 respect to Colleen and Anne's presentation. That there seems to be in a 
sense a public understanding of the horror of sterilization, that 
particularly that this province has become infamous for. Both because of 
the false science as well as the idea of what was done to people. But what 
I found interesting is when I was talking to people over and over again who 
had been sterilized is they didn't focus so much on the false science or 
even so much on the eugenic idea, as the fact that they were personally 
denied the opportunity to parent. And in fact, they would frequently refer 
to that wounding, of their soul if you want, at being denied that. It's not 
that every person with developmental disability can parent, of course, but 
that's also true for people without developmental disabilities. It's that I 
don't think, while we take this firm stance as a society to a greater 
degree today, I don't think we've come to a place yet where we understand 
or have the capacity to see that people with developmental disabilities can 
parent and should be supported to do so. And in fact, the denial of that 
parenting in fact is as systemic in some ways as sterilization was today.
 And it's true in fact across cultures, we've done that research. So it 
sort of is a way of challenging us who stand in opposition to things like 
eugenics, but have not quite reached the level or place of standing beside 
people with developmental disabilities and their desire to also potentially 
have a family of their own. The other is that, just to maybe provoke or 
stimulate a little bit of debate around your comments, Simo, if I can use 
your first name, I'm Bruce by the way. And that is the idea that 
information for example could either be neutral or provided in a way that 
actually allows people to make a choice. One is of course that I don't 
agree that that choice should be enabled in the first place, so I can state 
my bias up front. I think that in the case of selective abortion, at least 
in the Canadian context at the moment, we're pretty clear that it shouldn't 
be allowed. And in fact it is illegal on the basis of gender, because we 
have a position that even though we have prejudice in gender in our 
society, that says that would be immoral and wrong, and would in fact 
jeopardize those to which we're generally prejudiced, which is women. And 
so we don't allow selective abortions on the basis of gender. I think if we 
held the same view on disability, we could argue it's not a question of 
information, it's a question of saying what's moral and right and it isn't 
right to allow abortion on the basis of disability. Nor do I believe 
information in fact could ever be neutral in a context where there is such 
systemic oppression and devaluation, that the information will always fail, 
and so you'll still get large percentages of people choosing to abort until 
we change that oppressive nature. The other was about maybe there are some 
things doctors shouldn't be allowed to do. I couldn't agree more. But in 
your argument it was they shouldn't be allowed to sustain life sometimes, 
because it maybe isn't sustainable. And there are moments like that. But if 
we can limit them from doing that, we can potentially at the same time just 
as logically argue that they should be prevented from doing other things. 
So I don't think we can argue that they should be allowed this but not 
that. Now, if we can draw lines on that point, we should be able to draw 
lines on when life should be valued and sustained.
Simo: Well first, just briefly about the doctors, what's the matter with 
doctors, we have to remember that doctors replaced clergy in the 19th 
century as THE social authority. And there is a tendency of omnipotence and 
great arrogance in doctors. That's true. And they tend to think too often
 that they know better than patients what's wrong with them, but not all
 doctors are like that, and things at least in Finland, I'm not sure 
whether it's very helpful to, well I don't know about Canada, but I get the 
picture that things are really horrible here. But at least in Finland, no,
 there's no eugenic movement. And I'm not sure whether it's very helpful to 
say that. Things are very different now than they were in the 1920s and 
things have improved a great deal and I think that should be remembered. 
And as for selective abortion, I think prohibiting, denying parental 
autonomy in that respect, would create really harmful practices. It is 
problematic, yes, that the sex-selection we consider to be wrong, why not 
on the basis of impairment. Well there are quite a few issues. First of 
all, how are they, is it a fair analogy? I think in some respect it is. But
 I think the easiest way to solve the issue would just, it would be free 
abortion. You can abort your fetus, you can terminate your pregnancy for 
reasons, whatever reason, and you don't need to provide any reason for 
that. Because the problem is, at least in Finland, you can terminate on any 
reason before the 12th week and then after that it's just on the basis of 
impairment. And that makes it really problematic. But if for any reason you 
could terminate a pregnancy then there would be no problem of equality.
Sam: Maybe that's why with the 99% abortion rate of trisomy-21, there 
doesn't need to be a eugenics movement post-natally in Finland.
Simo: Well, there are kids still being born with Downe's Syndrome. Not all
 women do take these tests. They don't all take them and the tests are not 
perfect besides. But, I would seriously advise thinking hard before aiming 
to prohibit selective abortion and whether it's the right way to create a 
equal and just society. And then you have to think who would it serve? 
Would it serve people with disabilities? And the price for trampling upon 
peoples' autonomy, is that a price that we're willing to pay?
