Uniting the nation? disability, stem cells, and the australian media

Abstract

In this article, the 2002 Australian debate regarding embryonic stem cells is examined. This shows the importance of an analysis of the media to understanding how disability is constructed in discourses of nationhood and biotechnology. Media representation of disability—for instance, signifying disability as catastrophe—is seen as crucial in securing access to a variety of biotechnologies, such as embryonic stem cells. Analysis of such media moments shows a structure of privileged and excluded voices in debates regarding disability and biotechnology. The diversity of voices in the Australian community regarding disability is not represented in a range of media, nor are people with disability quoted as experts on disability. A recognition of the media's construction of disability must be matched by a commitment to disability as part of a truly civil society. It is only in this way that we will have biotechnologies, and diverse cultural and media representations that meet the requirements of the international disability rights movement motto of ‘nothing about us without us’, recently emphasized in the Disabled Peoples' International Europe's 2000 statement on biotechnology.

Notes

*School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252–33, Hobart, Tasmania 7001. Email: [email protected]

In his biography of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, Don Watson writes of the horror that being suspected of being an advocate of ‘industry policy’ would bring—not least the charge of being a ‘Creanite’, so named after the ideas of then Labor Minister Simon Crean (Watson, 2002).

We have Dr Tonti-Filippini's permission to reveal this information directly, using the text he provided.

Fitzgerald's and other letters appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 April 2002, appeared under the headline of ‘The “cells” that matter most are holding the disabled.’

We say this plainly because of the will to misreading we have encountered in media debates. To give one example, Christopher was asked by a journalist from a state-based newspaper: ‘You’re against stem cells, aren't you?'. When Christopher replied: ‘We all have stem cells—they are vital for life. How could I be against them?’, she replied: ‘Well, what are you against?’

We critically use ableist metaphors in this paper in a deconstructive way, mindful of their ableist history and meanings, but seeking to redeploy them otherwise.