The new play Tomcat tests our views about eliminating “neurodiverse” children.

Eleanor Worthington Cox plays Jessie in Tomcat / Richard Davenport  

It is compulsory for expectant mothers to have their unborn child genetically screened for disabilities or traits considered to be a burden to society. If a genetic “defect” is found, termination is mandatory. Those who refuse to comply face court orders.

This scenario is still science fiction, but for how long?

The subject is tackled in James Rushbrooke’s excellent play, Tomcat, which is currently running at Southwark Playhouse in London.

Twelve-year-old Jessie (Eleanor Worthington Cox) is the protagonist of the play. She is the last human carrying the genetic marker for psychopathy and has been the subject of a research project for ten years. She lives in captivity and is observed by a team of doctors and scientists who want to understand the biological basis of psychopathy. The researchers believe that it is not possible for the environment to save her from her genetic destiny.

Rushbrooke powerfully portrays a near future in which society has traded freedom and respect for humanity for a “healthy” populace, free of disability and disorders. The play raises the question: if we had the technology to get rid of the traits that cause a burden to society, should we use it?

But what counts as an illness or a disability? And is there a value in conserving disability?

We already have pre-implantation genetic diagnosis that, in the UK, can be used to screen for thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, and other genetic disorders. It can also be used to screen for traits traditionally considered a disability, such as deafness.

More recently, a maternal blood test called non-invasive prenatal diagnosis was developed to test for single gene disorders and is being implemented in the UK. And CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing techniques may, one day, give clinicians the tools to edit embryos. A group at the Francis Crick Institute has already applied to the regulatory Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for a licence to use the technology in human embryos in the lab, but clinical applications are still a long way off. … 

In Tomcat, Jessie echoes some of the arguments made by people with autism spectrum disorders who reject the label of disability and want to be considered “neurodiverse” as their condition determines their identity.

These issues are timely. Disability rights activists have started to question the screening tests which would lead to a future free of illnesses and disabilities. Would we relinquish our value of personal freedom for a “healthy” society? What would we lose of our humanity in such a world? Are we slipping towards eugenics with a new wave of biological determinism based on genes and brain scans?

Tomcat prompts reflections of how we think about disability, illness, and identity. As Jessie says: “I don’t want to be me if I can’t be me.” Isn’t this the case for all of us?

Silvia Camporesi is  a Lecturer in Bioethics & Society at King’s College London. This article was originally published on The Conversation.] and has been slightly abridged. Read the original article.

Creative commons
autism
eugenics
plays

• Author
• Recent Posts

Michael Cook

Michael Cook edits BioEdge, a bioethics newsletter, and MercatorNet, an on-line magazine whose focus is human dignity. He writes from Sydney, Australia.

Latest posts by Michael Cook (see all)

• How long can you put off seeing the doctor because of lockdowns? - December 3, 2021
• House of Lords debates assisted suicide—again - October 28, 2021
• Spanish government tries to restrict conscientious objection - October 28, 2021