Critiques of utilitarian and technicist approaches focus on the ways in which human vulnerabilities are increased by these approaches. Vulnerable people may suffer far more than these enthusiastic innovators anticipate when the presumed interests of technologically compliant majorities are placed ahead of the concerns of individuals and dissenting minorities. These issues are not adequately addressed by the Premier's draft Code. Very often people with disability are not the beneficiaries of biotechnology, they are particularly not the beneficiaries of reproductive biotechnology, and thus are not placed in the position of being a 'bio'consumer, as least in ways in which they would choose. Rather, people with disability are placed in an invidious position, as bearers of the label 'disability'.
Disability stands behind the whole biomedical thrust as the condition to be eliminated.
People with disability most often do not have underlying biological conditions that are able to be eliminated from their own bodies by any available technology. But elimination is the name of the process. People with disability are often eliminated from medical encounters as lacking viability, or they are given medical advice inadequate to their needs, or held up as examples of the kind of human being that no one would want to be, and would certainly not bring into the world through reproduction. The predominant focus in biomedicine is to diagnose and eliminate an increasing number of kinds of disability that emerge throughout the human reproductive process. The diagnostic power of genetic biotechnology far exceeds its curative potential.