On certainty, reflexivity and the ethics of genetic research into intellectual disability.

Goodey (2003) looked at how we define intellectual disability.

The paper argues these definitions are not fixed facts.

They are choices made by people in power at different times.

The label 'intellectual disability' changes with history and politics.

What counts as disabled today might not count tomorrow.

These labels serve social goals, not just medical truth.

Johnson (2022) extends this idea to ABA's past.

They say we should remove old studies like Rekers & Lovaas (1974) because our ethics changed.

Zane (2025) applies the same thinking to new debates.

They argue we must reject spelling-to-communicate because science and ethics moved on.

Fujiura (2012) shows earlier worries about how we assess people with ID.

They warned that proxy reports can silence clients, matching F's concern about who gets to speak.

Remember that every diagnosis is a human choice, not nature's verdict.

When you write reports or testify, explain the limits of labels.

Push for client self-report when possible.

Question tools that assume people with ID cannot speak for themselves.