In this paper, I argue that, even when disability rights activists are most clearly acting as activists, they can advance the scholarly activity of disability bioethics. In particular, I will argue that even engaging in non-violent direct action, including civil disobedience, is an important way in which disability rights activists directly support the efforts of disability bioethics scholars. I will begin by drawing upon Hilde Lindemann’s work on relational narrative identity to describe how certain damaging master narratives about disability hinder the uptake of arguments from disability bioethics. Then, I will argue that disability activism, especially non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, provides an effective counterstory to some of the worst of these master narratives, thereby laying the groundwork for the scholarly argument s of disability bioethicists to be given more serious consideration. Ultimately, I conclude that the field of bioethics is improved when it abandons the gross grained, generalizations about who disabled people are and how they act put forth by oppressive master narratives in favor of the more nuanced self-descriptions offered by the counterstories being offered by disabled people themselves. So it is that, by challenging these oppressive master narratives that constrain and distort the social meaning of disability, disability activism can improve mainstream bioethics.

在本文中，我认为，即使残疾人权利活动家最明确地充当活动家，他们也可以推动残疾生命伦理学的学术活动。我将特别指出，即使参与非暴力直接行动，包括公民不服从，也是残疾人权利活动家直接支持残疾生命伦理学学者努力的重要方式。我将首先利用希尔德·林德曼关于关系叙事身份的工作来描述某些关于残疾的破坏性主要叙事如何阻碍对残疾生命伦理学论点的接受。然后，我将论证残疾行动主义，尤其是非暴力的直接行动和公民不服从，为这些主要叙述中的一些最糟糕的叙述提供了有效的反击，从而为残疾生物伦理学家的学术论点得到更认真的考虑奠定了基础。最终，我的结论是，当生命伦理学领域放弃粗暴的、关于残疾人是谁以及他们如何行动的概括性时，它会得到改进残疾人自己。因此，通过挑战这些限制和扭曲残疾社会意义的压迫性主流叙事，残疾行动主义可以改善主流的生物伦理学。关于残疾人是谁以及他们如何行动的概括是由压迫性的大师叙事提出的，有利于残疾人自己提供的反故事所提供的更细致入微的自我描述。因此，通过挑战这些限制和扭曲残疾社会意义的压迫性主流叙事，残疾行动主义可以改善主流的生物伦理学。关于残疾人是谁以及他们如何行动的概括是由压迫性的大师叙事提出的，有利于残疾人自己提供的反故事所提供的更细致入微的自我描述。因此，通过挑战这些限制和扭曲残疾社会意义的压迫性主流叙事，残疾行动主义可以改善主流的生物伦理学。