New Eugenics
A debate on contemporary expressions of eugenic thinking in genetics, screening, and policy, and their impact on people with intellectual developmental disabilities.
Congress Programme
Keynote Debates
Five headline debates shaped the scientific programme of the 6th IASSIDD Europe Congress in Amsterdam. Each session brought together researchers, practitioners, and self-advocates to examine contested questions in disability research and intellectual developmental disabilities under the “Value Diversity” theme.
Debate Sessions
COVID-19
A session on the uneven effects of the pandemic on people with intellectual developmental disabilities, their families, and the services that support them.
Why Care About the End of Life?
A structured panel debate on end-of-life decision making for people with intellectual developmental disabilities.
| Role | Participant |
|---|---|
| Panelist | Prof. Dr. Stuart Todd |
| Panelist | Freek Felet |
| Panelist | Dr. Michael Echteld |
| Panelist | Pouwel van de Siepkamp |
| Panelist | Prof. Irene Tuffrey-Wijne |
| Leader | Prof. Dr. Carlo Leget |
Mental Health
A debate exploring the mental health needs of people with intellectual developmental disabilities and the responsiveness of mainstream and specialist services.
Parenting with an IDD
A debate addressing the experiences, supports, and rights of parents with intellectual developmental disabilities and their families.
About the Debates
The keynote debates were a defining feature of the congress programme, designed to surface differing viewpoints on topics where disability research intersects with bioethics, public health, and family policy. Sessions were delivered in a hybrid format at the studio venue in Amsterdam and online for registered virtual participants.
Speakers are named to reflect the practice of the congress at the time of the event. Specific affiliations, session dates within the July 6–8, 2021 programme, and individual presentation details are listed in the official Programme & Abstract Book.
The Value Diversity theme of the 6th IASSIDD Europe Congress in Amsterdam called for a fundamental rethinking of how intellectual and developmental disabilities are understood in research and practice. The keynote debates served as the intellectual backbone of the programme, bringing together researchers, practitioners, and self-advocates to confront contested questions. These sessions were designed not merely to present findings but to spark genuine dialogue across different perspectives. By structuring the scientific programme around open debate rather than traditional lectures, the congress acknowledged that progress in disability studies requires uncomfortable conversations and a willingness to examine long-held assumptions about value, inclusion, and human worth in contemporary society.
One of the headline debates addressed contemporary expressions of eugenic thinking in genetics, screening, and policy. This session examined how seemingly benevolent technological advances can carry implicit assumptions about which lives are worth living. The conversation explored the tension between prenatal screening developments and the rights and dignity of people with intellectual developmental disabilities. Participants considered how policy frameworks and clinical guidelines might inadvertently reinforce discriminatory attitudes. The debate highlighted the need for the disability community to have a stronger voice in shaping ethical guidelines around genetic technologies, ensuring that diversity of human experience is valued rather than eliminated.
Another key debate focused on the uneven effects of the pandemic on people with intellectual developmental disabilities. The COVID-19 session examined how existing inequalities were amplified during the global health crisis, with many individuals facing disrupted services, reduced access to healthcare, and heightened social isolation. The discussion drew attention to the ways in which emergency policies often overlooked the specific needs of this community. Researchers and advocates shared evidence of differential outcomes and called for more inclusive crisis planning. The session reinforced the message that true value diversity must extend to how societies protect their most vulnerable members during times of widespread upheaval and change.