R.M.Alger

Couple Wants Deaf Child

11 posts in this topic

A deaf couple in the UK have a deaf child that was naturally conceived; right now they want another child, but because of the mother’s age, the might have to resort to IVF. The couple wants their second child to be deaf as well (Which is now somewhat possible with new technologies.) Under UK law; a disabled or abnormal child can not willfully be conceived through IVF.

Check out the article here.

I was going to write a big long post about this, because it touches on so many issues (rights, abortion, abuse, morality, conception rights, law, ect.) but alas, I found myself overbooked (though I plan to write it soon.) Plus, I need to clear my thinking about a few things first.

While it is clear this couple is morally wrong (willfully choosing a crippled life for their potential child) the real issues are about rights and the law.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is morally repulsive, however it is a social problem; not a legal one.

I can't see any difference between this and making your children into unquestioning Christians. Except that the latter is reversible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A deaf couple in the UK have a deaf child that was naturally conceived; right now they want another child, but because of the mother’s age, the might have to resort to IVF. The couple wants their second child to be deaf as well (Which is now somewhat possible with new technologies.) Under UK law; a disabled or abnormal child can not willfully be conceived through IVF.

Check out the article here.

I was going to write a big long post about this, because it touches on so many issues (rights, abortion, abuse, morality, conception rights, law, ect.) but alas, I found myself overbooked (though I plan to write it soon.) Plus, I need to clear my thinking about a few things first.

While it is clear this couple is morally wrong (willfully choosing a crippled life for their potential child) the real issues are about rights and the law.

What do you think?

For an embryo/fetus that one plans to bring to term, causing deafness (or any other physical handicap) should be no more legal than crippling a child at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the child be allowed to sue later on? I'm trying to understand the intricacies of this from an objective law stand point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A deaf couple in the UK have a deaf child that was naturally conceived; right now they want another child, but because of the mother’s age, the might have to resort to IVF. The couple wants their second child to be deaf as well (Which is now somewhat possible with new technologies.) Under UK law; a disabled or abnormal child can not willfully be conceived through IVF.

Check out the article here.

I was going to write a big long post about this, because it touches on so many issues (rights, abortion, abuse, morality, conception rights, law, ect.) but alas, I found myself overbooked (though I plan to write it soon.) Plus, I need to clear my thinking about a few things first.

While it is clear this couple is morally wrong (willfully choosing a crippled life for their potential child) the real issues are about rights and the law.

What do you think?

For an embryo/fetus that one plans to bring to term, causing deafness (or any other physical handicap) should be no more legal than crippling a child at birth.

Slight amendment:

For an embryo/fetus that one plans to bring to term, deliberately causing deafness (or any other physical handicap) should be no more legal than crippling a child at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post reminds me of Ayn Rand's article 'The Comprachicos' in her book, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression....

Willingly taking away an individuals ability to hear limits his ability to 'hear' the 'Voices of Reason.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the child be allowed to sue later on? I'm trying to understand the intricacies of this from an objective law stand point.

This assumes that the parents, and anyone who helped them to cause the deafness, broke the law and did it anyway. If they did, the state should prosecute the crime, though I suppose that the child (or some representative of the child) could file a civil suit for damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also heard of cases in which modern technology can reverse a child's (born with) deafness, but the deaf parents won't allow it. In either case, I think it is absolutely repulsive to keep hearing from a child if it is possible for him to hear. Whether or not it is or should be an issue of law I would leave to legal scholars. However, my personal (perhaps even emotional) view is that preventing a child from hearing is immoral and criminal.

I have some understanding of the deaf "culture" and why this happens, as I supervised a woman who is virtually deaf, and we wrote a paper on mental health issues related to deaf or hard of hearing people. It is an extremely "closed off" group, with a fervor toward following prescribed deaf-cultural behaviors and practices that rivals any fundamentalist religion. This obviously isn't true of all deaf people, just the ones who buy into the "deaf orthodoxy." As you can imagine, there is a significant amount of collectivism, altruism, and socialism that runs through it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In either case, I think it is absolutely repulsive to keep hearing from a child if it is possible for him to hear.
Yeah, I know such children. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have also heard of cases in which modern technology can reverse a child's (born with) deafness, but the deaf parents won't allow it. In either case, I think it is absolutely repulsive to keep hearing from a child if it is possible for him to hear. Whether or not it is or should be an issue of law I would leave to legal scholars. However, my personal (perhaps even emotional) view is that preventing a child from hearing is immoral and criminal.

I have some understanding of the deaf "culture" and why this happens, as I supervised a woman who is virtually deaf, and we wrote a paper on mental health issues related to deaf or hard of hearing people. It is an extremely "closed off" group, with a fervor toward following prescribed deaf-cultural behaviors and practices that rivals any fundamentalist religion. This obviously isn't true of all deaf people, just the ones who buy into the "deaf orthodoxy." As you can imagine, there is a significant amount of collectivism, altruism, and socialism that runs through it all.

I had an emotional reaction as well; which eventually led me to thinking ‘what can be done?’ which eventually led to ‘what should be done?’ And then the floodgates opened, and all issues connected to this one came out.

What about the rights to conception? What if a couple has a strong likelihood of producing genetically crippled children? What about abortion? What about mothers who do drugs while pregnant? What are the rights of parents to refuse medical care for their children? What about rights and how do they relate to unborn, or even unconceived beings?

Rose Lake echo’s my thinking; the solution lies in the concept of choice. A child that is deaf naturally is far different from a child that is deaf by design. Though my thinking isn’t clear yet, I realized this while writing about this issue; I had written almost two pages, and barely said a thing.

Luckily, there are not many people who would willfully do this to their children, most people rightly want the best for there kids. Though, I can see this becoming a much bigger issue in the future.

-Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be right for an amputee to arrange for her child to be born without a limb? For a paraplegic to have his future child's spinal cord altered in utero? For a person with a genetic disease to order DNA modifications so a child will be born with the same condition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites