No - is the obvious answer. But there was a deaf guy on the Today Program this morning arguing that they should be.
He said that he wants IVF treatment, and to be able to select a deaf embryo over a hearing embryo because a deaf child would fit in better in his family unit.
I find this infuriating. He refused to accept that deafness is a disability.
His argument was as follows:
Deaf people are able to lead fulfilling lives. There is a flourishing deaf culture. It is not diminishing quality of life to choose to bring a child into the world deaf. Ability to hear or not is essentially like skin colour or sexuality - and if you object to being able to choose to bring a deaf child into the world rather than a hearing child, then it is equivalent to racism.
This is all complete twaddle. The interviewer made the point to him that deafness is clearly a disability. It prevents somebody from participating in many activities - he raised listening to a Beethoven symphony as an example. The deaf guy responded that the interviewer would be in the same position if he attended a deaf conference - he wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion.
The interviewer thundered back with the obvious response that he could learn sign language, whereas a deaf person can't learn to hear.
Clearly deafness cuts somebody off from many avenues in life - deaf culture may be rich and diverse - but how can anybody justify wanting to limit a child to participate in just one culture, and denying access to so many others. A black kid born in a ghetto in Chicago may have many obstacles to getting out of the ghetto, but they can still go out and communicate with almost anybody else in North America. A deaf child does not have the same opportunity.
I'm not entirely opposed to eugenics - although I question whether we understand enough about genetics to embark on such projects now. But to choose to bring a deaf child into the world, rather than a hearing one, is bordering on child abuse. Parents should not have the right to inflict harm or a disability on their offspring.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Should parents be able to choose a deaf baby?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It worries me that the discriminatory foundations of this Bill have been glossed over in much of this debate. This policy clearly states that a child without a 'serious illness' must be automatically preferred to a one that does have one (or indeed, a risk of developing one). This is clear discrimination and implies that a Deaf life is one not worth living. If this legislation is passed a precedent of statutory interpretation will have been established – that deafness is indeed a ‘serious illness’. In future what other ‘conditions’ may be eradicated in this way? This medical conception of deafness is a narrow-minded denial of the richness and value of Deaf culture and community.
Deaf persons have many unique qualities to offer the rest of the world – can many hearing people claim to be able to attend an international conference and be able to communicate with any person of any nationality? Deaf persons can through adapting their beautiful and flexible language. Far from being isolated and lonely individuals, each Deaf person may become a member of a vast global community if they wish to do so.
Clause 14 should be recognised for what it is – yet another thinly veiled attempt to eradicate Deaf persons, motivated by economics. The brave parents at the heart of this debate are not seeking to ‘engineer’ a ‘designer baby’. The embryo is deaf, it already exists. They are simply saying that they would deeply love and cherish a child that others may see as disabled. What is so very terrible about that?
Sarah, please explain why discrimination is always wrong. Although it has been codified by certain lobbies as a dirty word, there are many occasions when discriminating is the sensible, reasonable, or even compassionate thing to do.
e.g. when we enter a relationship, most people are discriminating about whom they start a relationship with - it's not just the first person to come along.
Discrimination means simply being picky or selective. Sometimes being selective is justified and sometimes it ain't.
Clause 14 essentially says that when we have the choice of bringing to term a deaf embryo or a hearing embryo, it is the right thing to do to discriminate in favour of the hearing embryo - for very obvious compassionate and medical reasons. Deafness is very much a serious physical disability (not an illness).
This bloke who wants a deaf baby is also discriminating - but for selfish reasons. He is saying a deaf kid would fit in better with his own lifestyle. It is just as much a form of eugenics - he wants to select his baby on the basis of physical characteristics, but for less acceptable reasons.
It is justifiable, for medical reasons, to pick a hearing embryo over a deaf embryo. It is also acceptable to let the birth of deaf babies be a process of natural or sexual selection - as it largely is at the moment.
But parents should not have the right to discriminate against a healthy embryo in favour of a less healthy one. It's perverse, and it would cause harm.
And your international conference argument is absurd. English is the international language, and it is used at international conferences as a second language. Otherwise, interpreters are used - I've been to a few international meetings which used sophisticated interpreting systems. And if I particularly wanted to attend an international deaf conference, I could learn sign language. It's not as if deaf people have a monopoly on the ability to sign.
I think that positive discrimination should be allowed, and in particular I think that all MPs should be Deaf. One of the best MPs we have ever had was Emma Nicholson, and she was really good because she ignored all of the rubbish comments which people made to her, on the pretext she couldnt hear them.
She did however manage to hear the Lib Dems when they asked her to switch from the Tories, and she did them a whole load of good.
Yes give us positive deaf discrimination, and if paople want a deaf or blind, or mentally handicapped baby to suit their personality so be it
Post a Comment