Comments on: Ethics and embryology – should deaf parents be allowed to choose a deaf child?

By: BEcky

BEcky — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:58:29 +0000

This ethical dilemma is a matter driven by the egocentric needs of the parents and selfish in its most basic form. Parents driven to provide the best possible outcome, opportunities and CHOICES for their unborn children would never choose to deliberately limit the abilities of their offspring. By deliberately removing the capacity to enjoy music, and the learning experience of driving as a teen for the sole reason that as a parent you embrace a culture of deafness is nothing less than self centered. Social milestones that come with child and adolescent development built around music, dance, the noise and excitement of a football game frenzie–as well as the independence of driving pals to the pizza parlor after the game are all events compromised for a deaf child.

Lastly, by selecting a deaf embryo, the choice to drive and enjoy music is taken away arbitrarily from an infant who will one day be an adult that might have preferred to be a hearing adult.

Predetermining the hearing condition of a child is not a choice for any person other than one being born with the condition. Free Will and Free choice not subject to the decision of a selfish deaf parent.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:12 +0000

I see absolutley NO sticking points. This is not a textbook ethical dilema. This is ridiculous. Those parents shouldn’t be allowed to have a child. Purposefully handicaping your child? What good parent would do that? NONE! A child is not for the parents pleasure. The parents are there solely for the child.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 05:51:24 +0000

The question of whether a child is being harmed by being selected to have (what many people perceive as) a disability is actually quite tricky to prove. This is because, if the child was *not* selected to have this characteristic, the child would *not have been born at all*. A genetically and psychology different child would have been born instead. The only options for this *particular* individual are:

a)existence, but not being able to hear (yet presumably having a life worth living)
b)non-existence

Can non-existence ever be better than existence? If so, who is it better for? Someone who doesn’t actually exist? That strikes me as absurd.

I believe that no-one would actually be harmed by deliberately bringing a deaf child into existence. It could be argued that the *world* is worse-off (i.e harmed) than if a (different)hearing-child was brought into existence instead. But making this claim and actually demonstrating it is the case are 2 very different things.

By: Jazmyn

Jazmyn — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:40:21 +0000

I have to agree with Laura. I took two years of ASL in college, and learned from a proudly Deaf instructor. I would like to have a deaf child but I would never try to use new medical advances to insure this, therefore my husband and I plan to adopt a deaf child. Much of the reason I would like to have a deaf child is because many of the deaf children that are up for adoption are not adopted because they are deaf, many potiential adoptive parents do not want to go through the trouble of learning ASL and the chalanges of trying to relate to a child who experiences the world differently than you when it’s hared enough already to relate to the next generation. It’s not so important to me to have this genetic link between me and my children, but I think to people who want to have their own biological children who are deaf these two factors would be equally important.
When we do adopt our child I plan to fully expose them to Deaf culture but try to have them learn to lip read and use speak so that they can try to find a balance between the Deaf and hearing worlds. If their hearing could be improved with hearing aids, then I’ll make them available. Trouble is when parents try to have their kids in both Deaf and hearing culture the children are often seen as not quite Deaf even if their deaf and not really hearing even if they can lip read and speak.
I can understand why the Deaf couple would want to have a deaf child, deafness isn’t a disability in Deaf culture and a child born deaf is often times seen a more deaf than someone who becomes deaf later in life. Then too a CODA (child of deaf adults) isn’t deaf but hearing and only has ties to the culture because their parents are deaf since they themselves are not. Though too, CODAs make the best interpreters there by playing an important role when deaf and hearing meet.
It’s true though, most people are born hearing. Deafness isn’t always a disadvantage but I just couldn’t see myself tring for a deaf child. Infact, I hapen to be of short stature (only 4’11″) before I married my husband I was intentially looking for some one much taller (he’s almost 6′) to try to give my children a chance at being of a more normal height. I just come from a long line of short people and I don’t see my height as a disadvantage really but it has gotten in the way of some things I have wanted to do (like I always wanted to be a flight attendent, untill I found out you had to be 5’2″ to reach the overhead compartments). As a parent I would want to do everything I can to make sure my children have the most oportunites open to them.

By: Kay

Kay — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:04:08 +0000

Isn’t creating a child with a disability contrary to medical ethos? Like do no harm. Aren’t you harming the child? Also the child has no say on this matter and will grow up to have to live with whatever condition the parents gave him/her. What if 20 years from now little Peggy decides she wanted to be able to hear, see or walk after all?

Like one of the posters mentioned, maybe adoption would be a better option for couples who want something like a deaf child. It certainly would give the child a home where it would be appreciated and thought of as having an advantage than a hurdle in his/her life. But we are selfish people, wishing to pass on our genes no matter how hard it may be to reproduce or to pass on the traits we like.