Deaf/Hard of Hearing ping list
with interests in health and society
Posted on 12/23/2007 1:20:17 PM PST by FreedomCalls
DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).
Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.
Ballard’s stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities.
A clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist.
In America a deaf couple deliberately created a baby with hearing difficulties by choosing a sperm donor with generations of deafness in his family.
This would be impossible under the bill in its present form in the UK. Disability charities say this makes the proposed legislation discriminatory, because it gives parents the right to create “designer babies” free from genetic conditions while banning couples from deliberately creating a baby with a disability.
The prospect of selecting “deaf embryos” is likely to be seized on by campaigners against genetic screening who will argue that this is an inevitable outcome of allowing “designer babies”.
Doctors are opposed to creating deaf babies. Professor Gedis Grudzinskas, medical director of the Bridge Centre, a clinic in London that screens embyros, said: “This would be an abuse of medical technology. Deafness is not the normal state, it is a disability. To deliberately create a deaf embryo would be contrary to the ethos of our society.”
Ballard, who previously ran into controversy as director-general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) where she pushed through extensive job cuts, said in an interview with The Sunday Times: “Most parents would choose to have a hearing embryo, but for those few parents who do not, we think they should be allowed to exercise that choice and we would support them in that decision.
“There are a number of deaf forums where there are discussions about this. There are a small minority of activists who say that there is a cultural identity in being born deaf and that we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf.”
Ballard added: “We would like to retain, as far as possible, parental choice, but it has to be in conjunction with a clinician so that people know exactly what they are choosing.”
Next month a coalition of disability organisations will launch a campaign to amend the bill to make it possible for parents to choose the embryos that carry a genetic abnormality.
Francis Murphy, chairman of the BDA, said: “If choice of embryos for implantation is to be given to citizens in general, and if hearing and other people are allowed to choose embryos that will be ‘like them’, sharing the same characteristics, language and culture, then we believe that deaf people should have the same right.”
Murphy added that the BDA believes it is very unlikely that it would become common for deaf parents to deliberately create deaf children.
To create a “designer baby” using preimplantation genetic diagnosis, couples need to go through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) even if they could conceive naturally. The embryos created are then genetically screened and normally only the healthy ones are implanted in the mother’s womb.
This weekend the RNID played down Ballard’s comments by pointing out that the charity does not advocate deliberately creating deaf babies.
A spokesman said: “While the RNID believes in the individual’s right to choose, we would not actively encourage the selection of deaf embryos over hearing ones for implantation when both are available.”
What can one say to this except “The deaf are leading the deaf” ?
The only other group that tries to propagate
its disability- eunuchs.
I had a sister who was deaf, so I encountered the the deaf population at its best & worst. Most are very kind normal people. But some of them are not only arrogant but insane as well. To them deafness is not a disability but a self imposed sign of superiority. They look down on people who can hear & ostracize those who have any operation/implant that enables them to hear. Strange bunch.
Exactly!
Good visual. Takes me back. Sadly it’s probably not all that far fetched.
In some elementary schools in towns with a fairly large deaf population, they teach basic sign language including fingerspelling the alphabet. I think it’s something that everyone can benefit.
I only know one piece of sign language, and I lift it in their direction. My first ex-wife was legally blind, and to a lesser extent, there is some “blind pride” crap out there, too. But I do concur, with my experiences with the deaf, they can be pig-headed. I guess blind people need readers too much to tick off too many sighted people.
I agree it’s pretty weird, but I’m not sure it’s a moral issue.
It’s not as if they are proposing to deafen a child with good hearing (though some posters seem to believe that).
Deaf/Hard of Hearing ping list
with interests in health and society
shoulda seen it coming! amazing the depravity of man and the direction it takes.
Here is a similar case of this occurring in the US.
Couple 'choose' to have deaf baby
Thanks.
Thank you so much for giving me an “up close and personal” perspective on this issue. The points that you make are valid ones and I realize that as a hearing person I am only seeing the situation through my own life experiences. You have given me something to really think about and I appreciate it.
The article says they’re deaf and now we know that they’re dumb too.
No, it's that they are trying to tailor-make a child to suit their own "needs". This is a perverted denial of the intrinsic value of human life, reducing it to a mere commodity that is manufactured specifically to suit the tastes of the patron. Hence the term "designer babies". It's a human child, not a bleeding wardrobe accessory!
It’s not the deafness ITSELF that is a horrible thing...and parents who have deaf children should be shown and should interact with kids who are NOT deaf but severely autistic, emotionally disturbed, CP, etc. There are so many life altering conditions, that I myself do not see deafness as a functional handicap. I just don’t. It’s a disability in one sense...that the person can’t hear. But there are so many deaf people, Minority Republican and dmw among them, who hold down full time positions. Many deaf work in the postal service or in IT related fields.
My 15 year old is in a school for the deaf, which I chose so that when she graduates, she will go directly into a trade or into a JC...but the school was chosen for its success rate with graduates. In her mainstream school, she read at a lower grade level and was at the lower grade level in math. At the specialized school - her reading is now AT grade level as is the math. I don’t believe in inclusion in many cases; deafness is one of those.
And with that comment, you show your ignorance of all deaf people.
What?
I don’t even know what to say about some of the mis informed comments I read here on FR. I know none of us would advocate for genetically engineering a disability...at the same time, we should have the power and ability to choose if we want to change our own child’s make up to make them hearing. (I chose to, and now she is choosing ASL for her future...). We do the best we can, but in the end, the communication choice is up to them.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.