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.”
Is this what they mean by “slippery slope?”
This is narcissism taken to the max. Truly unbelievable! If anything they should not be allowed to reproduce at all! (Chew on THAT, social scientists!!)
How utterly selfish these people are! Shame on them, wishing a disability on a child.
Is this a joke ?
The issue of whether or not it’s moral to deliberately produce deaf children shouldn’t even arise, because the whole idea of “designer children” is evil and pernicious to start with.
It requires unnatural procreation by in vitro fertilization, and it requires fertilizing and producing multiple ebryos so you can select among them—and kill the rest. And contrary to the language of the article, parents do not “create” a child, they procreate. God remains the Creator.
But predictably the Labour Government and the NHS will like these ideas.
I’m waiting for foot-binding to make a comeback. Wouldn’t it be great for all the girls to have feet just 3-inches long? Sure, they couldn’t really walk or function normally, but that’s not my problem. The point is that My Desire is for girls to be abnormal — and My Desires are the only things that matter. Right?
Gosh, why not just surgically remove their hearing equipment after they’re born. /s
If I've lost my leg in an auto accident, does this give me the right to chop my son's leg off so that he "fits in better"?
Lunacy.
Honey,"sign" If our baby "sign" isn't deaf "sign" let's kill it "sign" and try again.
Ok dear. "sign"
Thats the ticket.
Anyone who subscribes to that should be in a mental institution and certainly not be bearing children or be determining what a family "lifestyle" should be.
Oh dear Lord.
How can anyone even THINK of intentionally bringing a disabled child into the world?
No wait...that didn’t sound right. You know what I mean. If there’s a choice and disabled parents intentionally have a disabled child FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE?
Well I’m horrified.
I have no objection, so long as the parents accept no taxpayer $ or taxpayer-funded support for the child.
Selective Procreation = Euthanasia by increment.
Here’s an antiutopian quagmire: Sooner or later such a designer child will sue their parents regarding his/her civil rights and the Liberals have a moral dilemma:
WAS IT A PERSON before birth and thus have standing?
What is the reaction if this case is brought up when someone finds a gay gene - and normal parents screen it out, while lesbians and gays seek to engineer it in?
Must be.
I didn't think we were pouring 10W-40 on the slope to make the ride down faster.
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.