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.”
Why not pass a law that all IV children must be given a chance to live? Limit the number of embryos to be implanted. After a period of time, adopt out those that were not wanted. No more killing babies, no more mega multi pregnancies and they all get an opportunity to survive whether male/female, healthy or handicapped. If a baby is not wanted because it can hear then a “normal lifestyle” family could adopt her.
Being partly disabled, I’d never, EVER wish such a condition on anyone, much less my own flesh and blood.
If these parents want to “choose” such a state for their children, then let it be their choice to foot the bill for the advanced care and education required over the kid’s lifetime — it’s a much easier “choice” if you know someone else will be taking care of things...
HIV parents should also select children with HIV.
Who really wants a healthy child anyways?
Unacceptable.
On the other side though, a child should not be discarded because of a disability. I would not want to see parents told that they will be denied any assistance if they don’t abort a child that is mentally or physically challenged.
No joke. Rabid deaf activists even think the implant procedure that allows people to hear is some sort of cultural genocide. On a personal not I once worked for a state rehab agency. We had a client who at one time was a nurse. She got the implant (We did not pay for that, by the way) I helped her purchase a stethascobe that she could use in conjuction with her implant. You would not believe what something like that costs. But she is once again working. And paying taxes.
Now for my funniest “deaf, but not really” story. Guy came in the office one day. Asked him what he needed. He writes on a pad “Need to see a counselor”. I did not need to write ‘cause he appeared able to read lips. I set him up to see our counselor who specialized in deaf & hearing impaired. Meeting over, the guy leaves. Counselor calls me into his office. “Interesting guy” says he. “How so” says I. “He’s not deaf” says he. “What! Then what was with the pad?” says I. “He only speaks when he can do so in bible verse” says he. “Going to make him a client?” says I. “Yep” says he. “Pysch eval first?” says I. “Oh yeah” says he.
embryo screening to choose deaf embryo = wrong, wrong
choose embryos that will be ‘like them’, sharing the same characteristics, language and culture = imaginary and wrong wrong
Oh, here we go!
You can’t give breeding couples the right to CHOOSE a handicapped baby without giving them the right to reject one as well.
What’s real interesting is what individuals consider ‘handicapped’. Eventually, the choice to dispose of a baby who will be homosexual -because they simply don’t want one, and it won’t ‘fit’ the family- WILL arrive. Then what? Can they then go back to redefine the parameters of parents’ ‘choice’ because discriminating like that is politically incorrect?
Who wants to bet that that is when all the enlightened liberals who support this insanity scream STOP?
Anyone who would want their child impaired or handicapped in any way is sick!
What happened to research to eliminate birth defects and such? PREFERRING an impaired child? Why don’t people like this adopt one- Lord knows there are many who can’t find homes because they are handicapped.
Wonder if the same MP would allow it if I wanted to screen my embryo’s for a sodomy gene. Wonder how far I would get...Oh yes, now I remember that has already been denounced by those same liberal democRATS
Bingo. How much is a deaf baby worth in the UK these days?
It is not narcissism, it is a cloistered social culture, one that is almost rabidly liberal. My wife was enrolled in the Deaf Education Program of a well known university that operated in conjunction with a “school for the deaf” until she was able to fully understand what social dynamics were involved. When she realized that to become fully qualified to teach in this culture she would have to become immersed in it, she found the idea so repugnant that she quit the course.
“Deaf advocates” want to think they can set up and sustain a separate society where “deafness” is not considered a “handicap”. Indeed, at the time my wife was enrolled, there was some debate if a deaf person should take advantage of any medical technology to restore their hearing.
I can see where this all leads, that deaf people are to some extent cut off from everyone else and if they are able to have their own society, they are free to develop their own morality and social rules, which appeared to be exactly the case. This is so sad, for any deaf person with strong moral values will find themselves doubly isolated from the rest of humanity on a social level.
Explains it all.
How very Muslim of them.
WHAT ..??
Then why have many organizations spent years and years forcing the disabled child INTO THE NORMAL SCHOOL ROOM ..??
These liberals really are loons.
My liberal spouse taught special education for many years. Children in various degrees being handicapped. Now the new phrase is "challenged"-I appraised her of this post, waiting to hear a feel good answer.
"Ridiculous", she said. The child will have to have specialized education. This will cost society more resource money in education . In spite of all the platitudes, their ability to secure decent employment will be hampered. Their interaction with the general population will be reduced, my spouse went on . "Selfish, selfish and selfish" she said.
We finally agree. As for me, I repeat that it is "me, me and more me".
Is that brimstone I smell?
Merry Christmas! Thanks, bfl
Right?
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.