Posted on 04/08/2002 5:48:29 AM PDT by kattracks
A lesbian couple in the US have attracted fierce criticism by deliberately having a deaf baby.In an unexpected twist to the pursuit of "designer" offspring, the couple, who are both deaf, said they had wanted a child that would be like themselves. The four-month old boy is profoundly deaf in his left ear and has only residual hearing in his right.
Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, both in their 30s, turned to a friend with five generations of deafness in his family after being turned away by a sperm bank which told them that donors with disabilities were screened out.
The man had previously fathered a girl for the couple, who live in Bethesda, Maryland, who is now five and also deaf. However their action in choosing to determine their children's hearing ability has only been revealed with the birth of their son, Gauvin.
The couple, who are both mental health specialists and deaf therapists, have been together for nearly 10 years.
In an interview with the Washington Post, the women claimed they would make better parents to a deaf child. They believed they would be able to understand the child's development more thoroughly and offer better guidance, and said the choice was no different from opting for a certain gender.
They also said they were part of a generation that viewed deafness not as a disability but as a cultural identity.
"Some people look at it like, 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability,'" said Ms McCullough, the boy's adoptive mother. "But, you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't parents be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want? They should have that option. They can feel related to that culture, bonded with that culture."
While still seven months pregnant, the boy's biological mother, Ms Duchesneau, said: "It would be nice to have a deaf child who is the same as us. I think that would be a wonderful experience. You know, if we can have that chance, why not take it? A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing."
But the decision has been roundly condemned.
"I think all of us recognise that deaf children can have perfectly wonderful lives," Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin said. "The question is whether the parents have violated the sacred duty of parenthood, which is to maximise to some reasonable degree the advantages available to their children. I'm loath to say it, but I think it's a shame to set limits on a child's potential."
Nancy Rarus, a staff member at the National Association of the Deaf, said it was not unusual for deaf people to want deaf children but said she regretted the decision.
"I'm a social animal, and it's very difficult for me to talk to my neighbours. I wish I could walk up to somebody and ask for information," she said. "I've had a lot of arguments in the deaf community about that. People talk about, 'the sky's the limit,' but being deaf prevents you from getting there. You don't have as many choices. I can't understand why anybody would want to bring a disabled child into the world."
Ms Duchesneau is no stranger to the debate on designer babies. She is a med ical ethics graduate from the University of Virginia and worked as an intern in the bioethics department at the National Institutes of Health.
But the debate has so far focused on whether technology should be used to eliminate congenital diseases or disabilities. Many disability and gay organisations have felt threatened by the concept of pursuing "perfect" children.
Doctors have warned the couple that Gauvin's vestige of hearing in his right ear is likely to get worse and advised that the boy be fitted with a hearing aid to help him develop a basic understanding of speech. The parents declined, saying they would leave the choice to the boy when he gets older.
They gave the same choice to their daughter Jehanne, who wore a hearing aid for just a week. They also left it to her whether she should attend speech therapy, which she does.
In Britain, the legal barriers preventing a couple from creating a designer baby to help save the life of an existing sick child were recently swept away. The human fertilisation and embryology authority said it would allow it, subject to the merits of each case.
It's just more proof that lesbians/FemiNazis are really just mentally ill.
Does anybody else think the LAST thing these two weirdos should be doing is "helping" anybody else with "mental problems"?
This is disgusting.
But I agree that what these women did can only be called child abuse. How DARE they decide for another person that he be without a sense, simply because (let's be hones) they thought it would be easier to raise a child that didn't have an advantage over them?
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.