If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Deaf demand right to designer deaf children
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3087367.ece
How bad is this?
I can't imagine anyone, even deaf parents wanting a deaf child on purpose.
How bad is this?
I can't imagine anyone, even deaf parents wanting a deaf child on purpose.
0
Comments
sick sick sick
Who on earth would want this?
anyone who is deaf, i'm sure will understand the problems it brings just living day to day life. why a parent would want to give their child a disability and put their child through all the problems they will have been through is absurd. still... there will always be some parents who go completely out of their way to completely fuck up their child. but i think the whole concept of designer babies is unethical tbh.
Although a lot of deaf people dont see it as a disablility as much, I still dont see why someone wouldnt want to give their child all the opportunities they could, and being deaf obviously restricts opportunities somewhat in a hearing world.
I dont see why they would think that a hearing child couldnt be part of the deaf community though. My brother is profoundly deaf, yet has been the sole parent of my nephew since he was 2, and my nephew is hearing but is obviously completely fluent in sign language. My brother has also recently married a hearing woman with 2 deaf children and one hearing child. They all sign, so theres not a problem. I would have thought it would be even handier if a deaf couple had a hearing child at times.
Sheesh.
The legislation says that it will be ILLEGAL to choose a baby with a disability over a healthy baby, if the baby has been created artificially. The legislation is saying that a couple must choose to destroy an embryo that has the same 'disability' that they do. How much longer before we have enforced abortions for embryos with disabilities?
I think a piece of legislation like that should be challenged.
yeh, it's a technicality - but why would deaf would be parents want to choose to have a deaf child? it's not a life impairing disability, so they should just be used - genetic screening shoul only be used for genetic conditions that will cause an life threatening problem
i blieve they allowed genetic screening for a gene that only has a slightly higher risk of getting breast cancer, when actually the best way of stopping it is just to have regular checks so if you do get it, you catch it early
With that, and the fact that the deaf community is very strong in the UK, it's not too surprising. Many deaf people use BSL as their first language and don't use English except for reading and writing. I don't think you can let legislation that forces doctors to prioritise the rights of a hearing child over a deaf one should ever be passed. It's tantamount to eugenics.
I see what youre saying. i didnt originally read it like that.
I dont think deafness is severe enough a disability that someone should HAVE to choose a hearing child over a deaf child. Its not cruel to bring a deaf child into the world, but i dont understand why it would be someones first choice. I guess if it is though, then...
Who knows.
What a tricky issue!!!
Why? What about conditions like mine which are by no means life threaning nor do they cause life threatening problems, but will cause problems later on in life and mean that we are extremely limited to the types of work we can and can't do?
what condition is that by the way? it's a bit handy to know
yes they're called disabilities, because it's disabled one aspect of a normal human body, on the whole, most disabilities can be worked around on a day to day activities and besides all, we're all human
It depends what you mean by the "best" for them though
The whole idea that a "disabled" baby MUST be destroyed is disgraceful, though. Eugenics a-go-go!
However, where do you draw the line with this? Will it soon be okay to request that your child be white, with blue eyes, blonde hair and of the Aryan race, in the name of "choice" for parents? Hitler would be proud of such a development, wouldn't he?
My understanding is that it will be illegal to decide to keep a "disabled" baby, which means that any "disabled" embryos will be destroyed. I'm not sure if this applies if all the embryos produced in a batch are "disabled", but statistically it is so unlikely that this will happen that it becomes a moot point.
I don't think many parents would do this; some would, mostly for cultural reasons, but then it becomes an argument of what is a disability and what is not. I don't think many people would be choosing to give a baby Down's or Asperger's, put it that way.
But the legislation isn't about creating "disabled" embryos; it's about destroying "disabled" embryos. Which I think is abhorrent. Whilst I don't think its ideal having "disabled" babies (and few parents would want that to happen) I don't think it's the Government's place to say that artificially created embryos with "disabilities" should be destroyed. It's a very short step to saying that naturally created embryos with "disabilities" should be destroyed.
I think that he understood it perfectly well.
Illegal to choose an embryo with an "abnormality" (needs definition) if a healthy one exists is a small step away from eugenics.
But that's playing a bit of devil's advocate. I agree with wheresmyplacebo. Embryo's shouldn't be automatically screened, only if there's a significant risk of genetic problems.
The cost of embryo screening isn't cheap, and people with either disabilities or mild abnormalities can live a very happy life anyway.
If there are two embryos, one with a disability and one without, should the parents be allowed to choose the one with the disability?
The law wants to say no, they should be compelled to take the healthy(er) one.
The protestors are saying they should have the choice.
Kermit's point seems to be we shouldn't just say 'the law makes sense, go with it', because when you have this legislation down, then it will start to narrow what counts as a disability and lead towards designer babies / eugenics.
Well I agree, as with everything it's not black or white it's varying shades of grey. You could argue an embryo with ginger hair might get bullied more, even, and use that as grounds to pick the other one. Which is kermit's point or how I have interpreted it - you can't just say 'this could cause a problem' and so exclude it. But I agree with you wholeheartedly. A friend may be a carrier of duchennes muscular dystrophy (depends which chromosome she got from her parents) in which case any sons she has may well have a lesser quality and length of life. That's not to say they can't be happy though. But I don't think it's wrong to pick a girl over a boy because the girl won't be affected by the disease. (although embryo screening has come quite far that it can detect DMD in individual embryos so you could just pick out all the ones afflicted).
No-one's 'giving' any child anything, these are embryos that are or are not already affected.
I think that's why he used "quotation marks". Although the parent isn't giving their child an affliction, they can choose the embryo that is not afflicted and therefore their child won't have the affliction. They could "give" a child an affliction by choosing the embryo that does have the anomoly.