Should Deaf Parents Have a Deaf Child?
A controversial topic naturally spawns endless debates. This UK bill banning the selection of “defective” embryos for IVF is no exception. While pursuing this subject yesterday, this headline caught my eye yesterday. As you can see for yourself, this is a misleading and ambiguous headline. Yet, we already saw at least one commenter agreeing that Deaf people shouldn’t have Deaf kids, never mind the IVF.
While some of the comments are intelligent, the others exhibit blatant prejudice and are disturbing to read. Don’t enter if you are sensitive to these derogatory remarks. As citizens, they will vote on the bill banning selective IVF of ‘different’ embryos. The concept of voters promoting the goverment’s active interference in the reproductive lives of private citizens is sobering.
BBC - MESSAGE BOARDS - Radio 4 - Should deaf parents be allowed to have a deaf child? - Conversation
Included are some smart comments:
1) “do we hearing so called normal people have a right to force our culture and language on people who have their own culture and language, after all thats what all the politcial correctness people go on about people not being repsected from other cultures other lands, so why are deaf people to be-littled and dismissed of rights because they don’t want to have to fit into our hearing people way of life, Deaf people and language is a relevelvant as a hearing persons language, why do they have to be forced and discriminated to be other wise,i’d like you to try argue this case on bbc ouch and see what response you would get”
2) “It makes me uncomfortable to think that you can only select the ones that meet a certain criteria to live, and the rest get killed. I think a system where as long as the embryo looks viable everything else is left to chance would make a mountain of ethical and moral dilemmas disappear.”
This comment below is ludicrous. Nobody design these viable embryos to be deaf as they result from the fertilizations of the eggs with the sperms. This person actually advocates the genetic engineering to remove undesirable traits of a living child. Mind-Boggling.
3) “No. Any more than a wheelchair using parent should be allowed to amputate their baby’s feet, so they, too, can join the non-ambulatory minority. Or if I had a child that was telepathic, or psychic, or whatever, and I was not, but I wanted that ability removed from the child, or ensured that no child of mine had it.
It’s a vile, vile notion, and the parents concerned should be ashamed of themselves.”
This is a great opportunity for you to educate the UK readers.
By the way, during some research yesterday, I found serious allegations about the Royal Society of Medicine (equivalent to our American Medical Association). I need to verify these allegations, but if these turn out to be true, everybody, not just the Deaf, should be deeply alarmed, as an ominous turn had already taken place in United Kingdom which will not bear well for the future of this society. History may have already been happening all over again.
Personally I am more concerned about the complacency of Americans, not just the Deaf. They should be feeling more concerned, but it is possible that they are unaware of the current eugenic trends forming in this country. England isn’t the only country proposing actions eugenic in nature. In America, we may be seeing a future government eradicating imperfect embroys and even worse. The practice of systematic selection of healthy embryos and abortions of undesirable fetuses had already begun. MZ
E mail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Addendum: An anti-Semitic comment had been removed as requested by another reader who alerted me to this message. There is no place here for racial nor religious bigotry. By the way, I don’t think the person using quotes was aware of the anti-semitic nature of that site.
A controversial topic naturally spawns endless debates. This UK bill banning the selection of “defective” embryos for IVF is no exception. While pursuing this subject yesterday, this headline caught my eye yesterday. As you can see for yourself, this is a misleading and ambiguous headline. Yet, we already saw at least one commenter agreeing that Deaf people shouldn’t have Deaf kids, never mind the IVF.
While some of the comments are intelligent, the others exhibit blatant prejudice and are disturbing to read. Don’t enter if you are sensitive to these derogatory remarks. As citizens, they will vote on the bill banning selective IVF of ‘different’ embryos. The concept of voters promoting the goverment’s active interference in the reproductive lives of private citizens is sobering.
BBC - MESSAGE BOARDS - Radio 4 - Should deaf parents be allowed to have a deaf child? - Conversation
Included are some smart comments:
1) “do we hearing so called normal people have a right to force our culture and language on people who have their own culture and language, after all thats what all the politcial correctness people go on about people not being repsected from other cultures other lands, so why are deaf people to be-littled and dismissed of rights because they don’t want to have to fit into our hearing people way of life, Deaf people and language is a relevelvant as a hearing persons language, why do they have to be forced and discriminated to be other wise,i’d like you to try argue this case on bbc ouch and see what response you would get”
2) “It makes me uncomfortable to think that you can only select the ones that meet a certain criteria to live, and the rest get killed. I think a system where as long as the embryo looks viable everything else is left to chance would make a mountain of ethical and moral dilemmas disappear.”
This comment below is ludicrous. Nobody design these viable embryos to be deaf as they result from the fertilizations of the eggs with the sperms. This person actually advocates the genetic engineering to remove undesirable traits of a living child. Mind-Boggling.
3) “No. Any more than a wheelchair using parent should be allowed to amputate their baby’s feet, so they, too, can join the non-ambulatory minority. Or if I had a child that was telepathic, or psychic, or whatever, and I was not, but I wanted that ability removed from the child, or ensured that no child of mine had it.
It’s a vile, vile notion, and the parents concerned should be ashamed of themselves.”
This is a great opportunity for you to educate the UK readers.
By the way, during some research yesterday, I found serious allegations about the Royal Society of Medicine (equivalent to our American Medical Association). I need to verify these allegations, but if these turn out to be true, everybody, not just the Deaf, should be deeply alarmed, as an ominous turn had already taken place in United Kingdom which will not bear well for the future of this society. History may have already been happening all over again.
Personally I am more concerned about the complacency of Americans, not just the Deaf. They should be feeling more concerned, but it is possible that they are unaware of the current eugenic trends forming in this country. England isn’t the only country proposing actions eugenic in nature. In America, we may be seeing a future government eradicating imperfect embroys and even worse. The practice of systematic selection of healthy embryos and abortions of undesirable fetuses had already begun. MZ
E mail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Addendum: An anti-Semitic comment had been removed as requested by another reader who alerted me to this message. There is no place here for racial nor religious bigotry. By the way, I don’t think the person using quotes was aware of the anti-semitic nature of that site.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“England isn’t the only country proposing actions eugenic in nature.”
You probably mean BRITAIN (An understandible American error of geography !), but as you rightly point out, Britain is NOT The sole country into eugenics or gene identification, America does it and has done for years as far as we know, the UK, Russia, China (Who will take NO notice whatever of any anti-lobby), even Israel. Italy too, a rather unlikely place but a centre for using IVF to make over 50s and 60s pregnant. They are going way beyond ‘natural selection’ creating babies where nature has said NO after the menopause…
It was mooted recently, ANIMAL embryos and such are to be experimented with as well, using HUMAN eggs and sperm, I’m more worried about that than the clause in the UK Bill. Eagle’s eyes, and the hearing of a Bat may not seem so outrageous as you think.
The aim is pretty much the same in all cases the primary eradication of degenerative and terminal illness, then disabilities,except in the UK case the ID’d deafness specifically, perhaps because there was an effective way to ID that gene, where there isn’t with some others, it’s not all that clear, my knowledge is the same or less than others, but I did read there are MANY genes that contribute to deafness, not just one, and they haven’t ID’d them all so it is still possible a deaf child will be born.
Americans kept quiet because they didn’t want their people looking into what they are doing, now’s your chance ! Start researching your own genetic programs and then come back at Britain…. America funds research into genetics in Cambridge and other universities in England, ask them WHY. No-one’s hands are clean here…. taking the moral high ground is a mistake…
Ever since someone cupped a hand to their ear to hear a bit better, the writing has been on the wall….
March 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
We do not consider deaf embryos at all defective, and that should be enough for a governing body to sit up and listen. When opinion comes against opinion, the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of life.
Disregarding the will of a minority has always been dangerous and in many cases, downright immoral. History has shown that where people were in doubt and allowed governing bodies free license to disregard minority opinions, mass executions and disempowerment of whole cultural groups result.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
It is a hard, complicated subject for me to comment on. I really don’t know much about it… but it is happening all over the world, and for centuries. A few days ago, CNN released the news that China decided to keep one child per family law for the next decade… I shudder what happens to the babies who are “accidentally” conceived and my father who visited China a few years ago told me that the boys outranked girls there.
Now embryos… *sigh* I don’t know. I believe in letting it happen naturally, as the way God wills it. Playing God in science… I don’t feel comfortable with it.
It is more a controversial subject that CI is, and it deals with life and death :o(… this I don’t like.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Mass execution talk is emotive rather than subjective, and not applicable to the Brit IVF issue…. if an embryo is NOT fertilized with the deaf gene in it, then it is not a ‘life’ discarded, it hasn’t been created has it ? Conception hasn’t begun ?
IS it the ‘will of the minority’ to create deaf children ? You have of course canvassed all the potential IVF deaf parents and got proof ? I don’t believe the UK has found anything in double figures. You have effectively erased deaf people like myself from the whole question (Thanks !).
I feel as much a minority as any other deaf person does. I may neither be cultural or signing to a decent standard, but my deafness doesn’t is still totally democratic, it doesn’t care ! If the opinion of non-’Deaf’ is to be ignored, then support cannot be expected can it ?
deaf/HI sectors are large supporters of hearing aids and CI’s etc, by tradition… The real issue is the Deaf Community has consistently FAILED to make society aware it is a positive experience, and still failing, even with law backup, since you cannot change an attitude with legislation anyway. I think ‘attitude’ is a smoke-screen, it is more a ‘primal’ reaction personally, which is inherent in all of us.
There really is no way to quantify that deaf culture would accept I suppose… but it’s there. The best possible start for your child, is that being deaf, or not ?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
MM, excuse me for making that mistake, not due to geographical ignorance, thank you. Had you read the post carefully, I already used U.K. twice.
This bill involves viable embryos. The conception had already BEGUN.
When you refuted the mass extinction by claiming it to be emotive, you were actually ignoring the lessons of history. When implemented, this bill starts a very slippery eugenic slope. Do read the American Eugenic movements in early 1900’s and the adoption and expansion of that program in Nazi Germany by Adolf Hitler. This is what Dianrez based her answer on.
Karen, China had taken a rather brutal approach to one child only per family family. Women pregnant for the second time are subjected to involuntary abortions even up to eight and half months. Many female newborns are routinely killed by the parents to ensure a male heir to take care of the elder parents later on. We’ve witnessed China’s low value on humans with its prisoners routinely executed due to the illegal harvesting of their organs for organ transplants. The organ transplant for foreign candidates is a highly lucrative business in that country.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This is the point really that nobody is addressing in that article: even if hypothetically you abhor a couple wanting a deaf child, do you support the idea of telling a deaf couple who have gone for IVF and had a test for deafness, and it is found they have a mix of hearing and deaf embryo’s, that they *must* choose the hearing ones and can’t have the deaf ones (which have to be destroyed)? Because that is exactly the potential situation you have in one of the clauses of the Bill; there won’t be a choice and we won’t even be having this debate, it’ll be a closed shop. Nobody has anything to say about that.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
[…] Should Deaf Parents Have a Deaf Child? […]
March 11th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The way I see it, it is the parents’ business. If they want to design a baby, it is their choice and they have to cover all the avenues, taking into consideration that the “designed” babies rarely turn out to be perfect. And take the society into account… are there sufficient benefits for the designed babies? Etc. Make sure that the “designed” babies would not drain the government money. Etc.
There is no cut and dried answer to this… UK, you are right, nobody is able to address this subject…but I know for one thing… if the bill is passed in UK, other countries will follow the similar paths. (I am sure many countries are already following this similar path now.) What scares me is in the future, when my children are adults, what if they are expecting a baby, my daughter or my son’s wife has to undergo the test to make sure that the embryos/fetuses did not carry any “abnormal” genes and then being told to abort their deaf baby? That would be hitting too close to home.
Man, about China… all the poor babies who are sacrificed for China’s policy… uh.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
[…] Wants Deaf Child Mishka Zena: Eugenics Too Close To Home: Tomato Lichy, U.K. Activist Mishka Zena: Should Deaf Parents Have a Deaf Child? The Not-Quite-So-Friendly Humanist: Reverse Eugenics JoJo Moyes: A deaf child - not your right to […]
March 12th, 2008 at 5:40 am
I see this subject is least commented to, especially by Americans… all because we don’t have the luxury of being under the threat that the law could be passed, like U.K. is. I guess it is due to the mentality of what is happening is on another land, so we keep our heads buried in sand like ostriches.
Hmmm… I am not accusing anyone. We went through with the wars, especially WWII when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and especially with the 9/11, when it was a blow of shock to us.
Guess we’d be experiencing a kind of shock wave sooner or later.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
There are some truly horrible genetic diseases out there. One in particular that comes to mind is Tay-Sachs, which starts to affect a baby at only a few months old and is fatal by age 4. Here is a description of it from the NIH website:
“Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Other neurological symptoms include dementia, seizures, and an increased startle reflex to noise.”
This disease runs in Ashkenazi Jews. My husband and I were tested after we were married, and we were not carriers. However, what should a couple do if they find out that they both are carriers? If it were me, I can say with 100% certainty that I would not leave this to chance because this is a horrendous disease that results in a baby who spends its entire short life suffering terribly.
The question for me is when is selection appropriate? For severe genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs, I think that this decision should be left to the parents. Then, the bigger question comes as to how do we legislate? Who gets to decide what is okay and what is not?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
In the abscence of consensus the government does, which is what they are doing in the UK. It’s what you elect them for, someone has to take the lead, or it drags on and on with no solution. Genetic ID is here, a lot more decisions on a lot more ‘disabilities’ are going to come as well. Perhaps the real downside, is the respective Dear/deaf and disability minorities have no cohesive body, view, or approach, there’s no unity to put a collective view. Looking at deaf.read and other sites,not likely for some time to come either. Never was there more a need, for a united front, I don’t see it.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Melissa, that is a horrible degenerative disease. Many of my friends were tested for it prior to conception of their children, too. It would be too cruel to let an embryo carrying this disease mature to a newborn.
However, deafness isn’t a life-threatening condition. Understandably some parents won’t want that, but what about other parents who don’t mind and don’t want to be tested at all? The government is robbing them their choices.
Karen, hmm, what if this has come to the point that the parents can design their babies? A male over a female? Blonde over dark hair? Tall genes over average height genes? Let’s throw in super genes so the baby will have an Olympics potential?
We are entering a new and very complicated territory where we can play God. This is a scary responsibility
MM , maybe because this is happening in UK, too far away from Americans. If they are fully aware of the pro- eugenic conference the Royal Society of Medicine recently had, they should be very alarmed. I am surprised this pro-eugenic conference isn’t well-publicized as that will give the Britons a second thought. I must admit I was startled when I came across this article.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I agree that there is no comparison between deafness and Tay-Sachs. I brought it up only because if we legislate, it’s not a black and white issue. We can’t legislate completely against IVF selection of embryos. So then decisions have to be made, and there is not going to be a way to please the entire population.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:12 am
It’s a minefield, history shows many countries have operated their own form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Which the UK Eugenics clause has been aligned to by some). They may not have used clinical means, but even in recent memory the issues of Serbia, Idi Amin, Darfur etc etc, gave us stark proof not a lot has changed…. I really don’t see how the ‘Deaf’ can isolate this issue, when they don’t even have consensus amongst themselves. If they are going to use history as a reference, they better start reading up on it…..
March 13th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Designing a baby… I MIGHT be OK with it AS LONG AS the parents get counseling and pass certain tests to make sure that they have no illusions about what designed babies should be like… at the end the designed babies do make decisions that the parents would not be prepared for. I would have a problem with the first/second trmester pregnancy tests which could screen out the certain genes and might force abortion in the future. I know nowadays the parents are given the option to carry to full term or to terminlate the pregnancy. But the question is how much invovlement government should have? We are seeing a lot of government invovlement in China.
*Rubbing my forehead* scary.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Designing ANY child by free choice is fraught with major issues. It negates natural choice for a start, alters the natural status quo, and encourages all sorts of extreme viewpoint to be re-enacted genetically and foisted on generation after generation.
IVF once it can determine with certainty genes, then anyone wanting children will start asking the Dr’s if they can have a screen too, they do anyway for a number of issues as we know. “I’d like a boy, 6ft tall, blue eyes, no disabilities, brown hair……”
Americans LOVE their images don’t they ? (Yep the UK blames YOU for all the problems !), and will be the first, it won’t be the impoverished UK that will set any ball rolling but the USA.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
hello am same am looking for real deaf that is single an honest an caring an nice person ok taht i will love so much ok am sam However, deafness isn’t a life-threatening condition. Understandably some parents won’t want that, but what about other parents who don’t mind and don’t want to be tested at all? The government is robbing them their choices.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
In the abscence of consensus the government does, which is what they are doing in the UK. It’s what you elect them for, someone has to take the lead, or it drags on and on with no solution. Genetic ID is here, a lot more decisions on a lot more ‘disabilities’ are going to come as well. Perhaps the real downside, is the respective Dear/deaf and disability minorities have no cohesive body, view, or approach, there’s no unity to put a collective view. Looking at deaf.read and other sites,not likely for some time to come either. Never was there more a need, for a united front, I don’t see it.am sam a nice man an single an full deaf ok