Genetically creating deaf children

Well I'm visual, hearing impairement, and have a bit of speech impairement and my whole family isn't. I'm the only one who're born that way and I don't know why and don't have a clue on why I was born with visual, hearing, and speech impairement that way.
 
Interpretrator said:
But the question isn't what happens if you have a DHH kid...it's whether or not it is ethical to try to specifically cause your kid to be DHH. I'm not taking sides, I just thought it was an interesting post.
Click to expand...
Is it ethical is a good question. Is it ethical in either direction? I know you are not taking sides but it would be interesting to know what is your personal opinion on the subject. My opinion, for what it's worth is that we should take the hand that life deals to us. If we start to manipulate the outcome of births or abort them because we know what the outcome will be, then we are playing God which is something that I don't think we do. There are subjective issues, like what is considered to be a defect. Something like this could set a precident resulting in an open floodgate for who knows what.
 
I think it is wrong to do this. The parent is only thinking of themselves and what they want. If you desire a Deaf child because you are Deaf that is completely understandable. I would want that if i was Deaf. Just as some hope to have a boy or a girl, or blue eyes or green. It is only normal to wish your child to be Deaf like you. Specifically creating them to be that way, what if they wind up hating being Deaf? If they love it no problem but if they hate it you have ruined their lives by imposing something that they hate on them. It is not up to us to decide such things, along with eye color or anything else like that. Why don't you just stick a needle in their ears and pierce their eardrums to make them not hear? No one would do that to a little baby. Why is it okay to do this while they are still in the womb? There are things in my genetic make up i wish i would have gotten, dark skin like my brother is one of them. But it is for the person to want for themselves, not the parent.
 
Interpretrator said:
But the question isn't what happens if you have a DHH kid...it's whether or not it is ethical to try to specifically cause your kid to be DHH.

I'm not taking sides, I just thought it was an interesting post.
Click to expand...

Given that American culture, or all cultures for that matter, are majority hearing, I worry that genetic engineering will focus more correction of genetic causes of deafness, thereby creating genetically engieered hearing children. The ethics of that concern me as well.
 
Southern said:
I think it is wrong to do this. The parent is only thinking of themselves and what they want. If you desire a Deaf child because you are Deaf that is completely understandable. I would want that if i was Deaf. Just as some hope to have a boy or a girl, or blue eyes or green. It is only normal to wish your child to be Deaf like you. Specifically creating them to be that way, what if they wind up hating being Deaf? If they love it no problem but if they hate it you have ruined their lives by imposing something that they hate on them. It is not up to us to decide such things, along with eye color or anything else like that. Why don't you just stick a needle in their ears and pierce their eardrums to make them not hear? No one would do that to a little baby. Why is it okay to do this while they are still in the womb? There are things in my genetic make up i wish i would have gotten, dark skin like my brother is one of them. But it is for the person to want for themselves, not the parent.
Click to expand...

Good point. Wouldn't this also apply to implantation of children with CI?
 
jillio said:
Good point. Wouldn't this also apply to implantation of children with CI?
Click to expand...

Well...that is a tough question there. I used to have this view that the reason for the CI was because the parents wanted to make their deaf child like them but now I think as long as the parents understand that the child is still deaf even with a CI and expose the child to ASL, deaf culture, and be sensitive to the issues that the child will face growing up, then I would say no. If the parents are doing it solely to make the child funtion 100% in the hearing world, speak perfectly, and have normal hearing, then yes. That is my opinion regarding to CI.

I still have mixed feelings about CI cuz I just cant stomach the thought of little babies going thru surgery just to hear. Someone asked me if I was hearing with no exposure to deaf people and had a deaf baby, what would I do...so I had to say that I honestly dont know.
 
jillio said:
Good point. Wouldn't this also apply to implantation of children with CI?
Click to expand...

That was exactly my feeling. I'm not sure that CI implantation and genetic modification are really that far apart, in intent if not in level of technology.

Again, this isn't a judgment; I honestly don't come down on one side or the other of these arguments because I don't think it's possible to unilaterally declare them ethical or unethical. Every case should be taken on its own merits. The only thing I do think is, to paraphrase Jurassic Park, the evolution of new technologies seems to outpace the ethical debates that should govern them. I would like to see more public awareness and information about these kinds of issues.
 
Lantana said:
Anyone up to playing God?
Click to expand...

I am! :ty: Hehehehehe

I would want to get rid of all the diseases my baby would be at high risk for, like cancer, diabetes, blindness, something like that. The baby wouldn't know it, and it would be all already done before birth. Cool. I would not be ashamed to use technology to do that, if I knew it is already 100 percent proven. I just won't do experimental and because of my feelings around my deafness, I will do nothing to the baby's hearing - whether she/he turns out to be deaf or not. That I will leave to nature.
 
A CI has nothing in common with genetic engineering! This is the exact reason that I stayed out of this discussion. I wanted to see how long it would take, and who would be the one to make the leap from genetic engineering to CI and why a CI is so bad.
Genetic engineering is as rock drummer said "playing god". By getting a CI for a child, you are giving the child what is available for the child to have the opportunity to do something that he/she could not otherwise be able to do. Giving a child a CI is not saying to the world that you do not accept the fact that your child is deaf. It simply means that you are trying to let the child have an easier time in life. A CI is not a way to "cure" deafness.
As for the whole "I just cant stomach the thought of little babies going thru surgery just to hear." Have you ever witnessed a child from the time they leave the operating room to three weeks after the surgery? If not, then you really dont know what the child goes through do you? So how are you justified in making the above statement?
Actually, Lilly had a harder time dealing with getting a shot a the doctors office than she did going through CI surgery. Do you have a problem exposing a child to vacinations?
Ya know whats funny? ANti CI people claim that we (pro CI people) look at a CI as a cure for deafness. If you look at the statements, you will see that the anti CI people are the ones making statments that give a CI the appearance of curing deafness.
A CI is not a cure for deafness, it is simply a tool to allow deaf people to hear while they wear the CI. When ya take off your CI, you cannot hear anyhting, therefor deaf.
 
Lillys dad said:
A CI has nothing in common with genetic engineering! This is the exact reason that I stayed out of this discussion. I wanted to see how long it would take, and who would be the one to make the leap from genetic engineering to CI and why a CI is so bad.
Genetic engineering is as rock drummer said "playing god". By getting a CI for a child, you are giving the child what is available for the child to have the opportunity to do something that he/she could not otherwise be able to do. Giving a child a CI is not saying to the world that you do not accept the fact that your child is deaf. It simply means that you are trying to let the child have an easier time in life. A CI is not a way to "cure" deafness.
As for the whole "I just cant stomach the thought of little babies going thru surgery just to hear." Have you ever witnessed a child from the time they leave the operating room to three weeks after the surgery? If not, then you really dont know what the child goes through do you? So how are you justified in making the above statement?
Actually, Lilly had a harder time dealing with getting a shot a the doctors office than she did going through CI surgery. Do you have a problem exposing a child to vacinations?
Ya know whats funny? ANti CI people claim that we (pro CI people) look at a CI as a cure for deafness. If you look at the statements, you will see that the anti CI people are the ones making statments that give a CI the appearance of curing deafness.
A CI is not a cure for deafness, it is simply a tool to allow deaf people to hear while they wear the CI. When ya take off your CI, you cannot hear anyhting, therefor deaf.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Lillys dad said:
A CI has nothing in common with genetic engineering! This is the exact reason that I stayed out of this discussion. I wanted to see how long it would take, and who would be the one to make the leap from genetic engineering to CI and why a CI is so bad.
Click to expand...

And I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to misunderstand my post entirely. Where did I say a CI is bad, by the way? Please quote me.
 
Lillys dad said:
A CI has nothing in common with genetic engineering! This is the exact reason that I stayed out of this discussion. I wanted to see how long it would take, and who would be the one to make the leap from genetic engineering to CI and why a CI is so bad.
Genetic engineering is as rock drummer said "playing god". By getting a CI for a child, you are giving the child what is available for the child to have the opportunity to do something that he/she could not otherwise be able to do. Giving a child a CI is not saying to the world that you do not accept the fact that your child is deaf. It simply means that you are trying to let the child have an easier time in life. A CI is not a way to "cure" deafness.
As for the whole "I just cant stomach the thought of little babies going thru surgery just to hear." Have you ever witnessed a child from the time they leave the operating room to three weeks after the surgery? If not, then you really dont know what the child goes through do you? So how are you justified in making the above statement?
Actually, Lilly had a harder time dealing with getting a shot a the doctors office than she did going through CI surgery. Do you have a problem exposing a child to vacinations?
Ya know whats funny? ANti CI people claim that we (pro CI people) look at a CI as a cure for deafness. If you look at the statements, you will see that the anti CI people are the ones making statments that give a CI the appearance of curing deafness.
A CI is not a cure for deafness, it is simply a tool to allow deaf people to hear while they wear the CI. When ya take off your CI, you cannot hear anyhting, therefor deaf.
Click to expand...

I have visited a few students at the hospital just after they had their CI surgery. Mind u they were older kids and I cant lie that I did try to imagine babies going through that. It just looks painful. Those are my honest feelings.
 
Interpretrator said:
And I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to misunderstand my post entirely. Where did I say a CI is bad, by the way? Please quote me.
Click to expand...

No, u didnt say anything about a CI in this thread. That issue was brought up with Jillo's question. Of course we will always have differing opinions on the CI issue.
 
Shel, it does look painful. When I saw Lilly the morning after the surgery, she looked hoprrible. Her face was swollen and she had that little pressure bandage around her head. But when she woke up, she was raring to go. I could not keep her realxed. SHe was in a great mood and all she wanted to do was eat and play.
Lilly has had worse reactions from vaccinations than she did from her surgery.

Shel, at least you went to see. ALot of people wont even do that. Even for their own kids. I know one kid whos mom disowned him because he chose to get a CI when he was4 years old. His mom was so upset, she left the state and never came back. She never contacts her son or anything. SHe simply walked ou tof his life and never returned.
You went to the hospital to visit a kid that is not yours. I respect that. I have been to St.Louis Childrens Hospital several times over the last 1 1/2 years to show my sipport to the kids and families that have had CI surgery. The last one was a family from Somalia. They know very little english, no sign. I went there to first off to show support to the family before the surgery. I went back later for a follow up and to check up on the little guy. The decision to get CI for your kid is a tough one. When we went through it, there was really no one to walk us through it. So when another family goes through the same thing, I try to be there for them, for support.

Shel, can I offer a suggestion?

If you ever have the opportunity to go to a CI activation, do it! It is one of the most powerful moments you will ever experience. Very emotional. If you would like, I can send you some photos from Lillys activation.
 
Lillys dad said:
Shel, it does look painful. When I saw Lilly the morning after the surgery, she looked hoprrible. Her face was swollen and she had that little pressure bandage around her head. But when she woke up, she was raring to go. I could not keep her realxed. SHe was in a great mood and all she wanted to do was eat and play.
Lilly has had worse reactions from vaccinations than she did from her surgery.

Shel, at least you went to see. ALot of people wont even do that. Even for their own kids. I know one kid whos mom disowned him because he chose to get a CI when he was4 years old. His mom was so upset, she left the state and never came back. She never contacts her son or anything. SHe simply walked ou tof his life and never returned.
You went to the hospital to visit a kid that is not yours. I respect that. I have been to St.Louis Childrens Hospital several times over the last 1 1/2 years to show my sipport to the kids and families that have had CI surgery. The last one was a family from Somalia. They know very little english, no sign. I went there to first off to show support to the family before the surgery. I went back later for a follow up and to check up on the little guy. The decision to get CI for your kid is a tough one. When we went through it, there was really no one to walk us through it. So when another family goes through the same thing, I try to be there for them, for support.

Shel, can I offer a suggestion?

If you ever have the opportunity to go to a CI activation, do it! It is one of the most powerful moments you will ever experience. Very emotional. If you would like, I can send you some photos from Lillys activation.
Click to expand...

Thanks..I have seen many videos of a CI activations during my grad school classes. What really bothered me is how the parents in those videos made statements saying "My son/daughter is no longer deaf." Even in one video the mom (if I remember correctly) said "Now, my son doesnt need to do those ridiculous hand gestures that deaf-mute people do." That really upsetted me and gave me the biased view about any parents' purposes of implanting their children. Remember, I was a student and had not gotten real life experiences working with parents and children yet. Now, after 4 years on my job plus this AD forum, I am more open-minded about why parents choose to implant their children. U can go ahead and send me photos of Lilly's activation. She is sooo cute!!! I love babies to death. LOL!

As for surgery on babies...I just feel very protective of my babies and I would be a nervous wreck if they had to go thru any surgery. I just asked my husband if our son was born deaf, would he want a CI? (My husband is hearing) and he said not while he is a baby. He gets too nervous and would be scared. On the other hand, we really cant say we would do this or not do this until we actually experience it.
 
I guess this is something we will have to trust and leave up to the ethicists.
 
PM me your e amil, and I'll send ya some. I have a whole CD filled of pics from Lillys activation. We had a photographer (pr person from CID) sit in Lillys activation. I was suprised that no one ever let her sit in on an activation before us.
 
Lillys dad said:
Thank you Shel!
I was referring to Jillios post.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I did mention CIs in relation to genetic modification, because I don't believe they're that far off. What I mean is that many parents (not all, okay?) implant their kids out of a wish for them to function as hearing people. The next logical step is to prevent genetic deafness from occurring at all by modifying an embryo.

This doesn't take into consideration parents who implant their kids and still teach them to sign, or adult deaf people who get CIs for practical reasons, etc. I'm talking about the desire to make a deaf child into a hearing person. In that respect I see a correlation between CIs and genetic modification.

On the flip side, I've never heard of a case where deaf parents knowingly damage their hearing children's ears in order to make them deaf. (I won't say it's never happened because for all I know it has.) So this is a new situation for Deaf people to try to ensure their children will be 100% part of their own culture, the way many hearing parents want their children to be 100% part of their own culture.

From a pathological standpoint this must seem like madness. The reason I'm on the fence is because while I can understand parents' desire to have their children be exactly like them, Deaf parents have the ability to raise their children as fluent signers who are deeply involved with Deaf culture, in every way except being deaf. So making deaf children seems like overkill to me.

But then I think -- what if most black people gave birth to white children? And they raised them in black culture and everything but their skin was still white? And then an option became available to genetically modify their children so that they would be born black. Wouldn't they want that for their kids? Is it still ethical?

Etc.
 
Back
Top