Genetically creating deaf children

[shel90]

You did a good thing.

If I had to choose between the three... deaf child, hearing child, or either... I'd pick hearing or either, but not deaf. Picking either is like going with the flow and letting it happen. Picking hearing is like picking a child that's not deaf. However, picking a deaf child is like making sure your newborn is handicapped and that might cause some frustration for that child in the future.

I would be upset if I found out that my mom did everything in her power to make sure I was deaf.

Ok suppose u were screening your fetus and u found out your fetus has the deaf genes, does that mean u will choose to abort the fetus? Just asking..not accussing..ok?

For me, I would allow the fetus to be born. Why abort it just because its deaf?

 

[R2D2]

That's an interesting perspective. I think what the original article is talking about was one step past that (actually altering genetic code to produce deafness), but that's an even trickier situation in my opinion. Where IS that ethical line drawn?

There is no technology currently around to do what you have described. What people do currently is to have their embryos screened by use of the IVF process. It is a common process for other disabilities and diseases. I have friends who carry the cystic fibrosis gene and they were offered IVF at no cost by the government here in Australia so that embryos could be screened for this condition. There was also an article in the paper a while back about a deaf couple who did the same process except they wanted a hearing child. They would have to pay for this though. They were normally fertile but said that they didn't want for their child to experience the same difficulties that they had.

I personally think it's a shame that society isn't more accepting of difference and disability and I do find this direction scarily similar to eugenics (although I do understand it for conditions that cause intense suffering and or shortened lifespan). I know some people here view a CI as an attempt to "normalise" people into hearing people but I view it as a tool to give me more skills but at the same time I am still deaf. There is a difference.

 

[R2D2]

Ok suppose u were screening your fetus and u found out your fetus has the deaf genes, does that mean u will choose to abort the fetus? Just asking..not accussing..ok?

For me, I would allow the fetus to be born. Why abort it just because its deaf?

It doesn't happen this way. What happens in IVF is that the eggs and sperm are put together in the lab for conception and then the resulting embryos are grown for about 5 days in lab conditions. They then take a cell away to test it for the condition being screened for. If the embryo has the condition then it will not be transferred back into the woman's uterus for implantation to occur. It will just be discarded at it's 5 day stage of development. There is no abortion involved. Only the "normal" embryos will be transferred to the woman's uterus.

 

[shel90]

It doesn't happen this way. What happens in IVF is that the eggs and sperm are put together in the lab for conception and then the resulting embryos are grown for about 5 days in lab conditions. They then take a cell away to test it for the condition being screened for. If the embryo has the condition then it will not be transferred back into the woman's uterus for implantation to occur. It will just be discarded at it's 5 day stage of development. There is no abortion involved. Only the "normal" embryos will be transferred to the woman's uterus.

OOOH ok..thanks for clearing that up for me. I see...hmm I still couldnt do that.

 

[R2D2]

OOOH ok..thanks for clearing that up for me. I see...hmm I still couldnt do that.

Nor me Which was why we said "no" when we were offered it.

 

[cathartes]

But as other's have said, this is different than intentional creation.

Who's intentionally creating deaf or dwarf babies?

 

[cathartes]

It doesn't happen this way. What happens in IVF is that the eggs and sperm are put together in the lab for conception and then the resulting embryos are grown for about 5 days in lab conditions. They then take a cell away to test it for the condition being screened for it.

Thanks for explaining it better than I did.

And agreed, too bad people are not accepting variety/disability more. Ah well.

 

[InTheGenes]

Ultimately, I think the basic argument boils down to the fact that everyone has different ideas about what is "best" for children (in general), and for THEIR children, specifically. Additionally, it would seem that there's a difference of opinion among people here about whether deafness constitutes a disability, or not.

Depending on where you stand with both of those issues, you're bound to have rather strongly-held beliefs about whether genetically "creating" deaf babies is ethical, or not.

I'd be willing to bet that the same people that are decrying the evils of doing so, because it's "Playing God" would be first in line if, let's say... the "gay gene" were identified, and it was discovered that that gene could be altered in such a way that it could be guaranteed that their child would not be genetically pre-disposed to being gay (environmental factors, notwithstanding). Most parents of gay children (in my experience, mind you), even if they come to eventually accept their child's homosexuality, have wished at some point or another that their children were not gay, if only so that their child's life wasn't that much more difficult.

It would seem that the "I want my child to be just like me" argument is only OK so long as being "just like me" is considered "normal" by society. After all, the hearing world doesn't seem to have a problem altering children that are deaf, to be "just like them", and so that they "have an easier time of it in life". My guess is that "easier" would mean different things to different people.

Personally, I'm all about accepting people for who they ARE, not necessarily who they were made to be. Make the best of what you're given, I always say. If you have a child that turns out to be "just like you", great. If you have a child that is different from you in some way, you have some decisions to make: you could A) (try to) force them to be like you, B) ignore the difference, or C) accept and embrace the difference. I'd choose C.

 

[jillio]

Who's intentionally creating deaf or dwarf babies?

Have you been reading the posts? This whole discussion started on the hypothetical question regarding the ethics of creating deaf or dwarf babies.

 

[cathartes]

Have you been reading the posts? This whole discussion started on the hypothetical question regarding the ethics of creating deaf or dwarf babies.

Have you read the link in the OP and my posts?

My problem is that it isn't being done, period. Plus it was bad journalism/reporting. The poor journalism by itself should have been jumped on all over to begin with. It only creates misunderstandings which can have negative ripple effects.

"Genetically creating" is a very different thing from what actually was happening in the linked article. What is happening was that the dwarf couple had their embryos fertilized simply by putting their sperm and eggs in a petri dish and then screening each embryo to see which embryos were heterozygous, homozygous or not having the dwarf gene. The dwarf couple chose to use the embryos heterozygous for their kind of dwarfism.

That's it. No "genetic altering, manipulation or creating".

The reason I asked if dwarf or deaf persons should be allowed to marry & have kids the traditional way.. because there are deaf and dwarfs who due to their genetic causes will or can have deaf or dwarf children.

So if screening and implanting the embryos tested & proven to have the gene is considered unethical.. is it also unethical for a deaf or dwarf person to have children the normal way also, if it is known they will have deaf or dwarf children?

For example, is it unethical for a deaf person from 5 generations of deaf families to have kids as his genealogy already shows the chances of him/her having a deaf kid to be high?

 

[shel90]

Have you read the link in the OP and my posts?

My problem is that it isn't being done, period. Plus it was bad journalism/reporting. The poor journalism by itself should have been jumped on all over to begin with. It only creates misunderstandings which can have negative ripple effects.

"Genetically creating" is a very different thing from what actually was happening in the linked article. What is happening was that the dwarf couple had their embryos fertilized simply by putting their sperm and eggs in a petri dish and then screening each embryo to see which embryos were heterozygous, homozygous or not having the dwarf gene. The dwarf couple chose to use the embryos heterozygous for their kind of dwarfism.

That's it. No "genetic altering, manipulation or creating".
Are u asking or just theoritically asking? Just wanted to make sure.
The reason I asked if dwarf or deaf persons should be allowed to marry & have kids the traditional way.. because there are deaf and dwarfs who due to their genetic causes will or can have deaf or dwarf children.

So if screening and implanting the embryos tested & proven to have the gene is considered unethical.. is it also unethical for a deaf or dwarf person to have children the normal way also, if it is known they will have deaf or dwarf children?

For example, is it unethical for a deaf person from 5 generations of deaf families to have kids as his genealogy already shows the chances of him/her having a deaf kid to be high?

Are u asking or just theoritically asking? Just wanted to make sure.

 

[R2D2]

So if screening and implanting the embryos tested & proven to have the gene is considered unethical.. is it also unethical for a deaf or dwarf person to have children the normal way also, if it is known they will have deaf or dwarf children?

For example, is it unethical for a deaf person from 5 generations of deaf families to have kids as his genealogy already shows the chances of him/her having a deaf kid to be high?

I think there is a difference between the two. Deaf /dwarf spouses tend to have children naturally in the knowledge and acceptance that their children may or may not inherit their condition. At most their chances of getting a deaf or dwarf child would probably be 50%. Even with my particular condition the chance of deafness as such is only 20%. At the end of the day the couple usually deals with the child they get and while there may be disappointment/grief they get over it within time.

With screening embryos you are making a real effort and are spending money to have the kind of child you want in advance. This suggests a lack of acceptance in some way, a desire to have a "perfect" child, depending on your definition of perfect. Psychologists may view this as not being normal especially if the condition itself is not lifethreatening and or there are effective strategies available for dealing with the conditions available. I think this is where the ethical dilemma lies when it comes to embryo screening.

 

[shel90]

I think there is a difference between the two. Deaf /dwarf spouses tend to have children naturally in the knowledge and acceptance that their children may or may not inherit their condition. At most their chances of getting a deaf or dwarf child would probably be 50%. Even with my particular condition the chance of deafness as such is only 20%. At the end of the day the couple usually deals with the child they get and while there may be disappointment/grief they get over it within time.

With screening embryos you are making a real effort and are spending money to have the kind of child you want in advance. This suggests a lack of acceptance in some way, a desire to have a "perfect" child, depending on your definition of perfect. Psychologists may view this as not being normal especially if the condition itself is not lifethreatening and or there are effective strategies available for dealing with the conditions available. I think this is where the ethical dilemma lies when it comes to embryo screening.

Yea I agree there...

 

[jillio]

Have you read the link in the OP and my posts?

My problem is that it isn't being done, period. Plus it was bad journalism/reporting. The poor journalism by itself should have been jumped on all over to begin with. It only creates misunderstandings which can have negative ripple effects.

"Genetically creating" is a very different thing from what actually was happening in the linked article. What is happening was that the dwarf couple had their embryos fertilized simply by putting their sperm and eggs in a petri dish and then screening each embryo to see which embryos were heterozygous, homozygous or not having the dwarf gene. The dwarf couple chose to use the embryos heterozygous for their kind of dwarfism.

That's it. No "genetic altering, manipulation or creating".

Yes, I have been reading the posts and OP. Once again, I stress that this thread began as a hypothetical question. That means that even though the situation hasn't occurred, the possibility of it occurring in the future is great. Thirty years ago, cloning wasn't possible, either, but ethical considerations were already being discussed because technology was progressing in such a way as to make it a possibility in the very near future. If you wait until the procedure is already vialbe to discuss ethical considerations, then you have waited far too long. Ethical guidelines need to be in place prior to viability off the procedure.

I beg to differ with you on the issue of creating. Anytime life has been made possible in a petri dish, we have deviated from normal conception, and therefore engaged in creation. It is scientifically assisted creation that would not have happened without intervention.
The reason I asked if dwarf or deaf persons should be allowed to marry & have kids the traditional way.. because there are deaf and dwarfs who due to their genetic causes will or can have deaf or dwarf children.

So if screening and implanting the embryos tested & proven to have the gene is considered unethical.. is it also unethical for a deaf or dwarf person to have children the normal way also, if it is known they will have deaf or dwarf children?

For example, is it unethical for a deaf person from 5 generations of deaf families to have kids as his genealogy already shows the chances of him/her having a deaf kid to be high?

Completely different concept here.