Should parents be able to select a deaf child?

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,164
Reaction score
6
Should parents be able to select a deaf child? - Sacramento Living - Sacramento Food and Wine, Home, Health | Sacramento Bee

About one in every 1,000 children is born severely hearing impaired; more than half of these are a result of a genetic mutation.

Let's say there's a medical test one could use to identify a fetus or embryo that would become a hearing- impaired child. Such a test would allow parents the option of selecting only pregnancies that would result in a child with normal hearing.

This sort of testing is part of our attempt to select the healthiest children we can – a thought some find objectionable.

Some consider it an extension of the eugenics movement – selecting babies that are as close to perfect as possible.

When non-deaf pregnant women were surveyed, a large majority reported they would want screening for a deafness gene although only 5 percent would terminate their pregnancy if deafness was known to be present.

There's another side to this issue. Let's say hearing-impaired parents want to use the same medical test to select a "deaf embryo.

"The couple feels they are entitled to have deaf children. They explain that they do not see deafness as a disability, but rather a culture that they want to share with their children. They want to give birth only to a child who is hearing impaired.

Are these equivalent requests?

Such complex issues will play out more and more in the years to come. Is this gene or embryo selection a process that we want to leave to parents to decide, or should there be rules that govern embryo selection?

These decisions affect the child, the parents and society.When the parents select the hearing-impaired status of a child, the system is respecting their reproductive autonomy; they get to choose the attributes of their child so long as they do not harm their child.

But is it in the best interest of the child to be born without hearing? How far can we go? Does this mean that people should be entitled to bring into existence any kind of children they wish?

Of course, the child has no choice – he or she will get a chance to live the best life possible given his or her genes. But society will need to accept this child and provide for the child's special needs, which may require extra expenses.

The clash then is between the interest of the parents – to have the child they want – and that of society, which has to provide for a child with special needs.

Should parents be able to select a deaf child if they wish?
 
Interesting, no more surprises to find out what baby was like, look like or etc. it is just like a fad but it s more like a long term fad. It does not sound very natural to me. oh well.
 
I don't really like this selective stuff. To me it isn't really about deafness... I don't think a pregnancy should be terminated just because the child is disabled. People don't even euthanize pets just because of a disability. It's a slippery slope - how long until it's considered OK to "euthanize" mentally ill, permanently inured, chronically ill, or elderly people? How long after that until it's considered OK to "euthanize" people who just simply don't "fit" - they have the wrong ideals, they are weird, they are opposing government... etc. Where does it all stop?

Really, if we just make it so that those who present a "difficulty" to the rest of society never exist in the first place, it'd be a really boring place. And how would anyone learn patience, kindness, understanding? Disabled people the world over have accomplished many great things. The world would be a lesser place without their contributions. Why would you want to terminate all of this, just because they are difficult and expensive to deal with?

Likewise, I think it would be very wrong for deaf parents to "euthanize" non-deaf fetuses. To me it's just selfish. It also opens up a whole different can of worms entirely - do we really want to become a society that kills off children that don't fit an exact mold? Oh, a brunette in a family of blondes - terminate! Male? We wanted female! Terminate! Green eyes? Ugly. Terminate! She's going to have little boobs? Terminate!

It's just all wrong, IMO.
 
Eugenics is never a good thing.
 
Aside from life-threatening issues, I don't think that parents should be picky about whether their unborn baby is deaf or hearing.
 
I do support ....intervention for profound and degenerate issues. What this means is that if a family is a carrier of a profound or degenerate condition like Tay-Sachs or Batten's disease or somethign like that, they should have the option of getting sterialized.....and with that, they should be able to adopt easier. I'm sorry but those conditions are TRUELY hell. Other conditions should be left alone......I mean hearing loss and sight issues aren't that big of a deal....you can adapt to them.
 
No screening for just hearing loss. I will support my kids if they screen embryo because of health issues other than hearing loss. I'd prefer that my grandkids not have to deal with the health problem that I have.
 
If a thing can be done it will be done. Making laws against things people want to do simply ups the price of doing it, having it, or having it done. If you have enough money someone, somewhere, will give you what you want. Right now in some countries it is illegal to test for the sex of a child. Why? Because most people who do it only want boy babies. Now it is a thriving trade in those countries and arrests are common.

Whether or not something should be done is one question.

Whether or not laws should be made forbidding it being done is another.
 
If a thing can be done it will be done. Making laws against things people want to do simply ups the price of doing it, having it, or having it done. If you have enough money someone, somewhere, will give you what you want. Right now in some countries it is illegal to test for the sex of a child. Why? Because most people who do it only want boy babies. Now it is a thriving trade in those countries and arrests are common.

Whether or not something should be done is one question.

Whether or not laws should be made forbidding it being done is another.

That is exactly what I thought. Most men seem to abuse women and are not happy having young girls or baby girls. They would rather have boys. It is the same like the royal king like Henry the VIII (8th) who want to have only boys. So it is better to be careful not to abuse the fetus which might happen to be disable or deaf/hard of hearing.

Hey, we are suppose to be not perfect in our world so we need balance in how we can cope with. But if there is life threaten when babies have terrible diseases that is not their fault and need to save their lives, then we need to fight this terrible disease. I know it is not easy. :dunno:
 
Remembering a relative of mine who was 7 or 8 months pregnant. After a sonogram, the doctors told her the baby's Heart was not developing as it should....something called a Hyproplastic Heart (not sure of the spelling)....they offered an abortion or to go ahead and have the baby and hope that the heart valves would be repairable if necessary...She chose to have the baby...and before the baby was old enough to have heart surgery, it died...Very sad...the baby was on oxygen...(I have pixs)...

IMO, she did the right thing, to give the baby a chance at life. And as for aborting a baby because it was deaf? No way! We all have a purpose here on Earth, are God's children and he loves us regardless.
 
rockin' robin, I do think that should be a very personal decision. But I also do not think it's exactly black and white. In cases of very profound medical conditions (meaning severely or profoundly incompatible with life) an abortion could be seen as basicly turning off the life support system. I do agree that parents if they are pro-life should be given the best possible info to make the decision.....I'm neutral on that, but it should be a very personal decision.
 
Back
Top