Deaf By Design

The most gobsmacking news of the day:

Deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.

Ballard’s stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities.

For about two seconds, I tried to apply some libertarian gloss to the situation — parents making up their own minds about their offspring, how bad can that be? — but it just wouldn't stick. Um, what about the right of the child to be normal (no, that's not a pejorative word) and healthy?

These people are truly a bunch of, hell I'll say it, immoral imbeciles. They want a child with a deliberately-bred disability because junior would "fit in better with the family lifestyle"? Great. It follows that those who are deaf, mute, and blind should be allowed to manipulate their embryos to produce a generation of pinball whizzes (OK, that would be kinda cool actually). It also means that prospective parents with asthma are entitled to progeny that has lifelong trouble breathing and may die prematurely; that a couple with cystic fibrosis should be allowed to select an embryo with the gene that will make the child slowly drown in its own mucus; and that we should defer to legless parents who decide to have their obstetrician snip a couple of limbs off the foetus.

There's no downside to deaf parents having a hearing child; it will be perfectly at home among the deaf and the hearing alike, likely helping to bridge any gap between the two. From where I stand, purposely creating a deaf son or daughter because it's either more convenient, or because the parents consider deafness a blessing or a virtue, shouldn't be a choice. It should be a crime.

Non-rhetorical question: Why is it that the deaf seem to have attained this level of kooky militancy, complete with the notion that having non-working ears bestows some kind of superiority? The mentality was on full-on display last year at Gallaudet University with the shameful tarring and feathering of would-be president Jane Fernandez; though Fernandez is hearing-disabled, radical students and faculty torpedoed her appointment because they essentially deemed her not deaf enough. A subset of that group apparently consists of "absolutists who want a 100 percent deaf world." I really want to know: How did the emancipation of deaf people turn this deranged? And is there an equivalent movement among, say, the blind?

Me, I wish everyone had five fully functioning senses, plus maybe an extra one that seems to be in increasingly short supply: common sense.

Comments

[Timothy]

The development of "deaf culture" really hasn't been a boon to everybody just getting along. There's something about some people, they just need to aggressively not fit in with what "the man" wants while clinging desperately to the mores of their clique. It's the same thing you see with high school goths, or Al Sharpton. They don't want their children to be part of the "other" world, they'd rather deprive them of a basic mamalian sense. It's cruel, evil, and abusive, frankly.

[tomk]

This reminds me of the argument sometimes made by dads to justify the genital mutilation of their male babies, "he'd feel weird if his was different from mine".

[wife of a blind man]

There is absolutely nothing like this in the blind community. Nothing. Anytime I hear this garbage about the deaf community, I just don't get it. I really don't. There isn't a blind person I've met who wouldn't trade their disability for functioning eyes in a heartbeat. Not one. My husband is pretty darn functional, he cares for our children and supports our family and is very independent. But he's not crazy enough to think that just because he does pretty good, his life wouldn't be better with sight!

[Phelps]

This is child abuse, and it should be considered an ethics violation for a doctor to cooperate in this scheme.

It also smacks of the parents thinking of the child as simply another pet, another "thing" to exist for their own enjoyment and at their convenience.

[Fintan Gaughan]

::sigh:: typing this quick as its late so you will get spelling errors
i hope you let this comment through as you belive in transparency
so i come acroos another blog that picked up article that been twisted but its ain't your fault as you have read what's been written.

uk parliament is pushing through a bill about ivf so when a couple
(regardles if they have a disabilities or not) who trying for a baby find it has some disabilities you are not allowed to have it.
they are removing your choice!.

Alison who picked up on this let us be known and set up a campaign to remove that clause.
the clause states
(9) Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—

(a) a serious physical or mental disability,
(b) a serious illness, or
(c) any other serious medical condition,

must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.

says that people who have inherited conditions (a disability [including deafness], an illness or a serious medical condition) are not allowed to become egg or sperm donors.
Clause 14(4)(9) could also be a problem for people who are having IVF, or other treatment to help them to get pregnant.

So now you are wondering how the times newspaper picked up on this!
they contacted alison and turned all this into a designer baby issue which is not the case!
see the campaign
http://stopeugenics.org/

what i cant understand why I as a deaf person under that catorgry and you wearing glasses is not?

you also said "Me, I wish everyone had five fully functioning senses"
so you wear glasses and you only have 4 fully functioning senses but how ever known if you going for an ivf and find that your partner eggs has eye disabilities do you destroy them?

and a reply to deaf wife of a blind man you are assuming that all deaf are like this.
how ever paliment are stoping the likes of your husband born as he is under the abnormal catorgry.

Just because some deaf people in america wants a deaf child over a hearing one to which majority of us are against this dont assume that we all do.

and the links you provided sadly you are not getting this!!!
over here in uk the RNID which run by hearing people think they know whats best for us which time and time agin get it wrong!
read the artical what jakie ballard said.. and non of us has ever said that.

the gaudlet protest .. did you only just read that artical?

do you actully belive what news paper write is 100% correct?