This discussion is closed.
Ariel4
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
I think thats really unfair on the child, the parents would be putting the child at a disadvantage just so they can be happy. and i agree with frost105, it is the same as wanting your child to be born unable to walk. although i do think that the child could have some difficulty in comunicating with hearing people, however if they sent it to playgroup at an early age, would that not help to combat it? and surely there must be professional help available.
0
Sarky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22

This has already happened in the UK, although a sperm donor wasn't used, both parents were born deaf. I wonder if the child would have a case for taking the parents to court when older for being disadvantaged in life?
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by Howard)
I left myself wide open to that one didn't I? :rolleyes:
Like a *****s legs!
0
katiesado
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
I don't like the idea of deliberately messing with unborn babies whether its merely trying to create a certain sex or hair color or even heightened intelligence. It's scary what consequences will emerge farther down the line when we've all been genetically interfered with.
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by Sarky)

This has already happened in the UK, although a sperm donor wasn't used, both parents were born deaf. I wonder if the child would have a case for taking the parents to court when older for being disadvantaged in life?
Not really unfortuantly. Its like dylexia, it runs in families and I have the worst case but I cant sue my parents for it because they ddint purposely chose for me to be dyslexic.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by Elles)
we had a clinical demonstration with a surgeon who did these.. i agree with your ethical point. but apparently the 'success' rate declines rapidly with age.. so if they're going to work, it's important that they're carried out young. (can't remember exactly why, but can look it up..)

but he did highlight the 'Deaf culture' movement etc.
Yup - it's a double edged sword, you're giving your child the best chance of a "normal" life (whatever that is) but at the same tiime taking a decision to withdraw them from Deaf culture and the Deaf community pretty much permanently.

Deaf people (with a capital D) don't see their lack of hearing as a disability or a disadvantage.


anyway, for the record, i'm torn, so i don't think you can count me as one of your unanimous (sp..i can't remember either, lol) types Daveo. :p:
ditto.

Personally I see this more as an issue of discrimination due to sexuality/fertility - a congenitally deaf fertile heterosexual couple wouldn't need to use a sperm donor and so wouldn't have to make public any wishes with regard to the hearing ability of their child. Because this couple are unable to have children naturally then their aspirations for their child suddenly become public property to be judged by outsiders.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by Daveo)
In my lecture today we were presented with the following situation:

Ms X and Ms Y are both deaf, they do not view deafness as a disability, just a different culture, they wish to have a baby and would like to choose semen from a deaf donor to highten their chances of having a deaf child.


Should this be allowed?

In my view this is on a different scale to the designer babies we often hear about, The choice to have a deaf baby is chosing a negative characteristic which would disable the child and leave them at a natural disadvantage i.e. They would be unable to hear danger so would be more likely to be involved in an accident. I view this as an extremely poor choice on the part of Ms X and Ms Y who seem afraid of the hearing world and wish to inflict their disability on what would otherwise probably be a normal baby.

Any comments?
Did you consider that your lecturer was expecting the students to expand on this scenaio?

Take the fact that the parents did not consider deafness to be a disability - we have already reached the stage where a baby was aborted just before term because it had a hair lip. The Jepson case (remember the femal priest who was born with a hare lip and challenged the legality of the abortion on the grounds that the child was not severly disabled) highlighted society's attitude to perceived disabilities.

We need to examine our feelings toward what we consider a disability. Is it wrong to want to 'engineer the birth of a child who shares the same condition as the parent, yet right to destroy the life of a child who also shares the same condition as other people who are living fulfilling lives?
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by yawn)
Did you consider that your lecturer was expecting the students to expand on this scenaio?

Take the fact that the parents did not consider deafness to be a disability - we have already reached the stage where a baby was aborted just before term because it had a hair lip. The Jepson case (remember the femal priest who was born with a hare lip and challenged the legality of the abortion on the grounds that the child was not severly disabled) highlighted society's attitude to perceived disabilities.

We need to examine our feelings toward what we consider a disability. Is it wrong to want to 'engineer the birth of a child who shares the same condition as the parent, yet right to destroy the life of a child who also shares the same condition as other people who are living fulfilling lives?
The Jepson case in particular was disturbing as it aimed to define a cleft palate as a severe disability worthy of a late abortion. Personally i think the engineering of a child that will be particularly disadvantaged in life due to their diability is wrong yet wanting to abort because the foetus has spina bifida or downs is a judgement call on the parents. The childs life will only be fulfilling of the parents are fully able to help that child to the best of their abilities.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by frost105)
The Jepson case in particular was disturbing as it aimed to define a cleft palate as a severe disability worthy of a late abortion. Personally i think the engineering of a child that will be particularly disadvantaged in life due to their diability is wrong yet wanting to abort because the foetus has spina bifida or downs is a judgement call on the parents. The childs life will only be fulfilling of the parents are fully able to help that child to the best of their abilities.
Does one's fulfilment rest purely on the actions of one's parents? What about the self?
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by yawn)
Does one's fulfilment rest purely on the actions of one's parents? What about the self?
When your a child your fulfilment is directly linked to your parents.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by frost105)
When your a child your fulfilment is directly linked to your parents.
Really? I wonder if, as you progress through your psychology course, you will see that your assumption is maybe incorrect.
0
Powersymphonia
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by yawn)
Does one's fulfilment rest purely on the actions of one's parents? What about the self?
Having designer babies is immoral and interfering with nature. It is unfair on the child to have a deaf baby, the child has to live with a disability they probably wouldn't have had if the parents hadn't interfered.
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by yawn)
Really? I wonder if, as you progress through your psychology course, you will see that your assumption is maybe incorrect.
No it wont. I've spent years working with autistic children and I have 3 downs relatives, their well being is related to their parents as they are so dependant on them. If the parent isn't involved with the child from an early age and is not willing to be able to give the dedication that is required then it is the child that solely suffers. Particularly before school age as there are few areas where learning and mentally disabled children can play with children who have developed to the norm. Parenst are cruel and I have seen disabled children being excluded from nurseries and play groups so that the other children wont be 'upset'. The social exclusion doesnt make it easier on parents with disabled children. I dont avocate that all disabled children should be aborted but that parenst should be ready to accept that it can (not always as severity of disabilty can not be specifically picked up in the womb) very difficult. Also it would be grewat to see better facilities for disabaled children
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by PQ)
Yup - it's a double edged sword, you're giving your child the best chance of a "normal" life (whatever that is) but at the same tiime taking a decision to withdraw them from Deaf culture and the Deaf community pretty much permanently.

Deaf people (with a capital D) don't see their lack of hearing as a disability or a disadvantage.
Should the fact the child is not deaf completely remove he/she (it from now on) from the deaf community? It will have to learn sign and so why would it not be able to be involved in the community?
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
The mistaken assumption here is that a hearing child of deaf parents would be linguistically separated from the parents. This almost certainly wouldn't be so. Babies can acquire sign language at an earlier age than spoken language and studies have found that [unlike children brought up bilingually with two spoken languages] it is often easier for children to learn speech if they also learn sign. You might say such a child would benefit.
A friend who worked with mentally handicapped people says that there is- or was- a sign vocabulary, makaton [?], used with mute m.h. people which they can very easily learn and which sometimes aids them to learn speech too. There was a book, Everyone here spoke Sign Language, published some years ago, about the US island of Martha's Vineyard where a lot of people had hereditary deafness, which is well worth reading on the topic.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Should the fact the child is not deaf completely remove he/she (it from now on) from the deaf community? It will have to learn sign and so why would it not be able to be involved in the community?
Have a read - http://www.deaflinx.com/label.html there are pretty significant (and self constructed in come cases) barriers between deaf people and Deaf people.

deaf children with cochlear implants tend to be* members of otherwise hearing families and so tend to grow up using the implant to hear (and lipreading where the implant isn't as effective) and communicating verbally rather than through sign language.

*BIG generalisation, however there's a larger incentive to get your deaf baby peaking and hearing if noone in your family currently understands/uses sign language, families where sign language is already used are more likely to consider both sides of the arguement before consenting to implant surgery.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by Weejimmie)
The mistaken assumption here is that a hearing child of deaf children would be linguistically separated from the parents.
I don't believe that the people involved in these cases are concerned that their child wont communicate with them as well if they're hearing. I believe that they want their child to experience and share the benefits and richness of life that they've experienced as Deaf people.

A friend who worked with mentally handicapped people says that there is- or was- a sign vocabulary, makaton [?], used with mute m.h. people which they can very easily learn and which sometimes aids them to learn speech too. There was a book, Everyone here spoke Sign Language, published some years ago, about the US island of Martha's Vineyard where a lot of people had hereditary deafness, which is well worth reading on the topic.
More info on Makaton http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A920071

(if anyone is interested)
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by PQ)
I don't believe that the people involved in these cases are concerned that their child wont communicate with them as well if they're hearing. I believe that they want their child to experience and share the benefits and richness of life that they've experienced as Deaf people.
However, the fact that a child can hear need not stop them getting the benefits of both.
I must admit- as daefened person- that I think that the world of the deaf is very small- often parochial in the pejorative sense- and that deliberately to restict someone to it is a mistake. To choose a child purely for the one quality of deafness is something i am dubious about.
0
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by PQ)
Personally I see this more as an issue of discrimination due to sexuality/fertility - a congenitally deaf fertile heterosexual couple wouldn't need to use a sperm donor and so wouldn't have to make public any wishes with regard to the hearing ability of their child. Because this couple are unable to have children naturally then their aspirations for their child suddenly become public property to be judged by outsiders.
good point.

often when sperm/egg donation is used, parents might want to use the gametes of someone with similar physical appearance to them. is this such a terrible thing too..?

plus i think the parents would know, even with a deaf donor + deaf mother any offspring wouldn't, AFAIK, have a 100% likeness of congenital deafness. the chance would just be the same were the couple able to conceive themselves, surely..
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by PQ)
Have a read - http://www.deaflinx.com/label.html there are pretty significant (and self constructed in come cases) barriers between deaf people and Deaf people.

deaf children with cochlear implants tend to be* members of otherwise hearing families and so tend to grow up using the implant to hear (and lipreading where the implant isn't as effective) and communicating verbally rather than through sign language.

*BIG generalisation, however there's a larger incentive to get your deaf baby peaking and hearing if noone in your family currently understands/uses sign language, families where sign language is already used are more likely to consider both sides of the arguement before consenting to implant surgery.
OK, so probably the child in this case would not fully be part of the Deaf community, but it could still benfit from this even if hearing. The article does explain the rationale of the parents in requesting for a deaf donor, seeing deafness as a 'difference'. However I still do not think the parents should be in a position to decide any aspects of their child (apart from choosing who to have sex with in normal cases), let alone to choose something that is widely seen as a diability.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (115)
66.09%
No I haven't decided yet (35)
20.11%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.79%

Watched Threads

View All