Daniel502
Daniel502
Denver, CO
Male
InARelationship

Deaf Couple Wants Right to Select Deaf Embryo

Posted: 5/20/2008 at 12:02 PM

  • share this:
  • Email to a Friend
  • Digg It!
  • StumbleUpon
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
2
I LIKE IT

member(s) liked this post.

Tomato Lichy and Paula Garfield are trying to conceive a baby. The couple is considering in vitro fertilization because they are wary about getting pregnant naturally after the maternal age of 40. The couple, who are both deaf, already have one deaf child, and want to have another child who is also deaf. A new law in the UK might make that impossible.

The proposed legislation would mandate that an embryo with an abnormality could not be chosen if an embryo without abnormalities is available. While other conditions such as Cancer and Down Syndrome would also deem an embryo unfit to use, Lichy and Garfield do not believe that deafness should be grouped into the same category.

"If the law is passed and says that an embryo that is hearing has to be got rid of, how would you feel? You would find that offensive" said Garfield. "It might be that a group of deaf people decided to get rid of all hearing babies. It's the same the other way around."

 

Check out the BBC News story 

Read Veralidaine's opinion here and also here

CNN has a video that can be seen here.

 

What do you think? Should the family be allowed to select a deaf embryo or be forced to choose one that is free of abnormalities? Should the new law be passed? Is this discrimination against deaf people and people with other disabilities?


Filed under: , , , ,
532 Views
  • share this:
  • Email to a Friend
  • Digg It!
  • StumbleUpon
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine

Comments

4

Your comment may take up to 15 minutes to appear.

Some HTML is allowed in the comments. See the list.
Protected by FormShield
Refresh
Listen
Please enter the characters shown on the image
What is this code for?
  • Deaf Mom wrote on May 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM

    No law should put the decision in the hands of government, it belongs to the woman.


  • SteveSki wrote on May 20, 2008 at 6:30 PM

    The family should be able to do what they want, though I disagree with their decision and find it perplexing.  Why would you want to make your child's life more difficult in any way?  Why would you want to deprive them of as full a life as possible?


    I actually find their decision abhorrent, but it is still theirs to make.


    That being said, this is what comes with government-run healthcare.  Once they're the ones paying the bills (they're not really, the citizenry is through taxes, but I digress), they're the ones making the decisions on how and where that money is spent.


    And from there it's just a matter of economics.  The bureaucrats allocating resources are far removed from the patients and their wants & needs.  The people become products.  Why then invest in a faulty product (in this case a deaf child as opposed to a hearing child) when the defective one will more likely cost more in maintenance over the course of the product's lifespan?


  • Veralidaine wrote on May 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM

    SteveSki, if you read my blogs linked above I elaborate more, but many deaf families don't see deafness as a defect or even a disability. Sign language is a rich cultural tradition and beautiful language that nobody wants to lose- much as some Jewish families enjoy teaching their children Yiddish, etc., etc. It also sounds to me like it might be MORE disabling if a hearing child were raised by two profoundly deaf parents, because the child would be deprived of the cultural identity and traditions of his parents and probably would have trouble learning to speak clearly due to the difficulty of connecting and teaching a child pronunciation, grammar, etc., without being able to hear the child talking.


  • SteveSki wrote on May 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM

    Veralidaine, I read your posts (good ones, btw), and I can understand some of that.  I especially get the desire to perpetuate one's culture, and I particularly love sign language.


    But I have to disagree with the many deaf families that don't see deafness as a disability.  It objectively is.  The fully-functioning human body/brain is able to receive and interpret 5 physical senses.  When one is eliminated, it is by definition no longer fully able - i.e. disabled.


    This isn't to say devalued, not at all.  But it is disabled.


    I didn't think of the problems deaf parents would encounter raising a hearing child - and that's certainly valid - but it's done with success all over.  Wanting one's children to have any type of limitations simply seems wrong and perverted to me - but as I said above, that should be the parents' decision, not some bureaucrats'.


    Now to go offtrack a little on a related tangent, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this:  What is the potential impact of technologies like text messaging on a means of communication like sign language?