Deaf Couple want to ensure they have a deaf child.

[Jill]

A current debate is going on about a deaf couple who want to ensure they have a deaf child.
Below is some of the argument:

DisabilityNation: An Audio Magazine by and for People with Disabilities
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Controversy in the UK
Recently, BBC Radio Four commentator John Humphreys interviewed Tomato Lichy on the Today program. Lichy, an artist and designer, and his partner Paula Garfield are opposed to the UK’s pending Human Fertilization and Embryology (HFE) bill, which would block any attempt by deaf couples to use modern medical techniques to ensure that their children are deaf. This interview has sparked widespread controversy and reaction in the UK and around the world. Should a deaf person or anyone else with a disability be able to screen out embryos to insure that their child is born with a disability as well?.

The questions posed by this interview and the overall situation are complex and difficult to say the least. They force us to examine the flip side of the traditional debate where science and medicine want society to remove disability from the equation by eliminating genes or embryos that could cause disability. In this case, a couple wants to reverse that by only allowing for embryos that would result in having a deaf child.

After listening to the interview I’m left struggling to come to a conclusion that I’m comfortable with. I can’t say that I completely understand the position of this couple but as a person who inherited my disability through genetics and, when considering whether or not to have children had to think about some of these issues, perhaps I have some inkling of where they are at. And yet, taking steps to insure that a child is deaf or has some other disability seems extreme.

I’m a person with a visual impairment. Do I feel that my life is somehow lacking or less than that of a sighted person? Certainly not. And yet, if I could drive a car or read a printed book I can understand that things might be easier or different. When I think about using science and medicine to force a child to have the same experiences as I have in life through a shared disability I’m not comfortable with it. The couple in this interview seem to be arguing that they don’t have a disability and that how society perceives them is the problem. And yet, I would love to ask them why they feel the need to use medicine to insure that they pass their life experience on to their child. Is this disability advocacy and self-empowerment gone mad? Honestly, I think using science and medicine to insure a child has a disability is equal to using the same to insure disability isn’t a possible outcome of childbirth.

Let me be clear that I oppose the pending legislation in the UK that would ultimately result in the exact opposite situation, where screening out a disability would be the expectation. However, the actions by this couple are selfish and inappropriate in my view. Allowing nature, God or whatever deity you might believe in to be in control of these situations and to determine whether a child inherits a disability is the best course of action.

Labels: Deaf Culture, News, society and perception


posted by Larry at 10:09 AM

0 Comments:Post a Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AboutCovering the latest news and information impacting people with disabilities. Check out our main site at www.disabilitynation.net

[Mandy Lawrence]

This was discussed on 'The Wright Stuff' the other day. I quite like the programme, although 15 minute slots per topic don't give much scope for depthy debate.

Not sure where I sit on this one. I tend to have strong views but am on the fence waiting to be pulled off.

I do think the child should have as many rights and options, at birth, as are available but I also try to see(although can't quite get it) the notion that deafness is not a disability. Which, I think, is the argument the parents were putting forward. Their view is that society is judgemental an treating them with inequality. People who agree, I guess would say that deciding that the child is deaf is not a disadvantage to them but I guess I err with the view that parents are discriminating against the baby. Deciding for it what is best in regards to hearing or not.

But it is a tough call. I am not deaf and I do not know what it is like to be part of the deaf community.

[Mandy Lawrence]

Don't think I am on the fence after all!

[Louise]

Its a very difficult subject - my gut feeling is to leave it to mother nature - I feel that sometimes science has gone too far, whether to have the "perfect" baby or in this couple case to have a "deaf" child. When you start thinking about these things its not always black and white is it, very confusing

[Jill]

I feel quite strongly that the deaf parents should not be allowed to chose deafness for their child. I am already deaf in one ear and am quite scared of losing hearing in my other ear as well. Not being able to hear music would be a big disability to me for a start. So perhaps my strong feelings come from my own reluctance to recognise deafness as anything but a disability which makes life harder .

Having said that I do not think it is just my own predudice against going deaf which makes me feel the parents should not be allowed to chose a deaf child. It seems to me that the childs best interests are protected most by having its senses of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste left intact and not denied by the wishes of any adults. The loss of any of these senses by desease or accident may not be fatal but it is a loss. To deliberately inflict such a loss on a child is neglect and even criminal injury in my opinion.