Tousi

Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal (Grumpy Old Deafies)

This is really unbelievable!

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Roadrunner

How pathetic and downright deplorable. One can see the 'urgency' to have 'perfect' human beings, but yet...playing 'God' is........well...tsk tsk!!!






~RR

Tousi

I agree, RR. Here's an article on this issue. The writer is part owner of Deafread. Just posting it here to get this information as far and wide as I can.

Jared's Rambling Thoughts: Paddy Ladd email: UK bill to outlaw embryos with the Deaf gene.

jillio

This is one of the most deplorable, inhuman, unfeeling, and downright unconscionable things I have read recently. Have people completely lost the ability to think and act with empathy and tolerance? I am at a loss for words, and that is an unusual situation, indeed!

Roadrunner

Thanks for 'spreading' the word--hopefully it'll reach far and wide whereas such a 'bill' will be crushed and never see the 'light'.





~RR

Tousi

Because I'm computer-illiterate, lol, I wonder if any of you can find links to Lords of the UK Parliament who have anything to do with this bill so we can flood them with e-mails? If something is not done with this, we will be next and I don't doubt for a minute that there aren't powerful people here in the USA who would try to pull off the same thing here.

jillio

I just read a comment on the blog that I find absurd as well. A poster stated that the school system has failed the deaf population miserably, so a bill like this is inevitable. Eugenics to correct the problems in the educational system? OMG! It would appear that technological advances have far outgrown our intellecual capacity to use them!

Roadrunner

..ooOOo...such a dreary, scary thought. Nah!! We, the people will 'arise' and flood our own law-makers, the representatives, senators with e-nails...errr...I mean, e-mails, etc.!!

Is it time to *rub our hands together and cry out in one voice*...pushing 'anybody' who so ever thinks insomuch to consider such a bill will surely runnnnnnnn...really fast!!!!





~RR

Angel

..This is soo wrong, I don't agree with this at all...

Buffalo

We should do something. We could protest at Washington, DC. If we do that, the deaf Brits will do the same. I won't be surprised if once the Brits pass that law, the USA could very well copy it.

__________________

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
- Gilbert Chesterton

Angel

:making a couple of poster signs:...Count me in

Tousi

Well, this hasn't been formally brought up by our Congress or States yet; I was wanting contacts within the UK parliament to help the UK deafies by good, sound-thinking e-mails sent to UK's Parliament.

Roadrunner

I concur, however, no harm in preparing 'ourselves' here in the good ol' USA (just in case)--heh....





~RR

Kaitin

I read about the bill but I don't know if I understand all really. The bill has a lot of ideas I think so very complicated. Also I don't know UK legislation process so probably I need to read again to find more.

---

Introduced by Lord Darzi of Denham = Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Health ("The Professor Lord Denham")
* Telephone: 020 7210 5425
* Fax: 020 7210 5066
* Email: stephen.cordes@dh.gsi.gov.uk

---

Supported by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo ("The Right Honorable")
* Telephone: 020 7210 5119
* Fax: 020 7210 5534
* Email: MSPHtemp@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Also - Department of Health (supports bill)
* Address: Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2NS
* Telephone: 020 7210 4850
* Website: DH home : Department of Health
* Generic Email format: firstname.lastname@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Parliamentary Branch of Department of Health
* Telephone: 020 7210 5808
* Fax: 020 7210 5814
* Email: tim.elms@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Correspondence Section of Department of Health (?)
* Telephone: 020 7210 4850
* Email: dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk

---

Article from British Medical Assocation - nothing useful really but information on other parts of bill

From the British Medical Association: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, House of Lords, November 2007

The BMA supports the main proposals within the Bill related to assisted reproduction treatment and the use of embryos for research purposes. Amendments to the legislation are necessary to take account of scientific developments since 1990 and to reflect changes in societal attitudes. The BMA supports the view that the development and use of reproductive technology should continue to be subject to statutory regulation.

The BMA supports the current model of UK-wide regulation with the broad framework set out in legislation and a statutory body - the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) -interpreting and applying the framework. This provides the flexibility that is needed in such a fast-moving area. Regulation in this area continues to be appropriate because:

* The human embryo is, in our society, afforded a “special status” and therefore the creation and, in some cases, destruction of human life in vitro continues to be a sensitive issue.
* As above, the “special status” reflects sensitivities that extend to the use of donated gametes and embryos in treatment, despite these being technically routine procedures.
* Statutory regulation provides important protection for those seeking treatment much of which is on a self-funded basis within a commercial setting.
* To maintain public confidence, it is important that there are clear controls to prevent clinics and research institutions crossing the boundary of what, as a society, we consider to be acceptable practice. The existence of a statutory regulatory body can provide protection for clinics and help to promote an environment within which carefully monitored research and innovation can flourish.

The BMA strongly supports the use of human embryos in research, subject to statutory controls. The regulation of embryo research through the HFEA licensing and inspection regime has worked well since 1991 and has helped to maintain public support for such research. Embryo research has helped to improve existing treatments and advance the development of new techniques such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In recent years, embryonic stem cell research has helped to further our understanding of early human development and is starting to further our understanding of diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Welfare of the child (clause 14)

* The BMA supports the retention of a “welfare of the child” provision and the removal of the term “need for a father”.

The BMA acknowledges that the requirement to consider the welfare of the child before treatment is offered is regarded by some people as discrimination against those who are infertile on the grounds that those who conceive naturally are not prevented from reproducing, even if there is a clear risk to a future child. The BMA believes, nevertheless, that where a health professional is involved in assisting conception, that person has some responsibility to ensure that a future child is not subjected to foreseeable serious harm. In order to reflect this interpretation of the welfare of the child provision, and to prevent misunderstanding, there may be some benefit in rephrasing this clause to specifically refer to cases where there is a “foreseeable risk of serious harm”.

Clause 14(2)(b): the BMA also supports the removal from the Act of the term “need for a father”. We have consistently rejected the idea of applying inflexible rules on access to fertility treatment believing instead that each application should be considered on its merits. Assessments should be made on the individual factors in each case rather than on blanket restrictions applied to certain categories of people or family arrangements. Whilst there is evidence that children raised by single women are more likely to be disadvantaged, this is not the case for children born to single women or lesbian couples who choose to start a family on their own by assisted conception. Early research shows that these children fare just as well as those born by assisted conception to two heterosexual parents.

Kaitin

From Telegraph.co.UK: Fertilisation and Embryology Bill explained

What is being proposed?

The Bill will make it easier for lesbian couples to become parents through IVF treatment by creating provisions to recognise same-sex couples as a child's legal parents.

It will remove the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the "need for a father".

Who is opposed to the plan?

Church leaders, family campaigners and some MPs say it is tantamount to removing the right that every child should have a father and claim it will threaten the development of children.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, warned that the plan would make the natural rights of children "subordinate" to the desires of parents.

Leading Church of England figures are also concerned about the proposal and almost 50 MPs have signed a Commons motion condemning the move.

Who's backing it?

The Government and gay rights campaigners, who insist the proposals merely extend the rights on parentage already available to heterosexual couples.

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, condemned opponents of the Bill for being obsessed with "a few hundred (people) who have an opportunity to have a second loving parent".

Is this a party political issue?

Partly. Number 10 made clear yesterday that Labour peers and MPs will be expected to back the proposals. But David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is allowing his MPs and peers a free vote.

The Liberal Democrats said last night that their MPs and peers were "likely" to be ordered to vote in favour of the proposal to recognize same-sex couples as legal parents.

Is this the only controversial aspect of the Bill?

No. The Bill has also sparked accusations from Christian groups of approving "Frankenstein science" and of paving the way for human cloning.

Ministers insist that the current legislation — the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 — must be updated to allow research to flourish in the UK.

What is the timetable for the Bill?

Peers began debating it yesterday and will carry out more detailed examination of the proposals before Christmas.

MPs are not due to consider it until February at the earliest.

---

So lots of hot topics - gay rights, religion etc. and no vote until February I guess.

Buffalo

This guy, Lord Ara Darzi (Terzian) of Denham (department of Health) introduced this bill. I did some checking on his bio since he looks more like middle eastern. He was born in Iraq but grew up in Ireland. He is a surgeon. Get this...his father survived the Armenian Massacre in 1915. I am pretty sure that he didn't like what happened at the Armenian Massacre where 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by the Turks. How dare he think of getting rid of the future deaf embroyos! What a big hyprocrite!

I am not sure who run the Parliament. I know Tony Blair run the Parliament but who make and pass the laws???

__________________

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
- Gilbert Chesterton

doh

Sick. One thing if PARENTS have a decision but to force it on the population is sick!! Hitler would be SO proud.

__________________
Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They make a club.
And beat their brother down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a (not dismal) creature who would
Squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here

Tousi

I wonder, if this comes to fruition, will it meet the definition of genocide?

Doh, do you have the appropriate contact information for your Parliament?

doh

I'm afraid that I don't really have a say here since I'm not a British citizen (I'm American). But I could see if I can find who represents where I live!

__________________
Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They make a club.
And beat their brother down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a (not dismal) creature who would
Squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here

jillio

Any one else see history repeating itself in the face of a push toward strict oralism? A.G. Bell's philosophy of soft eugenics of the well born took flight in the face of a push toward oralism. Once again, we are seeing a revival of oralism. Technology may have advanced, philosophies remain the same. This is the danger and horror of allowing such ethnocentric attitudes to exist.

I for one, will be informing others and speaking out against this technologically advanced form of ethnocide.

shel90

WTF?????

Is this for real? Imagine if they had something like that 100 years ago or if AG Bell got his ways with extradicating a whole population of deaf people, we wouldnt be here!!!

This is just too horrible for words and just immoral! I will spread the word with my family and the Deaf community.

__________________
~Shel~

Buffalo

Page 5 of "Mother Father Deaf" (Preston) said that, in the past, there were studies on hearing children of deaf parents and that most of the "research has attempted to document objectively how having deaf parents damaged those children....". To me, it sounds like they were looking for an excuse/reason to sterilize all deaf people. Jillo, do you think the same? Better yet, is there any document of this nature exists online?

I agree that what happens in UK Parliament is dangerous and too easy to slip toward hard eugenics.

__________________

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
- Gilbert Chesterton

shel90

How is that from their point of view?

__________________
~Shel~

Kaitin

In the US -

From University of Alabama, Samford: A History of Deaf Education and Critical Reviews of "I See a Voice" and When the Mind Hears"

Bell also was strictly opposed to intermarriage among the deaf; he believed in the improvement of society through selective breeding and felt that two deaf people getting married would naturally breed defective children. Bell called the deaf “a defective variety of the human race” and began a crusade to destroy sign language and pushed for laws forbidding marriage between deaf persons and supported compulsory sterilization of deaf girls in the name of “eugenics.” Some states actually passed this legislation. Bell was a "pure oralist" who was very opposed to even using a combined system of sign and oral instruction such as had been quite successful in Germany. He also advocated breaking up the large numbers of deaf students and minimizing contact among the deaf; he felt that associating with "normal" people would make deaf students more normal.


---

From the State University of New York at Binghamptom, Department of History: Buck v. Bell: A Case Study

By 1931, thirty state legislatures had passed involuntary sterilization laws that targeted "defective strains" within the general population, such as the blind, the deaf, the poor, and the feebleminded. Virginia, one of these states, held the position that involuntary sterilization would not only benefit the overall welfare of society, but would promote both the health and happiness of the sterilized individual as well.

---

From The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2005 10(3):291-310; doi:10.1093/deafed/eni030: Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World

A 1912 report from Bell's eugenics section of the Breeders' Association cites his census of blind and Deaf persons and lists "socially unfit" classes to "be eliminated from the human stock" (American Genetic Association, 1912Go, p. 3). The model eugenic law called for the sterilization of feebleminded, insane, criminalistic ("including the delinquent and the wayward"), epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, Deaf, deformed, and dependent people ("including orphans, ne'er-do-wells, the homeless, tramps, and paupers"). By the time of World War I, 16 states in the United States had sterilization laws in force. By 1940, 30 states had such laws (Haller, 1963Go). Physicians were actively involved in this eugenics movement (May & Hughes, 1987Go).

The eugenics movement as it concerned Deaf people worldwide has only recently been receiving the study it deserves (Biesold, 1999Go; Schuchman & Ryan, 2002Go). When National Socialism came to power in Germany, teachers of Deaf students advocated adherence to the hereditary purity laws, including the sterilization of congenitally Deaf people. Deaf schoolchildren were required to prepare family trees, and the school reported those children who were congenitally Deaf or who had a Deaf relative to the department of health for possible sterilization (Muhs, 1996Go).

The German sterilization law that went into effect in 1934 provided that "Those hereditarily sick may be made unfruitful (sterilized) through surgical intervention. ... The hereditary sick, in the sense of this law, is a person who suffers from one of the following diseases ... hereditary deafness" (Peter, 1934Go, p. 187). The 1933 census showed 45,000 "deaf and dumb" persons in a total population of over 66 million. An estimated 17,000 of these Deaf Germans, a third of them minors, were sterilized. In 9% of the cases, sterilization was accompanied by forced abortion. An additional 1600 Deaf people were exterminated in concentration camps in the 1940s; they were considered "useless eaters," with lives unworthy of being lived (Biesold, 1999; Higgins, 1993Go). As in the United States, the medical profession was the certifying authority for forced sterilization.

Deaf Eugenics Today
Audiometric testing, labeling, special needs schooling, genetic research and counseling, surgery, and reproductive control all are means of currently or potentially exercising power over the Deaf body. In 1992, researchers at Boston University announced that they had identified the so-called genetic error responsible for a common type of inherited deafness. The director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [sic] called the finding a "major breakthrough that will improve diagnosis and genetic counseling and ultimately lead to substitution therapy or gene transfer therapy" ("BU Team," 1992Go, p. 6; "Deafness gene," 1992Go, p. 141). The goal of such efforts as gene transfer therapy is, of course, to reduce Deaf births, ultimately altogether. Thus, a new form of medical eugenics applied to Deaf people is envisioned, in this case by an agency of the U.S. government. The primary characteristics of Deaf people with this particular genetic background to be eliminated are numerous Deaf relatives, sign language fluency, facial features such as widely spaced eyebrows, and coloring features such as white forelock and freckling (Fraser, 1976Go).

---

From the Model Eugenics Law

Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the "Eugenical Sterilization Law."

(b) The socially inadequate classes, regardless of etiology or prognosis, are the following: (1) Feeble-minded; (2) Insane, (including the psychopathic); (3) Criminalistic - (8) Deaf (including those with seriously impaired hearing) -

Section 3. Office of State Eugenicist. There is hereby established for the State of ............. the office of State Eugenicist, the function of which shall be to protect the state against the procreation of persons socially inadequate


---

shel90