Tousi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,470
- Reaction score
- 181
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal (Grumpy Old Deafies)
This is really unbelievable!
This is really unbelievable!
Eugenics in this modern day and age
- Thread starter Tousi
- Start date
Roadrunner
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 7,076
- Reaction score
- 2
How pathetic and downright deplorable. One can see the 'urgency' to have 'perfect' human beings, but yet...playing 'God' is........well...tsk tsk!!!
~RR
~RR
Tousi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,470
- Reaction score
- 181
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.
Jared's Rambling Thoughts: Paddy Ladd email: UK bill to outlaw embryos with the Deaf gene.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
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
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 7,076
- Reaction score
- 2
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
~RR
Tousi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,470
- Reaction score
- 181
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
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
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
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 7,076
- Reaction score
- 2
..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
..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
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.
Roadrunner
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 7,076
- Reaction score
- 2
I concur, however, no harm in preparing 'ourselves' here in the good ol' USA (just in case)--heh....
~RR
Kaitin
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 845
- Reaction score
- 3
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.
---
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
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 845
- Reaction score
- 3
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.
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.
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???
I am not sure who run the Parliament. I know Tony Blair run the Parliament but who make and pass the laws???
doh
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 0
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!
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
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.
I for one, will be informing others and speaking out against this technologically advanced form of ethnocide.