Deaf couple wants deaf baby guaranteed via IVF

Being deaf, I can not say I know any benefits of what it would be like to hear. Neither can this deaf couple, who I am appalled could think it would be better to have a deaf child. ...and I know that I miss out on things because I do have a disability...I can observe that yea I communicate, but I have to put down the objects that I hold in my hands in order to use them to talk to you. This does not appear as easy for me as it is for the person who can talk, and drive a car safely. I think the desire for a deaf couple to have have a deaf child is selfish on the parent's part. I wish I could hear...especially if hearing is as beautiful as seeing. ...and not only that, but I received government funds for my disability...to go to school. I am uncertain of UK laws...but if the gov supports though who are disabled on paper, regardless of whether the couple feels it's a disability then the couple is also taking funds for a child who they genetically manipulated to "suck the system". If the gov. were to reverse the law to allow this couple a "guarenteed" deaf child...I would be infuriated that they give this child money from others tax money for a chosen disability of the parents...(this is completely unfair to the child who neither chose to be deaf, nor chose to have to pay when they should be getting a relatively free college eduation due to their rightfully owned disability). I'd like to see the parents of these kids turn down the money...trust me they wouldn't. On the other hand, I am also a biologist...

Manipulating an embryo so that it does not have the best chance at a richly enhanced life and long healthy life would be wrong. People evolve...the best traits get carried from one generation to the next based of the gene pool. ...by deliberately chosing to have a deaf child, would be regression of human genetics. We should not allow this to happen. If it were to happen naturally (during natural conception) then so be it...but to chose it is completely wrong. IFV should be used to prevent deafness, blindness, down syndrome, heart disease, cancer...and others. I believe I can say this without being attacked... I am deaf.

Who is to say that this deaf child would not have the "best chance at a richly enhanced life and long healthy life" simply by virtue of his/her deafness? These parents, quite obviously, are living a richly enhanced life. They are successful, well educated, and creative. They have a better chance at raising a well adjusted deaf child who is well educated, successful and creative than do hearing parents who never graduated from high school, work for minimum wage jobs when they can find one, and haven't opened a book in the past 15 years have of raising a hearing child with a richly enhanced and long healthy life.

Is it wrong for hearing parents to choose hearing embryos? That is what is at issue here. If hearing parents are allowed to choose the hearing status of the embryo used for IVF, why aren't deaf parents allowed the same choice?
 
Who is to say that this deaf child would not have the "best chance at a richly enhanced life and long healthy life" simply by virtue of his/her deafness? These parents, quite obviously, are living a richly enhanced life. They are successful, well educated, and creative. They have a better chance at raising a well adjusted deaf child who is well educated, successful and creative than do hearing parents who never graduated from high school, work for minimum wage jobs when they can find one, and haven't opened a book in the past 15 years have of raising a hearing child with a richly enhanced and long healthy life.

Is it wrong for hearing parents to choose hearing embryos? That is what is at issue here. If hearing parents are allowed to choose the hearing status of the embryo used for IVF, why aren't deaf parents allowed the same choice?

The first paragraph of your statement doesn't validate the selection of a deaf embryo. You're saying that a successful deaf couple should be allowed to raise a deaf child. What about a non-successful deaf couple? What about a successful hearing couple? The point that jissee is making is that "choosing a deaf child is a regression of human genetics."

The point is, an embryo should be healthy. As jissee already pointed out, an embryo should be healthy by being free of disabilities and illnesses (blindness, deafness, Down's Syndrome, etc). I know a lot disagree that deafness is a disability, but would you or would you not apply for disability status with the government? Hearing is a gift, as is seeing, as is smelling, as is touch. To purposely deprive those gifts, rather than losing it naturally, is wrong.

To answer your question, a hearing person is <not> allowed to choose, because there's only one option: that a baby is healthy. The same should apply to deaf parents, as they can't make choices either.
 
The first paragraph of your statement doesn't validate the selection of a deaf embryo. You're saying that a successful deaf couple should be allowed to raise a deaf child. What about a non-successful deaf couple? What about a successful hearing couple? The point that jissee is making is that "choosing a deaf child is a regression of human genetics."

The point is, an embryo should be healthy. As jissee already pointed out, an embryo should be healthy by being free of disabilities and illnesses (blindness, deafness, Down's Syndrome, etc). I know a lot disagree that deafness is a disability, but would you or would you not apply for disability status with the government? Hearing is a gift, as is seeing, as is smelling, as is touch. To purposely deprive those gifts, rather than losing it naturally, is wrong.

To answer your question, a hearing person is <not> allowed to choose, because there's only one option: that a baby is healthy. The same should apply to deaf parents, as they can't make choices either.

I disagree. The poster stated:

Manipulating an embryo so that it does not have the best chance at a richly enhanced life and long healthy life would be wrong. People evolve...the best traits get carried from one generation to the next based of the gene pool. ...by deliberately chosing to have a deaf child, would be regression of human genetics.

That statement, in and of itself, inplies that a deaf individual does not have the best chance at a richly enhanced life by virtue of their deafness. This has already been proven to be an incorrect assumption on many planes.

Deafness is not regression any more than hearing is progression. Deafness is not caused by a regression in genetics. Human hearing is not the result of progression in genetics. For that assumption to be true, all humans at the far end of the phylogenetic scale would have once been deaf, and only became hearing through genetic progression and adaptation. Unless you can prove that all humans were once deaf, your theory is invalid.

And for an infant to be deaf is not a sign that it is unhealthy. Quite obviously, you are entrenched in the medical perspective of deafness, and see it as only pathology. However, pathology, in and of itself, does not always lead to ill health or a reduction in overall function.

Hearing is not a gift. It is a state of being. Only those talents which are above the norm for a population are considered to be gifts. High I.Q. is a gift. Musical talent is a gift. Artistic talent is a gift. These are things which fall outside the norm for the majority of the population. The majority of the population hears...therefore hearing is not a gift, but a natural state of being for the majority of the population.

And you are incorrect. During a procedcure for IVF, screening can be done to allow hearing parents with a genetic link to deafness to screen out any embryo which carries the gene. Likewise with all genetically based disorders. Screening can also be done to select gender.

Likewise, enbryos are not being manipulated to create hearing or deafness. They are being screened for genetic links, and then destroyed if they carry those genetic links. That is not manipulation of the actual embryo. For manipulation to occur, one would have to take an embryo identified as hearing, and insert the genetic material necessary to create deafness.
 
That statement, in and of itself, inplies that a deaf individual does not have the best chance at a richly enhanced life by virtue of their deafness. This has already been proven to be an incorrect assumption on many planes.

You're correct that a deaf individual can lead a richly enhanced life, but the chances are higher if the ability to hear is there. Deafness does put limitations: the ability to hear, and the ability (to a certain extent) to talk. This limitation extends to many things, including careers where hearing is an asset, but it can be remedied with use of aides like videophones, interpreters, etc. Basically, as an example, if an individual wants to be a rock star, the chances are higher if hearing is there. I'm not saying a deaf individual cannot lead a rich, enhanced life, but the reality is, it can be frustrating to be deaf. For one to overcome the frustrations is difficult, but I greatly commend, because one becomes a stronger person because of it. Granted, I would prefer to have the ability to hear rather than not being able to hear. If I don't have the ability to hear, I have to accept that and overcome my limitations.

Hearing is not a gift. It is a state of being. Only those talents which are above the norm for a population are considered to be gifts. High I.Q. is a gift. Musical talent is a gift. Artistic talent is a gift. These are things which fall outside the norm for the majority of the population. The majority of the population hears...therefore hearing is not a gift, but a natural state of being for the majority of the population.

To me, hearing is both a gift and a state of being. Human evolution depends on hearing as one of several survival instincts. We can survive without hearing or sight, but our chances of survival is higher with hearing (before the major technological advancements, to draw upon the block of time that the human race had survived for).

And you are incorrect. During a procedcure for IVF, screening can be done to allow hearing parents with a genetic link to deafness to screen out any embryo which carries the gene. Likewise with all genetically based disorders. Screening can also be done to select gender.

Likewise, enbryos are not being manipulated to create hearing or deafness. They are being screened for genetic links, and then destroyed if they carry those genetic links. That is not manipulation of the actual embryo. For manipulation to occur, one would have to take an embryo identified as hearing, and insert the genetic material necessary to create deafness.

I did not know that. Regardless, I still stand by my conviction that a child should be able to choose if he/she wants to hear or not, and that it shouldn't be up to the parents. Same with gender, a parent should not be able to select gender.
 
You're correct that a deaf individual can lead a richly enhanced life, but the chances are higher if the ability to hear is there. Deafness does put limitations: the ability to hear, and the ability (to a certain extent) to talk. This limitation extends to many things, including careers where hearing is an asset, but it can be remedied with use of aides like videophones, interpreters, etc. Basically, as an example, if an individual wants to be a rock star, the chances are higher if hearing is there. I'm not saying a deaf individual cannot lead a rich, enhanced life, but the reality is, it can be frustrating to be deaf. For one to overcome the frustrations is difficult, but I greatly commend, because one becomes a stronger person because of it. Granted, I would prefer to have the ability to hear rather than not being able to hear. If I don't have the ability to hear, I have to accept that and overcome my limitations.

The chances for a rich and fulfilling life are not dependent upon hearing status. The ability to hear and the ability to talk are benefits only through the eyes of those that are hearing ethnocentric in their perspective.

The chances of anyone becoming a rock star, hearing or deaf, are minimal. I wouldn't base public poclicy on the chances of someone becoming a rock star. Likewise, as a deaf individual, this deaf child could make great contributions to the field of mathematics, physics, engineering, health care, education, or in any number of fields that would improve the nature of society and contribute to advancement. You would limit that based on the fact that chances are slim that they would ever become a rock star?

The reality is, it can be frustrating to be hearing. Frustration in inherent in life.


To me, hearing is both a gift and a state of being. Human evolution depends on hearing as one of several survival instincts. We can survive without hearing or sight, but our chances of survival is higher with hearing (before the major technological advancements, to draw upon the block of time that the human race had survived for).

Human evolution is not dependent upon hearing. Deaf individuals have continued to evolve despite lack of hearing. They have progressed along the phylogenetic scale at the same rate as hearing individuals have. Regarding survival, perhaps back the the cromagnum period of development, survival was enhanced by hearing, but we no longer worry about attacks from saber tooth tigers.


I did not know that. Regardless, I still stand by my conviction that a child should be able to choose if he/she wants to hear or not, and that it shouldn't be up to the parents. Same with gender, a parent should not be able to select gender.

How is it that a parent opting for a deaf embryo involves a child choosing whether they want to hear or not? My son is deaf, he didn't choose to be deaf. I know of no deaf individual who, at the embryonic stage, made this choice for themselves, nor do I know of any hearing child who has chosen to be deaf, or any deaf child who has chosen to be hearing. What you are porposing has nothing to do with choice, but with risk. If you get pregant without IVF, you risk having a deaf or hearing baby. Youstill don't have a choice in the matter, nor does the child have a choice in the matter. Through embryo selection, the risk is reduced either way, but the child still doesn't have a choice in the matter. Children do not have a choice in matters of selelction quite frankly, because embryos cannot exercise choice. Period.
 
How is it that a parent opting for a deaf embryo involves a child choosing whether they want to hear or not? My son is deaf, he didn't choose to be deaf. I know of no deaf individual who, at the embryonic stage, made this choice for themselves, nor do I know of any hearing child who has chosen to be deaf, or any deaf child who has chosen to be hearing. What you are porposing has nothing to do with choice, but with risk. If you get pregant without IVF, you risk having a deaf or hearing baby. Youstill don't have a choice in the matter, nor does the child have a choice in the matter. Through embryo selection, the risk is reduced either way, but the child still doesn't have a choice in the matter. Children do not have a choice in matters of selelction quite frankly, because embryos cannot exercise choice. Period.

There is a risk of being deaf, and nobody should have to make that choice to be hearing or deaf. Not an embryo, not a child, not a parent. If hearing is a state of being, then hearing should not be discarded. If a child is naturally deaf, then that's fine. If an embryo carries genes linked to deafness, then there's a conflict here: Would a blind couple want to have a child that is blind? to have Down's Syndrome? I just find it selfish for a deaf couple to force a child to be deaf, though I do acknowledge the moral implications of embryo screening.
 
There is a risk of being deaf, and nobody should have to make that choice to be hearing or deaf. Not an embryo, not a child, not a parent. If hearing is a state of being, then hearing should not be discarded. If a child is naturally deaf, then that's fine. If an embryo carries genes linked to deafness, then there's a conflict here: Would a blind couple want to have a child that is blind? to have Down's Syndrome? I just find it selfish for a deaf couple to force a child to be deaf, though I do acknowledge the moral implications of embryo screening.

But the whole point is that it is acceptable for hearing parents to select hearing embryos. If we have already deemed that to be acceptable, it it also acceptable for a deaf parent to choose a deaf embryo. Deaf parents in this situation should be accorded the same rights as hearing parents...to select the hearing status of the embryo. To say that it is accpetable to select a hearing embryo and discard deaf embryos but not accpetable in the reverse is nothing more than the practice of eugenics. It makes the statement that the deaf individual is not as valuable as the hearing individual. A deaf couple selecting a deaf embryo is in no way more selfish than a hearing parent selecting a hearing embryo.

And it has already been supported through research that deaf children of deaf parents fare as well as hearing children of hearing parents in most areas.
 
Just because we have the technology to do procedures, it doesn't mean we should.

Can't disagree with that. But if we are going to use the technology, we have no right to deny the use of that technology based on hearing status. If it is made available to the hearing, then it must be made available to the deaf as well. To do otherwise is to place a value judgement on the deaf as a person.
 
Can't disagree with that. But if we are going to use the technology, we have no right to deny the use of that technology based on hearing status. If it is made available to the hearing, then it must be made available to the deaf as well. To do otherwise is to place a value judgement on the deaf as a person.

Can't disagree with you, either. You're spot on! As distateful as it may seem to some, you can't discriminate. If it's OK for the hearing couple to use IVF to screen for a hearing infant, than it should be OK for a deaf couple to use IVF technology to screen for a deaf infant.
 
Can't disagree with that. But if we are going to use the technology, we have no right to deny the use of that technology based on hearing status. If it is made available to the hearing, then it must be made available to the deaf as well. To do otherwise is to place a value judgement on the deaf as a person.

Agreed. The hearing people had no rights telling us Deaf people what to do with our lives.
 
I agree with Jillo, Oceanbreeze and Buffalo.

Why are all the rights given to hearing people but denied to deaf people? Come on people!

This shouldnt be approved at all but since it is, might as well give deaf people the same rights.

If it was about making the embroyo deaf, then that's a different story. This is about destroying embroyos that carry the deaf gene. It is a powerful message saying that deaf people arent good enough to be born.
 
I agree with Jillo, Oceanbreeze and Buffalo.

Why are all the rights given to hearing people but denied to deaf people? Come on people!

This shouldnt be approved at all but since it is, might as well give deaf people the same rights.

If it was about making the embroyo deaf, then that's a different story. This is about destroying embroyos that carry the deaf gene. It is a powerful message saying that deaf people arent good enough to be born.

Shel, I have a story I'd like to relate to you, but it's best done in private. Would you mind if I PMed you?
 
I agree with Jillo, Oceanbreeze and Buffalo.

Why are all the rights given to hearing people but denied to deaf people? Come on people!

This shouldnt be approved at all but since it is, might as well give deaf people the same rights.

If it was about making the embroyo deaf, then that's a different story. This is about destroying embroyos that carry the deaf gene. It is a powerful message saying that deaf people arent good enough to be born.
Bond font - Bingo! Much agree with this one. :ugh3:

EDIT: With that reason, I don't think it is really fair to stomp deafies down...
 
Last edited:
Deafness is not regression any more than hearing is progression. Deafness is not caused by a regression in genetics. Human hearing is not the result of progression in genetics. For that assumption to be true, all humans at the far end of the phylogenetic scale would have once been deaf, and only became hearing through genetic progression and adaptation. Unless you can prove that all humans were once deaf, your theory is invalid.

I have to disagree, in part, here.
Just think about it a moment and look at the 'big picture'. Yes, being deaf does not prevent one from having a full life. However, it IS 'one less' of the 5 senses, one less ability. That is not progress. It may not be an -extreme- setback either, but where do you draw the line? I'm all for the right for a person to live as they are, but come on... we have to be realistic some times. It is not completely benign.

And yes, -humans- may have never been deaf, but I think we can assume that EVERYTHING was 'deaf' at some point, before humans and other more advanced species existed.
 
That is sick and pitiful for any deaf parent to want just a deaf baby.. How about having a baby regardless and loving that child for who the child is..

Guess and some folks need help in the "upstaris dept'..

Besides, they could adopt a deaf child if they REALLY want a deaf child...

"That is sick and pitiful for any hearing parent to want just a hearing baby.. How about having a baby regardless and loving that child for who the child is..

Guess and some folks need help in the "upstairs dept'..

Besides, they could adopt a hearing child if they REALLY want a hearing child..."

SouthFella, you don't like what I said? It is exactly what you said except it is in reverse. Funny, the hearing people thinks it is perfectly okay for their deaf child to undergo an operation to make the child "hearing", possibly at the cost of the child's health/life. The same people would think it is terrible for a deaf couple to improve their chance of having a deaf child. Didn't you realize that the deaf people are talking about improving the chance of having a deaf child after the CI came out. The deaf people are just copying the hearing people in that respect and we get critizied for that!

Just think... how many of Deaf people really do have a deaf gene to pass it along? Very few! My deafness is caused by Rubella so I can't pass along any deaf gene so how can I use the IVF to improve my chance of having a deaf child?

If the hearing couple screen out any deaf embryos, what is going to prevent their hearing child from becoming deaf due to injuries, viruses, and life-saving medicine? Most likely the parents are going by the CI route. That message is loud and clear that the hearing parents don't accept their child who he is. The Deaf parents would accept that newly deafened child far better than the hearing parents would ever.

If I had to live my life over as a deaf person, I would asked to be born into a Deaf family.

If it is okay for the hearing couple to screen out what they don't want, then it is okay for us to screen out what we don't want. That is the golden rule.
 
I have to disagree, in part, here.
Just think about it a moment and look at the 'big picture'. Yes, being deaf does not prevent one from having a full life. However, it IS 'one less' of the 5 senses, one less ability. That is not progress. It may not be an -extreme- setback either, but where do you draw the line? I'm all for the right for a person to live as they are, but come on... we have to be realistic some times. It is not completely benign.

And yes, -humans- may have never been deaf, but I think we can assume that EVERYTHING was 'deaf' at some point, before humans and other more advanced species existed.

That is quite an assumption to make, and cannot be supported in any way scientifically.

Nor does deafness imply that one has less ability. Adaptation results in compensation, and that means that ability is not lost, but simply gained in another manner. Likewsie, adaptation is a definate sign of progress.
 
Back
Top