The most common objection to genetic screening of embryos is the issue of “designer babies,” creating children with perfect intelligence, height, eye-colour, and so forth. The ethics of such a situation has gone back and forth several times over, but now Tomato Lichy and his wife Paula have now turned this issue inside out – they want a baby who is deaf.
Lichy and his wife are themselves both deaf, and to them being deaf is not a disability but rather a positive trait – something they see as “paralleling being Jewish or black.” In Lichy’s opinion, the absence of hearing opens one to the “deaf culture,” with its own unique aspects and benefits – such as deaf plays. Another deaf British couple added that: "it is important that our culture is passed on from one generation to another ... the threat of losing our culture would be devastating because we have so much to show and to give."
The problem is that a new bill making its way through the British government would prohibit the implantation of embryos which are “known to have a gene, chromosome, or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with any serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.” The idea behind this bill is simple: to give the child the best chances of thriving and being happy. However, to the Lichys’, this bill is tantamount to racial discrimination.
The problem here is similar to that of whether disabled individuals can attain the same happiness and success that “non-disabled” individuals can achieve. I personally believe that whereas it may be true that disabled individuals may be hindered somewhat in their pursuit of happiness or success, the perceived hindrance is much more than it actually is. People who are able to hear look down on the deaf and imagine how difficult life must be for them – but this is a largely egocentric view; just because we cannot picture life without sound, we imagine that a life without sound must be that much more difficult for others. But, as the Lichys’ point out, deafness need not be a disability, especially since modern society is becoming more and more accommodating to the handicapped, and a second "culture" is opened up to their child.
The other side of this issue is what the unborn child would want for his future. Most people would shudder at the thought of their parents selecting them to be deaf, but again this is because we are accommodated to our current lifestyle – if we were born deaf, we probably would have a significantly different viewpoint. Thus, I think it is difficult to argue that the child would be unquestionably better off being born with or without hearing. As long as the Lichys’ are able to make a convincing case that being born deaf has its advantages – as I think they have done – they should be allowed to screen for deaf embryos.
Of course, this opinion will probably be heavily debated -- other thoughts on this matter?
http://www.tamilstar.com/news/health/article_6314.shtml
1 comment:
I find this to be a very interesting situation. While the couple's request of a deaf baby is certainly different, I do not find it surprising. If the world of genetic engineering were made available to all parents when creating a child, I have a strong belief that there would be significant variety in the types of traits which would be preferred. Such differences in parental preferences would still leave ample room for variation among the population, elimination notions that a single world of eugenic perfection would be reached.
In terms of if this specific request should be allowed, I believe that there is not a clear cut answer. Theoretically, I would agree that the parents should be able to choose such a trait if they believe that it would be in their child's best interest. However, from a practical standpoint, I am not so sure if this theoretical application should apply. The world is not without its faults and applying theories of "what ought to be allowed" sometimes does not work. Unfortunately, even though those of the deaf community are being better accommodated by society, it is still far from ideal. Undoubtedly, the child would have difficulties growing up. Normal classrooms are not equipped to allow for the learning of deaf children. This would make it necessary for the child to attend a special school, potentially limiting his or her opportunities and experiences. Unless the parents can afford translators and the like, they may be limiting their child. If the current world were better suited to the needs of deaf individuals, I would say that the parents should go ahead with their decision. However, since this is not the case, I believe that the decision needs to be given more thought. Whether the government should have a say is an entirely different matter.
Post a Comment