Yes. You read right. Here’s the story. Sharon
Duchesneau and Candy McCullough of North Bethesda, Maryland were both born deaf.
Recently, the lesbian couple (who have been together now for eight years) welcomed
the arrival of their first-born-son into the world. However, they have received
intense criticism for their action. Why? The couple deliberately attempted to
ensure that their son was born deaf by seeking out a sperm donor with
congenital deafness. After a series of sperm banks turned them down, the couple
found a suitable sperm donor by asking a deaf family friend who comes from a
family with five generations of deafness...
When asked why, both women responded by
saying they want their son to share in their “culture” – viewing deafness as a
cultural identity rather than a medical disability. In response to criticism,
the women say their choice is no different from parents “trying to have a
girl”. They claim that it will be easier to communicate with their son in their
own language as he grows up…
Congratulations! Baby boy! Gauvin Hughes
McCullough. Recent hearing tests confirm Gauvin (now four months old) is quite deaf.
However, his right ear still has some residual hearing. Doctors suggest a
hearing aid as soon as possible to give him a head start on spoken English.
Indeed, most parents would try for one in hopes that the child can one day hear
proficiently … or at least lip-read... However, Gauvin’s parents won’t let him
have one.
First, I want to identify two key decisions made by the couple.
1)
They
deliberately selected for deafness in Gauvin.
2)
They
deliberately won’t allow Gauvin a hearing aid.
I oppose both actions. By making these two decisions, they violate
their son’s right to an open future; parents should bring a child into this
world with as many open opportunities as possible, maximizing the chances for
his own self-fulfillment in the future.
By selecting for deafness, the couple is effectively shutting the
door on Gauvin’s full potential – depriving him of a natural faculty. The
couple defends by pointing out that deafness should not be viewed as a
disability. And it shouldn’t. Indeed, we should consider a deaf person every
bit as human as a hearing person … and surely, in a world where deaf and
hearing members of society enjoy equal opportunities this would be plausible…
However, society currently denies deaf children to enjoy the same rights,
opportunities, and quality of life as everyone else. In the society we live in
today, the genetic selection of deafness is unethical.
Furthermore, the couple won’t let Gauvin have a hearing aid. Their claim – it will
be easier to communicate with him in their own language. By not allowing Gauvin
a hearing aid, the couple is further limiting Gauvin’s opportunities. If Gauvin
were to receive the hearing aid, it would be possible for him to communicate with his
parents via sign language and communicate with the hearing world via
spoken English. I believe that by limiting Gauvin to sign language, the couple has made an especially selfish decision. Perhaps in another life, Gauvin could enjoy a life enriched by both the deaf and the hearing
worlds. Perhaps Gauvin, in the future, would decide to leverage his special position as an advocate for the deaf community... We will never know – for his
parents have made the decision for him.
footnote* – topic introduced to me via my freshman seminar (FRS126)
2 comments:
I absolutely agree - the parents behaved selfishly and immorally. Had they made a grown child of theirs deaf, they would have been unambiguously guilty of child abuse. In what way is it different that they caused their child to be deaf before his birth instead of after?
A child is not a piece of property or a doll to be customized to suit the parents' desires. They have done their child material harm, especially by denying him the use of a hearing aid. For as much as Duchesneau and McCullough may wish it were not so, deafness - the absence of hearing - is quite literally a disability.
Furthermore, I find the idea that a deaf child will identify more with his parents than would a hearing child ridiculous. A child with hearing is perfectly capable of interacting with and relating to deaf parents. When Gauvin learns of the role his parents played in his deafness, do his parents expect him to love them all the more for having needlessly limited his opportunities in life?
Good post and reply
Post a Comment