h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's a recent newspaper article from a leading newspaper in New Zealand. It's entitled 'The deaf: disabled, or just different? '
In this article you have some deaf people arguing that deafness is not a 'disability' but just a 'difference' and that there is a distinctive 'culture' associated with deaf people. Recently, a deaf couple tried to (and succeeding) in having a deaf child - a deaf woman applied to a sperm donor to try to deliberately ensure that her child was deaf, arguing that that was her reproductive right.

I don't know what you all think, but to me this is a blatant example of political correctness gone mad. I don't for one moment believe that deafness is only a difference - it's a disability. Nor, for one moment do I believe that a deaf couple has the right to try to increase their chances of having a deaf child - which really just amounts to child abuse in my mind.

I post this here, because it's (vaguely) relevant to some arguments that have raged over h2g2 in past months.

These deaf people are arguing that to disagree them represents 'bigotry' you see. The point I want to get across here is that there is a very clear distinction between 'bigotry' and 'rational value judgements’.

Bigotry occurs when hate and mistreatment is directed towards a person/peoples purely and simply because they are different. 'Rational value judgement' occurs when rational arguments are used to make a value judgement as to why some things are better than others are. A large number of people (including certain people at h2g2 who will go unmentioned) seem to be having serious difficulty understanding the distinction.

Here's the article. Have a read and see what you think:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=general&storyID=2043082

I agree, that is mad. Would the child, given the choice, choose deafness?

It's not "nice" to say it, but what about the health insurance? I don't know how much this disability "costs" but I've read about parents with a disabled child who weren't allowed to have a second child because it was in all probable that this would be disabled too. It wasn't exactly forbidden but their insurance refused to pay again.

I am short-sighted (myopic). I have been since I was 12. But I would never for a minute try to pretend that this is just a difference, not a disability. It is something wrong with my body, although a very minor one. I have to wear glasses or contact lenses, or undergo a surgical operation to get it corrected. I don't think it would be right to deliberately seek to impose the same condition on my children.

Deafness is a more serious disability. People have ears for the purpose of hearing. If they don't work, then that's something wrong.
I think someone who wants to disable their child so that they can fit in with the parents' lifestyle is not a suitable parent.

The next stage in this process would be to treat the foetus with chemicals before it was born to reduce its intelligence, so that the IQ of the child could be lowered to match that of the parents.

Interesting.
A friend once told me that he had deliberately chosen NOT to have children (which flies badly in the face of his personal and cultural beliefs) because he was worried that he would pass on some of his health problems.
To see people deliberately attempting to give their children difficulties just makes no sense and makes me , to be honest.

I'm just wondering, this couple are their parents perhaps dead? Because then I would have the right to kill them as well

I remember reading some time ago about a deaf child that was offered treatment for it. And there was some outrage by the deaf community, that they wanted to treat something like that as something to be cured. When it was simply a "difference".

On the other hand, there is a definite problem with the deaf community in America where "helpful" people are insisting that the normal children of deaf parents should not be taught sign language because it will interfere with their ability to learn ordinary English. Not only is this attitude insulting to the parents, but it is completely wrong. The more languages a child learns in infancy, the better its abilities with language in general will be, although it may be slightly slower starting off.

My Mother is completely deaf, she suffers from an hereditary condition, which I was fortunate enought not to get. My Father is partially deaf (from flying jet aircraft).

Deafness is a disability that affects the whole family. As a baby my Mother couldn't hear me cry and so if my Father was away, I would be left screaming all night long, whilst my Mother slept in blissful ignorance. She would never take us to the cinema or the theatre and finds socialy gatherings extremely difficult.

To intentionally 'create' a deaf child is IMHO a form of life-long abuse. Anyone wanting to inflict this on a child is not fit to be a parent.

Although I don't consider it 'child abuse' exactly, I think that the parents are wrong to consider reproduction a 'right', to do with as they want to.
Most parents want their children to be like them - but to force it upon them is wrong.

Deafness is a disablity - so is having no sense of smell - something that I suffer from. Piddling little disability - doesn't even count for benefits, or anything but a giggle. But I *would not* wish it on anyone else - least of all a child that I love!

I think I saw this couple on breakfast TV a while back. They seemed to be taking the approach that a hearing child would be an outsider in their deaf community. They were very militant about the rights of deaf people to be treated equally - which is not a bad thing. I felt that they then took it that bit too far by suggesting that as deaf people are the norm in the community where they spend most of their time then it would be preferable to have a child that would fit in with their life. Their way of life is something that they have battle for, and are campaining stridently for deafness to be seen as normal. The next logical step to them was that a deaf child should be celebrated (I agree that all babies should be celebrated), and in fact be seen as better than a hearing child.

To me they seemed utterly selfish and irresponsible, but more than that they seemed to have their priorities horribly skewed by their own battle for equality.

I don't know what can be done to change their minds, bright idea anyone?

k

This is similar to something I read about a few years ago, where deaf parents to a deaf child, who could be cured, did not want their child to receive treatment. Again, it was because they wanted their child to be part of the "deaf community".

It reflects badly on how society treats people with disabilities, that they feel they cannot integrate, and feel forced to create their own community, with its own culture. Before we leap to condemn the actions of these parents, we need to understand why they think this way. If they were to have a child with no hearing difficulties, would society treat the child differently from the parents, creating a barrier between them? It may not be an entirely selfish choice, either - they may be unable to teach a hearing child proper speaking skills, for instance.

I agree, my initial reaction upon reading this, is that it's selfish and absurd. But, thinking about it, you can see their reasons.

I think these people need to stop contradicting themselves!

They want deaf people to be treated equally - but feel a hearing child would be an outsider!
They want deaf people to be treated equally - but want a child that fits into their life.
That doesn't sound 'equal' to me!


If that it what they are saying - they are bonkers!
Children cannot be outsiders in the life they are brought up in, that's all they know!

I know a couple who are both deaf and mute. They have kids who are also deaf and mute.

If for the sake of argument they were to have a child who was a hearing child, how would that child learn to speak from the people that most people learn to speak from ie their parents. There is no way that parents who happen to be mute can give a hearing child an equal chance to meet their full potnetial as a similarly deaf mute child who they could teach to communicate as they have had to.

And my solution to that problem, don't have a child. It's not a damned right, it's a privilege.

That is discrimination!!!

Grow up!!!

Why should someone not have a child just because of a birth defect, we'd never repopulate if that was the solution!

Parents aren't the only influences in a child's life. There are relatives, and friends, and eventually playschool, and then school.

Just because you can't teach your child something, doesn't mean they won't learn it.

I mean if only the genetically perfect were allowed to have kids how many of would stand a chance of having any?

DD, I don't understand your point in Posting 13. If the deaf mute couple have a hearing child, then can teach it sign language in just the same way as if the child was a deaf mute child. The hearing child has no disadvantage over the deaf mute child, and has a major advantage in that it can later learn to speak in normal languages.

But they would be behind in ntheir development as they wouldn't have the constant stimuli that other children have 24/7

It may have an eventual advantage, all I am saying is that the development initially will be behind that of others and it might be considered stupid for it's lack of vocab.