Choosing Disability

Exception anyy Disability and Giftedness Dry. Stuart Samenesss P arnts all over the world have one great thing In common, wanting the best for their chel ben and plentiful them great opportunities to pursue their dreams. Children atomic number 18 acquireed special blessings from God, especially for couples that were bestowed with this blessing after much patience. Furtherto a greater extent, women who could non count were known to be cursed and inferior to other fertile women.Although, there argon still any couples whose attempts to conceive a sister naturally go vain, medical science has allowed these difficultys to be resolved by dint of various interventions, such as infertility treatments, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or even sperm presenter clinics. in that respect are many an(prenominal) things to be considered when it comes to family planning, before a couple decides to bring a nipper Into this world. For some, It may to Walt until they are financially well off, moving to a family friendlier neighborhood, or possibly visiting a fertility clan to weigh out their options.Fertility lining are also beneficial If the couple Is aro pulmonary tuberculosis In knowing the probably of passing a disease with a family history or a deterrent off to their offspring. Moreover, possess preferential characteristics such as eye color, hair color, height, race, and/or education. As one might say, conceiving by dint of sperm donors is the safest alternative precisely be move donors with congenital disabilities are screened out massive before they would ever make the catalogue, as the sperm banks are aware that the probability of such a withdrawal is very low.But as strange as deliberately assign a constipation to an uninnate(p) infant may seem, there are many advocating for the allowance of such services. Some parents have interpreted steps to ensure that they have minorren with a desired deterrent. What is meant by disa bility is subject for consider qualified debate, however. For many, disability is something un preferable, as it signifi foundationtly reduces the individuals quality of life and social opportunities. This scenario is particularly relevant to the Deaf purification who consider themselves a part of a minority group.This paper intends to explore the controversy regarding the ethics of deliberately choosing a disability and implementing it on the case study of James Kittle and married woman and discussing why they should not be allowed to deliberately admit an embryo with a disability via the use of pre-implantation diagnosis. James Kittle is a congenital desensitize unify to a wife of 5 years. James and wife are both belonging to the Deaf Culture and seem very content with their disability.Their main mode of communion is American Sign Language and do not consider their condition as a defect or a disability, rather a different viewpoint of life that differs unaccompanied slightl y from the norm. Both James and his wife were raised in a typical nuclear family with audience parents and siblings. Once they learned that they were expecting their first child, they were thrilled. This excitement, however was short-lived as they soon found out that he was born hear with no signs of partial desensitise(p)ness.They were hoping for a desensitizeen child like themselves so that he could easily be integrated into their culture and so they could find a new generation of the Deaf in the family. As nose, their word of honor, turned four, they started fearing that they would eventually lose their son, o the hearing world. They decided to consult their family doctor who referred them to an ideologist with whom they could discuss the incident of surgically desensitizeening their son by removing his cochleae from both of his ears.As this was illegal in America, James took it upon himself to take Jimmy to Brazil where this type of surgical process is permissible. Jimmy refused once he learned of his parents intention but was told that he would have no problem adjusting and was not given much of an option. The functioning was successful and James and his wife now consider Jimmy a special blessing. They are now ready for their second child, but instead of simply hoping for that child to be deafen, they are considering the possibility of conceiving through with(predicate) pre- implantation diagnosis, since they do not want to take their chances as they did with Jimmy.This case study raises many honorable issues about deliberately choosing hearing impairment over normality and why it should never be permissible to do so on the basis of fundamental human rights. The preference to seek deaf children cuts across the grain of virtually all discussion in bioethics about antenatal interventions involving the traits of children. It is not prenatal interventions regarding producing super kids, with superior qualities not commonly observed in th eir peers of the same age.These qualities unremarkably exceed their peers and even parents in sight, hearing, intelligence, athletic skills, immunity to disease, strength and many more among the list of desirable traits. If options to select these enhanced traits were available, why would the parents not want these for their children? There seems to be no logical reason behind confine their children of these beneficial traits. In addition, these traits should be pair to everyone and not Just the wealthy that already have the most advantages many plenty lack.From time to time, bioethics forums are flooded with such debatable issues and concerns when it comes to designing babies through the use of medical interventions. By contrast, however, parents going through the extra mile to ensure their children are born with a congenital disability, particularly deafness, take the debates and the controversies surrounding these issues in an entirely different direction. Two differentiate views of deafness exist in todays society.Most people insider deafness as a pathological condition resulting in profound hearing loss, followed by the viewpoint that deafness is a sensory deficit. People diagnosed with this condition are seen to be at a great disadvantage and salubriously deviant from the norm. Moreover, the minority viewpoint regards deaf people as belonging to a culture paralleling themselves with racial groups such as Blacks, Hispanic and others who are bonded together by shared values, and a common language (Wagner, 2008).Those that belong to this culture consider the plaza of being deaf to be a highly ascribable characteristic and a unique heathen identity. The couple mentioned above takes great pride in being a part of such a culture and get their motives of wanting deaf children through various means to be misunderstood. James and his wife wanted children like themselves and did not see their preferences as a chaste offence. In addition, James tangle so strongly connected with this culture that he wanted to see in his children the deafness that was so central to his identity.While the decision of this couple to want a deaf child grew out of their own moral intuition, Teresa Burke is amongst the many commentators that as offered a defense of such a practice, as long as certain conditions are met. Teresa Burke (2005) argues that parents may be allowed to have deaf children only if they are deaf themselves and are able to work on offering language or some means of communication to their children. She argues that deafness is compatible with the ability to pursue a rewarding life.Furthermore, she feels that eliminating many environmental issues, such as stigma and discrimination can offset its disadvantages and a society where the deaf and the hearing live aboard one another, coexisting peace climby is not entirely unattainable (Burke, 2011). The counterparts of this argument, which is much more relatable to the norm arouse that pa rents have an obligation to enhance the capacities of their children to the extent that is within their power.Julian Cupules (2001) feels that there is a certain obligatory run to treat and prevent diseases and that we have an obligation to try to manipulate these characteristics to give an individual the best fortune of the best life, not the other way around. To fail to treat our childrens disease is to harm them. In general, he mental, and psychological capacities. Failing to do so is harming them, Just as it is to elaborately reduce these capacities and limiting them of a state of well being, regardless of how it is done (Cupules, 2001).From a perspective like this, it is evident that prevention of paltry is central to anyones moral belief. James and his wife were definitely not selfless, as they disregarded Jimmys refusal and went ahead with the surgery anyway. Despite the situation that deafness does not disable the possibility of a meaningful life, moral considerations g ive notice that parents should not be choosing this alternative intentionally. All in all, deafness is a disability in the follow that it represents an inhibition in a major life function and James committed a strong moral transgression by making a choice for his son that cannot be undone.Typically, the search for genes that cause or contribute to an unwanted medical condition is followed by the hope of finding a retrieve for that condition, or eradicating it in general (Wagner, 2008). Deafness differs from most disabilities precisely because it is not universally viewed as an undesirable medical condition, and according to many advocating this point there is no need to even find a cure, since it is not a problem. This is not to say that deaf people deny their tautological status but it illustrates their importance of culture over pathology.The current popularity of cochlear implant surgery today among hearing parents of deaf children with its post rehabilitation oral skills, has led to a reduction in the number of deaf children attendance special residential school for the deaf at an early age. When the FDA announced its proposal in 1990 to give up children with cochlear implants, the members of the deaf partnership reacted negatively and even referred to it as cultural genocide (Sculls, 2011).Now, many years later, the ethical issues of cochlear implant surgery seem to not be a problem anymore because of the advances in communicable engineering that has allowed people from this community to genetically design their babies to their preferences. Although this engineering is meant to eradicate any form of disability altogether, it has recently been used to Just do the opposite. Many of these deaf community members have been shifting their centralize to prenatal genetic diagnosis (PIG) in tandem with in vitro fertilization (IVY) for embryo screening.A study released in 2008 found that 3 percent of in vitro fertilization-PIG lining in the United States hav e provided PIG to select for a disability (Wagner, 2008). In addition to PIG, other technologies may soon be available to people wanting to have deaf children, such as gene replacement therapy. In other words, deafness could be created by deliberately inserting a deaf gene. This goes back to the topic discussed earlier regarding genetically creating a super kid, with extraordinary characteristics.PIG is an expensive procedure currently offered only to couples at risk of having a child suffering from a serious genetic disease, but there is nothing inherent in the technology that limits it to such uses. This means couples wealthy generous to afford such practices will be given full freedom to genetically create babies with preferable qualities whereas their less fortunate counterparts, who will not be able to afford these types of procedures, will always be at a disadvantage (Murphy, 2009). This leads to an entirely broad debate regarding eugenics and why it should not be practiced.A uthors such as John Harris (2000) argue that intentionally selecting into this world who has a disability using technology in ways that it was not meant or, it significantly violates the childs right to an open incoming (Harris, 2000). It is a known fact, which neither the deaf community itself cannot deny, that people suffering from a hearing loss lead more difficult lives than hearing counterparts, partly because there will always be more hearing people in this world than deaf and there will never be enough accommodations.Loss of hearing, therefore, in such a linguistic society can render dangerous when a deaf person is unable to detect nearby hazards thereby affecting their sense of independence and security and limiting social opportunities. Alternative viewpoints proposed by Albany Lucas (2012) contend that selection for a particular disability is as problematic as selection against, since both are based on the assumption that a individual(a) genetic characteristic should be the determining factor in the decision to have a child (Lucas, 2012).Opponents of this point assert that although they value the existence of living disabled individuals and believe in giving these individuals equal respect and opportunities as any other human being, it is morally wrong to knowingly bring a disabled child into the world and limiting their opportunities. In addition, the harm of genetically harming children can be distinctly seen when considering how the same harm without genetics involved would be viewed. Genetics, reproductive technologies and techniques such as PIG are simply tools.Tools are used to accomplish things whether the use of the tool is ethical depends on what it is that we are exhausting to accomplish. If something is morally wrong, it does not matter what tools or what method is used to accomplish that, it still remains wrong. In the case of James, who deliberately deafened his first hearing child, by racially removing his cochlea so he could becom e a part of their culture, now wants to create a second deaf baby using genetic engineering techniques.Preventing a child from hearing harms the child it limits and disadvantages the child and therefore should not be permissible for medical personnel to carry on with this kind of procedure, especially for Jimmy and his wife, who are evidently displace their own happiness ahead of their childrens since they disregarded their sons refusal. Jimmy was 4 years old when he was obligate into such an irrational decision, which means he ad experienced the hearing world and had therefore elect to stay in it. All the facts are the same and lets say, via PIG with in vitro fertilization Jimmy and his wife have their congenital deaf child.But now a cure for this deafness is discovered, it is risk free with no side effects, which leads us to think, would the parents, in this case, be right to withhold this cure for deafness from their child? Would the child have any legitimate complaint if they did not cure his deafness? Could this child complain to his parents dismissing him the possibility of being able to listen to music, the sound f trees, the wind, the rain, the waves on the shore, or hearing a talk word or even learning utter language?There is no imagining to how the child would feel when it discovers that it lacked these experiences only because of his/her parents deliberate denial. Furthermore, it is not plausible to say that all these things that the child could have had, but because of its parents decision, are unimportant, so much so that their loss or absence of it is not even considered a disability to them. Different groups. Similarly, deaf community is bonded together via a signed language,American Sign Language (SSL). Although this characteristic is not the sole criterion, it is viewed as a strong distinction between them and the non-deaf community (Singleton & Title, 2000). Furthermore, the deaf community includes members with hearing losses at both level s of extreme, from those who are profoundly deaf to those normal hearing children of the deaf community. There are also people who are hard of hearing individuals that identify themselves as part of the deaf community.Therefore, acceptance and integration into the deaf community is depended upon he attitude and the use of SSL, which means that in coiffe to belong to the deaf community, one does not need to be born deaf. Furthermore, hearing children born to deaf parents are considered bilingual and bicameral since they potentially share the language and culture of their deaf parents and they are necessarily members of the hearing community (Singleton & Title, 2000).Although there has been some concern regarding signs of spoken language delay observed in hearing children of non-hearing parents, there is not much evidence to support this claim. Therefore, elaborately removing Jimmys cochleae was unnecessary since he did not need to be deaf to belong to the Deaf community. Many deaf parents, occasionally have the take notion that they should not sign with their child simply because the child is hearing. Signing with the hearing child, from its birth, not only teaches the hearing child to be fluent in SSL, but also it ensures stronger communication between the parents and the child.Moreover, number normal hearing children to a deaf child overcomes the possibility of having hearing children that are bilingual and bicameral. Shift-Myers (2004) asserts that many hearing children of deaf parents evidently develop speech and language normally provided that they have some film to normal hearing speakers and if their family life is otherwise normal. In addition, Jimmy and his wife both belong to hearing families, which means there would be enough exposure to normal hearing from the grandparents, and the child would consequently not develop any language delay.In any case, if a hearing child of deaf parents does show signs of spoken language delay, then an appropriate practical Lana to enhance the childs spoken language input would be in order (Shift-Myers, 2004). James and his wife ought to use the best mode of communication to ensure effective parenting, and to recruit natural language acquisition for the child, whether it is spoken or signed language. It is a simple fact that it is snap off to have five senses than four Nanette Winters). Who can argue against that? Yet, what Winters calls, a simple fact may not be so simple for everyone as clearly illustrated in this paper.This is especially not a simple fact when it comes to the Deaf community. Many facts arise from those who live the oaf lives. One such fact is that they believe being Deaf should be viewed as parallel to being Black, or Hispanic. Another fact is that these Deaf community members feel no objection expanding their community by wanting deaf children, whether it may be through prenatal medical interventions or postnatal surgical procedures. This paper explored the question of whether it is morally Justifiable to use genetic technology to here is not about being supportive of people who are deaf or otherwise disabled.The basic issue is whether or not there are ethical limits to what parents can impose on a hill. Pro-choice campaigners and reproductive freedom supports argue that it should be the couples choice or wish on how they want to raise their child, but through negative enhancement and achieving outcomes that are socially not preferred affects everyone in the community in general (Carping, 2008). Morally speaking, parents have a transaction to use assisted technology to give their children the best opportunity of the best life, not deliberately cut the childs welfare.