Using science to intentionally have a disabled child

[Enros]

In vitro fertilization is a wonderful invention. Parents can have doctors screen embryos and chose what characteristics they would like. Usually they chose to implant the most genetically healthy embryos.

Here's an article about a couple who did the exact opposite. They deliberately chose to have a deaf child. About 5% of IVF customers select for "negative" traits (source). The mother who had the deaf child argued:

Ms McCullough added: "Some people look at it like 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability'.

"But you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?

"They should have that option. They can feel related to that culture, still bonded with that culture."

Which is a fair argument. What do you think of this?

EDIT: Intentionally having disabled children using IVF is illegal in the UK. This article is about a couple who are fighting the British government for the right to have a disabled child.

[Knight of Heaven]

I dont see where is the fair part of the argument.

[Sphere]

Didn't Gandhi say "To deny a child Mozart is immoral."

[IrishBlood]

They are making a life changing choice that will undoubtedly negatively effect their child, one in which said child has absolutely no say in what so ever.

At some stage that child will find out that he's parents decided that he should be deaf because of reasons and I sincerely doubt he will be happy about it. Hell that could be a relationship breaking revelation for him/her if and when he/she ever finds out.

[Enros]

"Disease" and "disability" are completely subjective.

No human has infared eyes like a snake. Humans can't sense the Earth's magnetic field. Nor can they see in ultraviolet. Are all humans disabled? Should we start a global struggle to overcome these three disabilities all humans are facing?

(In all seriousness, I would love to have those three senses)

[sumskilz]

At some stage that child will find out that he's parents decided that he should be deaf because of reasons and I sincerely doubt he will be happy about it. Hell that could be a relationship breaking revelation for him/her if and when he/she ever finds out.

That's not what the parents decided, the parents decided to have a deaf kid, not to make a hearing kid deaf. The alternative was not that the particular kid would be born able to hear, but that he/she wouldn't be born at all.

[Cyclops]

it seems very evil, to deny a child a sense that has safety implications, is a social barrier as well as a lot of pleasure from music etc.

I have heard that a few members of the deaf community feel their sign language is a different culture to the broader community and oppose things like the bionic ear, as it will destroy their culture by making signing redundant.

I don't know what life is like for a deaf person and I don't want to. I guess they might want to share their culture with their child, so "I don't know" but it seems very evil.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I don't really see a practical difference between doing this to a kid before he's born and doing it via more conventional measures afterwards. Not much change between a kid born with a bad knee and a kid who had his smashed with a hammer at a couple of days old.
Its still crippling a child, one way or the other. This sort of thing really shouldn't be legal.

[sumskilz]

I don't really see a practical difference between doing this to a kid before he's born and doing it via more conventional measures afterwards.

Again though, it's not doing anything to the kid before it's born except allowing it to exist. Choosing a sperm donor who has congenital deafness, or choosing to implant an embryo with congenital deafness, is simply allowing that child to exist instead of another one. I'm not making an argument in favor of the practice by pointing that out, but it does change what arguments can reasonably be used against it I think.

[Denny Crane!]

Didn't Gandhi say "To deny a child Mozart is immoral."

Ghandi also was a paedophile child abuser so maybe not the best quote.

Again though, it's not doing anything to the kid before it's born except allowing it to exist. Choosing a sperm donor who has congenital deafness, or choosing to implant an embryo with congenital deafness, is simply allowing that child to exist instead of another one. I'm not making an argument in favor of the practice by pointing that out, but it does change what arguments can reasonably be used against it I think.

Rather than framing it as the other poster did as a black child has a harder life it should be phrased as intentionally denying a child an ability which could greatly benefit it.

I wonder if the same argument could be made if they chose to make the child blind, or a child without arms? Because they lost theirs in an accident.

Of course not.

[Cyclops]

Ghandi also was a paedophile child abuser so maybe not the best quote.

Silly accusations aside, why wouldn't he quote one of the most respected statesmen of the 20th century?

Rather than framing it as the other poster did as a black child has a harder life it should be phrased as intentionally denying a child an ability which could greatly benefit it.

I wonder if the same argument could be made if they chose to make the child blind, or a child without arms? Because they lost theirs in an accident.

Of course not.

The question shades into other issues of "body modification" like circumcision and so on. In aboriginal cultures young men (we would say 13 year kids) were burned and scarred. Mutilating boys bodies is far less controversial than mutilating girl's bodies, and the body parts involved and the age of the "victim" complicate the issue.

A child selected for no arms? You're right, people would be disgusted. I find the question of sorting and selecting healthy foetuses disturbing enough, this issue is off the planet.

On the other hand we have a lot of characteristics we can select for artificially, which means we're homogenising our gene pool by removing undesirable elements. Is this just ensuring diversity?

[Iskar]

I'm with sumskilz. Most arguments advanced commit the fallacy to confound making a child blind/deaf/disabled/etc. with choosing an embryo from a number of eligible ones.

The actual ethical question at hand here is the one of in vitro fertilisation that forces the parents-in-spe to choose one from among a certain number of embryos to be implanted, condemning the others to not being given the opportunity to live.
Choosing one with a foreseeable handicap is not the decision to make that individual handicapped (it already is by the chances governing genetic recombination and mutation), it is the decision to give this individual a chance to live and not the other eligible ones.

In my opinion the bad thing is not choosing the deaf one, but to employ a technique that foreseeably condemns several embryos to death or being frozen at best.

[hellheaven1987]

Be deaf can still be conscripted right?

[athanaric]

In vitro fertilization is a wonderful invention. Parents can have doctors screen embryos and chose what characteristics they would like. Usually they chose to implant the most genetically healthy embryos.

Here's an article about a couple who did the exact opposite. They deliberately chose to have a deaf child. About 5% of IVF customers select for "negative" traits (source). The mother who had the deaf child argued:


Which is a fair argument. What do you think of this?

What, just so they could prove a retarded point for the sake of their own holier-than-thou attitude? They belong in jail and the child should be adopted by responsible people.
Intentionally harming another person is a crime and moreso, if it's your own child.

Also, the "argument" they chose is a) retarded and b) racist. Black skin is not a disability.

[DaniCatBurger]

"Using science", "abusing science"

Do we use science?

We use to ask questions, don't we?

[Enros]

I don't really see a moral difference between chosing to mutilate a child and chosing to implant a mutilated embryo when there are a selection of healthy ones available. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, it shouldn't be violated without a very good medical reason.

Imagine IVF was used for female genital mutilation. Instead of cutting with blades, they simply selected embryos with a genital mutation they thought desirable. It would be instantly banned. Chosing to implant deaf embryos is just as bad. Removing bits of humans you don't like to feed your ego is absolute psychopathy.

Also, the "argument" they chose is a) retarded and b) racist. Black skin is not a disability.

We shouldn't reject embryos that might have black skin. We should reject embryos that might be genetically predisposed to be racist.

[Iskar]

I don't really see a moral difference between chosing to mutilate a child and chosing to implant a mutilated embryo when there are a selection of healthy ones available. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, it shouldn't be violated without a very good medical reason.

There is a huge moral difference in that. They are not making one individual deaf, they are choosing between several individuals. "The child" is a misleading notion, as it looks like independent of the embryo chosen the individual finally born would be the same, with or without hearing.

However, if the parents-to-be choose another, able-bodied embryo, that does not make the deaf embryo (or the child it would have developed to) non-deaf. On the contrary it simply excludes it from life and gives that opportunity to another individual, namely the non-deaf embryo. Bodily integrity does not pertain to innate handicaps and the right to live is even more fundamental than that, if you somehow wish to apply it.
The ethic issue of IVF is that it denies the right to live to the not-chosen embryos. Choosing a disabled embryo is, apart from that, not morally reprehendable, as giving that individual the opportunity to live a deaf life rather than no life at all is certainly the better choice.

[Enros]

There is a huge moral difference in that. They are not making one individual deaf, they are choosing between several individuals. "The child" is a misleading notion, as it looks like independent of the embryo chosen the individual finally born would be the same, with or without hearing.

However, if the parents-to-be choose another, able-bodied embryo, that does not make the deaf embryo (or the child it would have developed to) non-deaf. On the contrary it simply excludes it from life and gives that opportunity to another individual, namely the non-deaf embryo. Bodily integrity does not pertain to innate handicaps and the right to live is even more fundamental than that, if you somehow wish to apply it.
The ethic issue of IVF is that it denies the right to live to the not-chosen embryos. Choosing a disabled embryo is, apart from that, not morally reprehendable, as giving that individual the opportunity to live a deaf life rather than no life at all is certainly the better choice.

I don't agree that it is better for a zygote or embryo to live than have no life at all.

Human beings have the right to bodily integrity but zygotes and embryos do not. When chosing which embryo we will use to make a human being, we should make our choice so that we don't violate the future human's bodily integrity.

[Phier]

I don't agree that it is better for a zygote or embryo to live than have no life at all.

Human beings have the right to bodily integrity but zygotes and embryos do not. When chosing which embryo we will use to make a human being, we should make our choice so that we don't violate the future human's bodily integrity.

While on paper I embrace a mild form of Eugenics, such as aborting downs syndrome babies, the problem is where does one draw the line on what is "body integrity".

The possibilities here are perhaps too deep for this kind of discussion, but lets say a black family really believed in white privilege and wanted their children to have the same so were were able to alter the genes for skin tone and some basic features to make their children appear white. This is probably a real possibility in the near future as such genes seem particularly "fragile" genetically, meaning they change easy. Did they violate their child's body integrity?

We like to look at this as say a dwarf couple wanting to be sure their children are also dwarves, or some other generally accepted "defect" but this is a legitimate slippery slope in genetics.

[Iskar]

I don't agree that it is better for a zygote or embryo to live than have no life at all.

Human beings have the right to bodily integrity but zygotes and embryos do not. When chosing which embryo we will use to make a human being, we should make our choice so that we don't violate the future human's bodily integrity.

Maybe I should specify that I consider an embryo a human being, not some underprivileged precursor state of it.