Technology And Deaf Children: Ethical Dilemmas

Latest technology typically leads to unique ethical dilemmas, and this is particularly true when the technology impacts delicate, subjective matters like procreation. The idea of deaf parents using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select for genetically deaf children has initiated a provocative and sometimes acrimonious controversy between key stakeholders. While most hearing people (and some deaf people) see this approach as disturbing if not offensive, some deaf parents view deafness to be an essential aspect of their lives, a culture rather than a concern, that they want their children to contribute in. But if parents were to intentionally cause a hearing child to be deaf, they would face a tide of moral outrage and serious legal

Approximately one in every 1000 children is either born deaf or develops pro-found hearing loss during the first few years of life, defined as pre-lingual deafness. Deafness can occur as a consequence of a range of genetic and environmental factors. Approximately half of all congenital deafness is due to single gene mutations.
However, one issue in this situation is, what kind of influence would this have on children who discovered that their parents desperately attempted to deny them of a sense? Another issue with this is, should the child be able to take legal action against the geneticist or physician after reaching the age of majority for intentional maiming? Yet at the same time, by restricting deaf parents from implementing the technology in the way they feel best while allowing non-deaf people to do so, discriminates against deaf people. This leads us to our central issue, should deaf parents be allowed to pick traits that reflect themselves in their children? First stance is yes, deaf parents should be offered this right, because deafness is a "culture that should be recognized and conserved," even if it is not understood by the hearing community, rather than a

If humanity is going against nature and are imposing their own morality upon human life, then humans should also be free by permitting society to provide children a better world than ours. And as mentioned before, some mothers and fathers don't view particular genetic conditions as disabilities but as a way to access into a rich, shared culture. Besides, just because it is not natural, does not precisely mean it is not okay. Living in a brick house isn't natural either. Another error in my stance is that since God provided us with the intellect to create this technology, why wouldn't he want us to use it? God is not against science, so how to apply that gift is peoples’ responsibility only. Thus, going back to the topic, the conflict then is between the interest of the parents – to have the child they want – and that of society, which has to provide for a child with special needs. And the last error in my stance is that PGD allows us to prevent diseases that newborns are vulnerable to. If we have the technology to accomplish this, why wouldn't we? If PGD was used to eliminate genetic diseases or for couples who have difficulty conceiving, shouldn’t it be allowed? After all, genetic screening can reduce the baby's chances of being born with several significant diseases like Down