Refusing to Cast a Deaf Ear to the Ethics of Maintaining Deafness within a Deaf Family
You may not be affected by this topic but as one interested in the ethical issues within society, it is important that you don't ignore and cast a deaf ear on an ethics topic that relates to behavioral actions of other cultures attempting to maintain uniformity and comfort.
There is a view in the culture of the Deaf to maintain deafness within the deaf family. The options, which have been proposed in the literature to accomplish this cultural requirement would be to 1) prior to implantation of a preserved embryo to first determine whether it had the genetic makeup to be deaf and, if so, proceed with implantation and 2) have the mother take a toxin during a normally started pregnancy to cause the fetus to be born deaf. Of course, there is a third option: for the family to adopt a deaf child into that deaf family.
So without casting that deaf ear to this topic, do my visitors agree that there is nothing unethical in the culture of the Deaf to maintain that culture by acquiring a deaf child? If the goal of maintaining the culture is ethical, then about the options presented, would my visitors consider them all ethical to meet that goal? If not, which ones and why? I will be interested to read your opinions. ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 10:43:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
M Hayry writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics 2004 and available as a pdf file through this Scholar Google link , provides one view of the ethics of the issues in this thread's topic. The Abstract of the article follows. What do you think? ..Maurice.
If genetic diagnosis and preimplantation selection could be
employed to produce deaf children, would it be acceptable
for deaf parents to do so? Some say no, because there is
no moral difference between selecting a deaf embryo and
deafening a hearing child, and because it would be wrong
to deafen infants. It is argued in this paper, however, that
this view is untenable. There are differences between the
two activities, and it is perfectly possible to condone genetic
selection for deafness while condemning attempts to
deafen infants at birth.
Simiilar ethical situation as this one - http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/09/ccas2-0709.html
Jenny, thanks for the url to the VirtualMentor article. It is very appropriate to my blog topic. ..Maurice.
As an audiologist, we sometimes struggle with parents who do not want to correct their child's hearing because they want them to remain a part of the "deaf culture". Actually introducing a disability (I know - deaf people don't look at it that way - but I do) - seems to be crossing a line. Of course, drawing a line introduces its own issues. Interesting dilemma.
WV mike
WV mike, as an audiologist, in contrast to the professional responsibilities of a general physician, could an issue regarding your own profession's potential conflict of interest be part of the issue of the dilemma including the "drawing of a line"? ..Maurice.
I don't see how COI would be a problem - I would benefit more from a deaf child than a hearing one. Of course, as an audiologist, my role would be strictly counseling - not actually performing any service to the parents.
WV mike
But isn't the audiologist's professional work to followup on the initial counseling in the case where the parents decision is to accept hearing therapy? Thus, if the parents accept such therapy, you would continue to be professionally involved compared with those parents who reject treatment. As you suggested, your professional interest would be to consider the deafness of a child a disability. Maybe I misunderstood your point or your audiology responsibilities other than initial counseling. ..Maurice.
After the fact, I guess it hardly matters - you do what needs to be done. As I see this dilemma it is whether or not it is ethical to encourage or even assist parents who want to produce a child who - in my professional opinion - is disabled. And, as usual, I don't have a good answer.
WV mike
Post a Comment
<< Home