Moral implications of deliberately trying to cause disability to a planned baby?

Great Debates
1

A question arose in a thread in the Pit, and I figure that a good place to have a flame free discussion would be GD.

The situation is like this: A woman decides to get pregnant. Due to circumstances the only way for her to do that is to get sperm from a sperm donor. The mother, and her partner, are deaf. The mother deliberately and with conscious intent chooses a donor who will maximize the chance of the child being congentially deaf.

The question arises, what is her moral culpability in wilfully attempting to remove the possibility of hearing for her child?

Would it make a substantive difference if this disability was induced after birth, say, by surgically removing the child’s eardrums? What if via physical/chemical means this was done in utero?

In the same vein, what would the reaction be in similar situations? If, for instance, a mother deliberately started taking heroin before getting pregnant in order to have a child who was born an addict, or drank heavily in order to induce fetal alcohol syndrome, or deliberately looked for a sperm donor who would have a good chance of passing on any number of heritable diseases/disabilities of a physical or mental nature.

Are parents obligated to refrain from deliberately causing lifelong damage to a fetus/child/what-have-you that they plan on bringing to term? And just to lay my cards on the table, I believe it to be an absolutely abhorent action on the mother’s part and morally reprehensible to boot.

What do y’all think?

2

It strikes me as a bit cruel and narcissistic. Most parents want to give their children the best possible life they can provide. The despicable part of this is that they are intentionally bringing a disabled child into the world while I’m certain there are deaf children in adoption agencies worldwide.

3

For me it’s exactly the same thing (morally) as removing the child’s eardrums after they’re born. While the likelihood of success is different (the child may not inherit the congenital deaf gene/s) the intent is the same - we’re going to make our baby deaf.

While you’re carrying that child (and going to bring it to term) you have the same duties to it as you would have to a toddler - don’t let it get harmed in any way.

4

I don’t think it’s the same thing at all. This child isn’t harmed. He just wouldn’t have existed had she made another choice. It’s not “we’re going to make our baby deaf”, because this implies this baby comes in “deaf” and “non-deaf” versions. It isn’t the case. It’s rather : “there’s a pool of potential babies, some deaf and some not, and we’re picking one of the deaf ones”.

I don’t like much the concept, either, but it’s in no way same, morally speaking, as deliberatly harming a non-deaf baby.

5

It seems to me (and perhaps this has been brought up in the other thread, which I haven’t read) that they simply chose a donor who had similar traits to the non-genetically related mother.

After all, if these two women could combine their genes, chances would be similarly high for deafness. There is no general outrage when two deaf hetero people decide to have a baby through sexual intercourse. It seems like this is putting an extra burden on the bio mother: most of us don’t get to screen for defects, but you get to choose your sperm, so you should choose wisely - and by “wisely”, we mean “not like you”. The rest of us get the crap shoot, but you must be responsible for the DNA you use, and bear the guilt for making the “wrong” choice.

If my husband was infertile, I’d consider choosing a donor who was also tall, blue eyed and brown hired and left-handed and intellegent - not because they’re so important as traits (well, maybe intellegence is for me), but because the child would have a good chance of being rather like my husband. Whom I like a lot. I’d like his child to be as much like him as possible, even if it’s not his sperm used to create it. While I might secretly prefer right-handedness*, I much more prefer that my husband feel his child is like him. It makes it less like an artificial choice to find a donor much like my husband. Is being left-handed a disability? Well, death and injury rates are higher, but my husband tells me it’s an acceptable risk to him and he wouldn’t switch to being a righty if he could.

It seems that actual deaf people would be better suited to make a choice like this than my own hearing self. I have no real idea of the quality of a deaf person’s life - they do. Obviously, it’s something they’ve decided is very livable, and perhaps even enjoyable in a way that I cannot fathom. Good.

So I guess what I’m saying is that as long as the donor is simply replicating a set of traits the non-bio parent has, I have no ethical problem here. Two hearing parents seeking out deaf sperm to satisfy some weird deaf fetish or to make a political point, I would find more objectionable.

*FTR, I don’t give a crap either way. But if I did, I’d be free to choose a left-hander, even though it could be considered a liability.

6

Even though it often is a liability, left-handedness isn’t all that hereditary. Two left-handed people, such as my parents, only have a 30-40% chance of producing a left-handed child. The others are probably going to be right-handed, like my brother. Given other claims that up to 1/3 of toddlers show a preference for their left hand before being “encouraged” by adults to use their right instead, it could just be that instead of being that much more likely to produce a child like them two left-handed parents are far less likely to try to fix a child who is also left-handed, anyway.
As for the OP, I don’t like the idea of doing that, but it’s hard to come down on the side of it being morally wrong. As clairobscur and WhyNot have said, the baby wasn’t made to be deaf, it just had a fair chance of it happening, and people should be able to pick whoever they want to father their children. Take me for example, I prefer guys with very dark hair. If I have children, I do not want them to have red hair, too. Genes for black hair mixed with mine would be a very good way to minimize the odds of having a child with red hair. There’s nothing morally wrong with that, is there?

If I could do something that petty to put the odds in favor of deselecting a trait, I don’t see why this couple can’t as well. It’s different than if they’d aborted a bunch of babies who would have had hearing before carrying one to term who’d of been deaf.

7

I think the main difference, WhyNot, is that having a natural kid is the simplest option for the hetero couple, whereas the lesbians actually went to more trouble to get a deaf kid than they would have needed for a hearing kid.

8

I think it’s obvious that the trait “deafness” is not universally seen as a disability. These women don’t see it that way, as do thousands of others. I think people who doubt the existence of “deaf culture” are being narrow-minded. The ability to hear is a great thing, but if I were deaf, I’d probably be offended if people kept reminding me at how much a disadvantage of was. Especially if I didn’t feel the slightest bit disadvantaged.

Imagine we discovered that most of us possess a sixth sense: the ability to read minds. As with any other trait, some people are better at reading minds than others, and a sizable minority of the population possesses no telepathic ability. I could envision that telepaths would feel that non-telepaths were somehow mentally disabled, that the mind-reading trait should be viewed as “normal”. But I can also envision that some non-telepaths would feel unduly stigmitized with such treatment, and some of them–in an effort to esteem their identity and worth–would desire to have children like themselves.

Not being deaf, I’m just speculating here, but possibly to some deaf people–hearing is akin to mind-reading. It’s a nice thing to have, but non-essential and possibly disruptive. Imagine if you were a non-telepath and had a telepathic child. It might trouble you that your child has access to the intimate thoughts of others, including yours, without your knowledge. You might feel ill-equipped to handle such a child simply because you can’t totally relate. A deaf person might feel the same way with a hearing child. That child wants to listen to music, something you’ve never heard. That child wants to go to the movies, watch TV that isn’t closed-caption, join the chorus at school, and hang out with friends who don’t use sign language. Can you relate to someone like this, if you’ve had no experience doing these things? You might also worry that your child will adopt the “deafness is bad” meme and feel shame towards you and your culture. And they might go on to mate with other hearing people (who will probably be uncomfortable at a Thanksgiving table surrounded by deaf mutes)–potentially alienating you from your future grandchildren (the whole language barrier thing).

Yes, these concerns are selfish but raising a child is a selfish endeavor. Parents always want their children to be people that are like them.

So no, I don’t think the women in the OP are bad people. They are simply human.

9

I consider it completely unethical. Suppose they didn’t want a kid smarter than themselves, and took a drug that kept the embryo’s brain from developing properly ? What if they decided to castrate boy children ? What if the wanted to keep the kid “innocent”, so they isolated him/her and denied the kid any education ?

It’s a parents duty to ensure that a child is as healthy and capable as possible; that does not allow the deliberate removal of capability. It’s un-PC to say this, but being deaf is worse than hearing; being deaf is a lack.

10

monstro, I guess that my response here would be “Look out for that car about to hit you from behind!”

Seriously, though, while I am more that willing to recognize that there is such a thing as a Deaf Culture, at the end of the day the lack of one of your senses is a disability. That is why we, as a society, pay for all of the reasonable accommodations for this particular disability as outlined in the ADA.

11

Well, no, not necessarily. Deafness is the potential result of a multitude of pathologies.

In the case of the couple being discussed, they had specifically sought out a sperm donor who had the exact genetic mutation that matched the mother so as to make it certain the baby would be deaf.

12

There’s a debate here?

I don’t see that the moral implications are all that different from planned pregnancies designed to maximize a child’s abilities. This is just on the other extreme of the scale between “average hearing” and “exceptional hearing”, but its being opposite, to me, doesn’t make automatucally it wrong. There’s a reason “differently abled” is preferred to “disability.”

There’s also a reason multiculturalism holds the view of all cultures being essentially the same in terms of innate worth and importance, rather than ranking them by longevity, population size and distribution, and global influence (as many tend to do), including the culture of the deaf. They have a language-based ethnicity with mores and values deaf people hold just as dear as anyone else who follows the tenets of their own particular ethnic group, be it religious, racial, sexual, regional, political or what have you.

I’d have problems if it were a hearing person arbitrarily deciding to “make” and raise a deaf child with no regard, understanding, fluency in, or empathy with deaf culture-- just not the scenario presented here.

Last point: as long as that child’s parent is loving, caring, mindful and dutiful, I could (in most cases) give a damn about a person’s motives for wanting a child that’s just like them.

(On preview) Binarydrone. We as a society subsidize multibillion dollar corporations and family farms. I think people who are differently abled deserve the right to equal access as everyone – not pity, as your post seems to imply.

13

I agree. Deaf “culture” is just an attempt to make lemons into lemonade. Sure, it’s great that deaf people can use their common language to form bonds and cope with their limitations through solidarity but it’s a culture that’s born out of necessity. I’d rather have a world in which there was no deafness even if it meant the loss of deaf culture.

And what would stop a hearing person from participating in deaf culture? Even if these women had a hearing child the kid would still be able to sign; in fact he’d probably use sign as his first language and be pretty immersed in deaf culture. But this child is now going to be prohibited from participating in hearing culture to a large extent, not because he’s not allowed, but because he can’t. And hearing culture is the culture of the vast majority of the world. The parents desired to have a deaf child in order to LIMIT their opportunities, since the communication barrier only goes one way. And that, to me, is immoral. I really wonder what is going to happen once this child finds out what his parents chose for him.

As for the telepath example, yes, if that were the case then non-teeps would be disabled and if I were to have a child through IVF I would prefer sperm from someone with telepathy. In fact, I’d insist on it. If I didn’t I would feel as though I was denying my child the possibility of developing a very useful ability and limiting their ability to experience the world. The word “disability” means the LACK of some kind of ability. It’s not similar to hair color or even handedness at all.

But I think the worst thing that these parents have done is that they won’t give their child (who has partial functioning in one ear) a hearing aid. The ability to understand spoken language decreases every year someone goes untreated. This kid might have the limited ability to participate in the mainstream world someday, and they’re cutting him off from even that. Sick.

All in all, an awful situation.

There is no inherent problem with having brown skin, or being gay, or being Muslim. If it weren’t for the prejudices of society these things wouldn’t matter. But even if all social stigma around deafness were removed they would still be at a disadvantage. Explain how not being able to hear is NOT an inherent disadvantage.

14

See, I don’t think that’s analogous. For one thing, it’s not like they are altering the development of the fetus and purposefully trying to create something. Even though they are stacking the odds in favor of a deaf child, they aren’t creating one.

If I had a choice between a super genius baby (the kind of kid that graduates from college at age 10, has a Ph.D in rocket science by 15) and a baby with my level of intelligence (smart but not much more than above-average), I’d choose the latter. Why? Because I don’t believe intelligence is everything, and I’d worry about the trade-offs involved with having an extreme trait like that (will they be socially normal? will they be easily frustrated? bored? arrogant and conceited?) I’d also want a child who I could relate to, who has aspirations that I can easily help fulfill, who develops in a manner that I can somewhat predict . I don’t think I’d purposefully seek to create a child with my brains, nor would I give up a super genius baby for adoption. But I think I would be more comfortable having a child like me. Is this feeling unethical?

Now, in writing this I’ve thought about the case of Down’s Syndrome. What if two people with Down’s decided to have children in a deliberate effort to create a “Down’s” baby? I admit I’d be disconcerted by this, but this only highlights how differently I view deafness and mental retardation. Not all disabilities are the same. Not all disabilities have a “culture” surrounding them. Not all disabilities have the same prognosis for adaptation.

I suppose my feeling is that there is a degree of “ooginess” whenever anyone seeks out to design a child, whether a “normal” one or a “not-normal” one. I would feel creeped out if a woman were to get sperm from a tall man to create a tall child, not because there’s anything wrong with tall people but because of the “GATTICA” aspect of the situation. I know mating isn’t random and that, subconsciously or not, we select mates based on the genes we perceive them having. But it’s still kind of…oogy…to intentionally select genes. Not unethical, I don’t think, but just weird.

15

I think that the issue of deafness might be a little different than ‘choosing’ other disabilities. There is a huge argument in deaf communities about things like cochlear implants and ‘fixing’ deafness and whether deafness is something that needs to be, or ought to be, cured. I can quite see a deaf couple wanting deaf children and hoping that they’ll be able to transmit deaf culture to the next generation. Hetero deaf couples often do want that exact thing. It’s a complex and fraught issue. I wonder if the couple has discussed the possiblity that the child, if deaf, may want to get implants? What would they do then?
But I don’t think it’s a discussion that is going to transfer to other disabilities. Who is going to choose to have a child with CP or Down’s Syndrome or something like that? People are more and more choosing to abort pregnancies that test positive for genetic defects; Down’s Syndrome children are becoming rare. What implications does that have for our society? Have we decided that certain kinds of people do not deserve life, or that they would prefer not to live? Individual couples faced with that situation aren’t usually thinking about that kind of thing; they’re just afraid and overwhelmed. But the wider result is that we no longer see very many babies with genetic defects. What are the moral implications of this opposite situation? (Not that I want to discuss that here; I just want to point out that very few people are going to choose to have children with disabilities, and deafness is rather a unique situation. So the thread title is too general, really.)

16

Yes, it would be unethical. You’d limit your child’s intelligence (and no, intelligence isn’t everything, but I’d say the same thing if the trait was super-attractiveness or super-empathy) just so you didn’t have to feel uncomfortable around them. Wrong.

17

What stops a deaf couple from transmitting deaf culture to a hearing child? Hearing people are able to sign.

18

A distinction without a difference.

Yes, it’s unethical. Also, ethical or not your children would likely grow up to hate you. If my parents could have made me a genius but refused, I’d have hated them as long as they lived, and spat on their graves. I would never have forgiven them.

I see no significant difference. “Preserving deaf culture” isn’t worth hurting kids.

Weird or not, it’s a good idea.

19

I don’t like to equate deafness with ethnicity, but can’t the same be said for other cultures? In fact, black Americans have a shared culture, one born out of necessity (dealing with centuries of “The Man”). I’m sure many would say praising black culture is an attempt to make lemons into lemonade.

You don’t have to piss on deaf culture in order to make your point.

Sure, they can participate in it, perhaps even fully. But I imagine it’s like the worry of first-generation immigrants. They see their children embracing a language and a way of life that excludes them. Their sense of connectedness with their offspring is more fragile. Their sense of identity is troubled when their children marry “outsiders” and have children that don’t resemble them. It’s human nature to feel like this.

I too wonder about this.

I can’t read minds and I don’t consider myself disabled. I’ve done well in school and have a successful life. I don’t feel particularly stunted because I don’t know what you’re thinking right now.

I also think that being a non-telepath has advantages. I’m not constantly bombarded by people’s intrusive thoughts. My feelings don’t have to be hurt whenever I “hear” someone thinking bad things about me. I can concentrate on my own thinking; in fact, I think I’m more intuned to my thoughts than a telepath is. My life is much simpler, much less full of drama, than a telepath’s. I don’t think I have a disability at all.

Right now, a deaf person would have advantage over me. I live on a God-awfully busy street and can’t seem to tune out all the traffic roaring pass me. The noise from the street has actually kept me awake at night.

What if you could go into a clinic and design an embryo that contained the best genes conferring the best traits? Height, metabolism, intelligence, emotional balance, etc. Everything to give your child the best “abilities”. Would you do it? Would it matter to you if the child that you produced is nothing like you?

To a deaf person, perhaps they see their condition as conferring special abilities. Maybe they feel more in tune with visual cues (deaf people have been contracted by law enforcement to read lips). Maybe they feel that silent communication is more emotionally intimate than audio communication and that this bonus outweighs the challenge of not being able to hear.

There are trade-offs involved with many traits. In some environments, the negative aspects are heightened, but in other environments the positives shine through. Short height is disadvantegous in a number of situations, but would you call it a disability? I wouldn’t. I can see how the same argument could be applied to deafness.

20

There is a HUGE difference between selecting for a trait genetically and blindly altering a baby’s phenotype. Genes are complex and interact with each other in unpredictable, subtle, unforseeable ways, some good, some bad. There is only one outcome of poisoning a fetus’s brain: irrepairable, widespread damage.

My father had a choice to have a child with my mother, his wife, or to hook up with a white woman and have very light-skinned looking children. In this society, light-skin is associated with good looks, trustworthiness, intelligence, and moral fiber. My life would have probably turned out very differently, probably for the better, if my skin were lighter. I guess I should hate him for not selecting the very best for me.

And before you say it: no, there is no inherent quality attached to skin color. But as you say, this is a distinction without a difference. Whether we like it or not, our society is our environment and it strongly influences the kind of life we will live.

Being a genius is a great thing, but I wouldn’t select for a “genius” gene any more than I would select for a “hairy ears” gene. Why? BECAUSE I LIKE MY GENES. The only imperative that mating organisms have is to pass on their genes. Not the “best” genes. Most successful people aren’t geniuses. In fact, in an ecological sense, the most “successful” people tend not to be very educated.

I’m sure the deaf women being talked about in this thread don’t feel hurt at all. If deaf people say they aren’t hurt, who are you to tell them differently?

No it is not. Did you watched GATTICA? It was a stupid movie, I admit, but the take-home message was not in support of genetic engineering.

As a biologist, I have no problem with people screening for genes that are strongly linked with diseases and conditions. But I do have a problem with the idea of people crafting genotypes together artificially, with no understanding of how genetics works. A gene codes for chemicals, and we all know from chemistry class that chemicals thrown nilly willy together can produce amazing things, but they can also produce disasters. Some more subtle than others.

I’m not about to “design” a genius baby and then discover years down the line that I accidently designed a crazy, sociopathic, mother-killing genius baby. And if the baby were to kill me, I think I would deserve it for screwing around with it too much.