People with disabilities and culture

[English assassin]

Yeah OK the G word is being misused again.

And if a gay culture exists, it began and exists more or less as a support group to help people with a abnormal sexuality overcome society's exclusion of them and find fellowship among themselves and their families.

If we are able to eliminate the need for that support group, then there is no longer any need to perpetuate it.

I exaggerate to make the point, and don't mean to suggest that you would every say or think such a thing.

But in fact the last paragraph illustrates the dilemma neatly. Do we "eliminate the need for that support group" by eliminating the disability, or by eliminating society's problems with the disability? Who has the problem, the disabled person, or society? Some adult deaf people say its not them. Are they wrong?

[Goofball]

Yeah OK the G word is being misused again.



I exaggerate to make the point, and don't mean to suggest that you would every say or think such a thing.

But in fact the last paragraph illustrates the dilemma neatly. Do we "eliminate the need for that support group" by eliminating the disability, or by eliminating society's problems with the disability? Who has the problem, the disabled person, or society? Some adult deaf people say its not them. Are they wrong?

I understand your point. But there is a big difference between sexual orientation and not being able to hear because you are missing a part of your ear.

Yes, I know it's subjective on my part, and the homophobes among us would argue that homosexuality is a birth defect ( while at the same time maintaining that we can discriminate against them because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice) that we should correct if we can.

A homosexual can still take part in any of the "normal" activities in life that a heterosexual person can, if he or she so chooses.

A deaf person can't.

[Don Corleone]

Well, EA, interesting topic. The American Left would brandish you a misogynist and a fascist for even raising the question. How dare you suggest that a woman that makes the brave decision to do what's right for a handicapped fetus by terminating it, shouldn't?

This is why I don't understand the outrage over eugenics. We already have it, at the fetal level, why not allow it at the moment of conception?

Example: If I want a girl, my wife and I don't have the legal right to tell my doctor to inhibit male zygotes from developing. But I DO have the right to abort a fetus that is male. As it takes until approximately week 15 to determine the sex, doesn't this seem a bit bass ackwards? If I was a hair more cynical than I already am, I'd say abortionists have gotten their horse to the front, as they don't make any money from genetic selection, but fetal selection, aye there's gold in those hills for them.

Personally, I think this is one of those slippery slope arguments that actually holds up. Parents already abort children for being blind, deaf, developmentally challenged (mentally retarded, translated out of PC-ese). How much longer before we abort near sighted children?

And before you think I'm off my rocker on another tirade, I'd like to remind you all of a column that ran in the NY Times. One of the members of their editorial staff wanted a child. She got impregnated at a clinic, and as is like to happen with those fertility drugs, actually was carrying twins. Because she could envision leaving one child with a sitter all night, but two would cost too much for a sitter and hence intrude on her constitutional right to go clubbing all night long, she aborted one. She chose the boy because... he was a boy, of course!

[doc_bean]

How much longer before we abort near sighted children?

24 years ago, if they had know...

EDIT: I'd most likely keep the deaf child, forgot to add that.

[rory_20_uk]

Trisomy 21 (downs) is a genetic defect, pure and simple. Most of the other trisomies result in intrauterine death (although some do survive albeit with massive physical and mental defects).

Yes, the children are happy. And with modern medicine we can correct the heart "disability". Is that wrong - sure they'll die with a massive ASD or VSD, but is that somehow different as it is fatal?

Others such as systic fibrosis. Yup, the children are cheerful, and with modern medicine we can put off the side effects of pancreatic failure and emphysema, recurrent pneumonia and eventually death for longer.

As happy as they are, should society have to pay and pay for conditions that can be screened for? If the family have decided to have children that require masses of extra money, shouldn't they pay?

And then integration. My sigh is not great. I can't be a pilot due to this. Against my human rights? Possibly - but sensible.

Ambulance drivers can't have type i diabetes in case they collapse at the wheel. Same with train drivers. Again, I think that this is required.

Who wants a blind doctor? Anyone?
A deaf doctor?
Even a cheelchair bound one. (Getting to a cardiac arrest would be "interesting").

Those that are so for these practicing, think that they're doing so on your loved ones. They are doing a full job, and yes,they'll miss things. Are you OK with that?

Conditions like ADHD are partly due to children are increasingly spoilt. The rich had a no-nonsense nanny, and the poor were quickly in work and had to be have ASAP. Now children are in full time education until 18 and discipline is almost non existent.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Terminating a pregnancy for such severe, life altering medical conditions that have been mentioned should be totally up to the parents. I judge them not, no matter what they decide. If I were in that position, my greatest worry would be who will care for my child after I'm gone? Will my child be loved, happy and well cared for?

[Rameusb5]

As for the deaf issue: It seems to me that the people who are against these implants because their "Culture will no longer exist" are being extraordinarily selfish. So the fact that the children can benefit from having an entirely new sense isn't equal to the fact that you can all share your experiences of not being able to hear anything?

As for the downs syndrome kids being aborted, this is definately a slippery slope. At face value, it seems fair to say that they will probably have a difficult life and therefor would be better off not being born. But where do you draw the line? Should a couple who REALLY wants to have a girl be allowed to kill a male fetus? It sounds incredibly shallow but as far as I know it is perfectly legal to do that now. It will soon be possible to tell a LOT about what the child will look like before he's born, such as eye color and so forth. What's to stop couples from getting pregnant over and over again and aborting until they get their "perfect" child?

[GoreBag]

That a deaf person can't handle the prospect of someone else not being deaf is hilarious. If my child were deaf, I would try these implants, provided there was no associated health risk that potentially outweighed the benefit. I don't know anything about them, you see.

[Slyspy]

The "deaf community", which I doubt is unified on the subject, I disagree with their objections . If deafness caused by simple mechanical problems can be fixed at a young age then it should be done ASAP. As someone said earlier, the medical process is appled for the benefit of the child, not an outside interest group.

The abortion of an unborn with Downs is a difficult one. I suspect I would want the termination to go ahead, if the mother definitely wanted to abort. If not, I would not attempt to perseude of coerce her into a change of heart, rather I would do what I could for the child. Either outcome could, I'm not ashamed to admit, break me.

[doc_bean]

Man, hard questions here.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't know what I'd do if I heard I'd have a kid with Down syndrome. I know one guy that has it and he's reasonably happy (I'd assume), and his parents had to other children, BUT they still have to make huge sacrifices for their kid, and one of their biggest worries is what will happen after they die (well, at least he's got siblings who could take care of him I guess). Something like that really puts a huge strain on a family.
It's not just about the kid and its quality of life, it's also about your family, and any other kids you (plan to) have. Having a disabled child is not always fair to them either.

But like I said, I don't know what i'd do, it'll depend on what the misses says, and what the circumstances (financial amongst others) are we are in.

That said, some of these things I hear (and are written here) make me worry again about how obsessed our society is with 'perfect' children. Now, physical handicaps or Down's Syndrome are clear examples of 'disabled' people, but I saw a report on tv recently were they stated that 'manic depression is the new ADHD' and that God knows how many kids should be put on drugs to 'help' them. It does make me wonder how much attention we still pay to the uniqueness of an individual, as opposed to how good they are compared to some standard of normality.