I don't understand why someone would intentionally want to create a child with a disability, either. I figure that <b>is</b> sadistic. However, I strongly oppose designer babies of any kind. Of course, I also believe that a program to change genetics is merely another possible step in evolution and within bounds of nature. I find contradictions soothing.
I suppose that I don't think our state is "ready" for the responsibility of having a say in how our babies are born. Sure, we already do to a certain extent with no smoking, no drinking, specific diets, Cesarean section births and so on. There's an indefinable line in my head about how much is too much, though. Like defining where red ends and orange begins.
As far as cybernetics and gene modification for adults go, I say bring it on. Adults at least have a choice in the matter. This moves us into the greater issues of who should have the power to decide. I feel that the person closest to the choice and who will be most effected by it and also able to make the decision should do it. In this case, the baby will be most effected, but can't decide. The parents will be second most effected and can decide. The state is hardly effected at all, but can decide.
I agree that a parent who would not take the medical option if it is low risk is a bad parent. I don't think there are enough parents of such low caliber that it warrants offloading such a decision to the state. If 9 out of 10 parents would rather have a blind baby that take the small risk of a medical procedure to fix it then that's another story entirely. In such a case, however, I think we'd have bigger issues because our most important responsibility as citizens is being forgotten.
I think part of the key to understanding the mindset of parents - such as the deaf couple desiring a deaf child - is the realization that they do not regard themselves as "disabled". _Society at large_ may, but that is not how these people feel and nobody enjoys being made to feel less than human.
Personally I feel that parents should want to give their children as many opportunities to live a happy, meaningful and long life as they can. So ja I find the notion that parents would want children specifically to be deaf to be a little selfish as I feel they should have the courage to allow their child to experience things that may be outside of their realm of experience.
However, the case of the IVF is rather interesting. If these two parents wished to use their own genetic materal (presumably) and the state decides that their genetic material is not good enough (i.e. deafness would be the likely outcome) I can very much understand how upset they would be considering that they are apparently able to thrive in society despite being deaf. Shouldn't they be allowed to use their own genetic material in this case?
It's not that they can't use their own genetic material for IVF (because they can - what's the point otherwise?), it's that the embroys would be screened for deafness. That's their complaint, which I can sympathise with to the extent that they are not specifically angling for a deaf child and will be just as happy with a child without disabilities.
Sometimes a donor egg is used for IVF though; so I wasnt sure if this was a case of the husband's sperm and a donor egg or the husband's sperm and the wife's egg for example.
I should have stated my thought a bit more clearly - what I'm getting at is that if they cannot produce a State-defined "viable" embryo using only their genetic material (or run out of the financial means to keep attempting the process) then for all practical purposes they have been barred from using their own genetic material.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1723682:date=Aug 20 2009, 01:39 AM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FilthyLarry @ Aug 20 2009, 01:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1723682"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would like to know more about what the actual procedures are though firstly. What are the risks/complications/cost ? Who bears the cost ? My guess is its not like waving a magic wand and all is well unfortunately.
A parent would have to consider the above very seriously.
Aside from that though, I can see both sides of the argument. One the one hand who wouldn't want someone else to experience a sunset with eyesight ? On the other hand do those that can't experience it with eyesight lead less of a meaningful life ?
What if in the future someone told you they could implant something in your head that would allow you to have visions of the future or become instantly aware of breaking news on CNN ? Would you consider yourself to be "suffering" without these things ? If not, why not ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe no state government should force such an operation on any family as that would be absurd. But doctors and others should strongly encourage people to do this. The question of cost is hilarious. Yes it might cost somewhat, but how do you compare that to a lifetime of hearing? You would pay for the surgery hundredfold with the easier time getting better jobs. Of course there are risks to all surgeries, but all you need to do is place a chip on the inside of the skull, and attach it to a dozens or more of nerve endings around the inner ear. It's a difficult operation as in it taking a long time, but it might even be less risky than most surgeries.
Of course, one thing people don't realize is that you get far from perfect hearing, with a low frequency range. You hear another frequency for every wire you connect to a nerve ending, in addition the chip and microphone sends the other frequencies to the same nerves, so you might hear a wider range, but everything sounds like it's similar in pitch. This is improving dramatically every year though, as we get better and better at this.
<!--quoteo(post=1724253:date=Aug 21 2009, 03:43 AM:name=Kassinger)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kassinger @ Aug 21 2009, 03:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724253"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe no state government should force such an operation on any family as that would be absurd. But doctors and others should strongly encourage people to do this. The question of cost is hilarious. Yes it might cost somewhat, but how do you compare that to a lifetime of hearing? You would pay for the surgery hundredfold with the easier time getting better jobs. Of course there are risks to all surgeries, but all you need to do is place a chip on the inside of the skull, and attach it to a dozens or more of nerve endings around the inner ear. It's a difficult operation as in it taking a long time, but it might even be less risky than most surgeries.
Of course, one thing people don't realize is that you get far from perfect hearing, with a low frequency range. You hear another frequency for every wire you connect to a nerve ending, in addition the chip and microphone sends the other frequencies to the same nerves, so you might hear a wider range, but everything sounds like it's similar in pitch. This is improving dramatically every year though, as we get better and better at this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't find the issue of cost all that amusing. Depending on where and who you are in the world it could be prohibitive. If you live in the USA for example, your health insurance may or may not help you cover the cost. I've seen price tags of $50,000-$60,000 for the surgery and in some parts of the country thats the cost of a house i.e. the kind of loan that people repay over many years and some will not be able to make ends meet with what would amount to a second house payment. Maybe ultimately the child would be able to land a better job (maybe) but that would be in the significant future whereas the financial help would be required in the present.
As for the risks of the surgery its all well and good to say "low risk" when it's not your own child. There is a reason people with implants were regarded as something like 30 times more likely to contract meningitis versus the general population. My understanding is that better technology is lowering this risk but my point is that people have had to suffer in order for this problem to be addressed and unfortunately I firmly believe that yet more problems will be associated with this kind of procedure as more long term studies are done.
How great is the chance to contract meningitis though? If you were to multiply the chance of winning a couple million in the lottery by thirty, it would still be negligibly low.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1724407:date=Aug 22 2009, 06:14 AM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FilthyLarry @ Aug 22 2009, 06:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724407"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you live in the USA for example, your health insurance may or may not help you cover the cost. I've seen price tags of $50,000-$60,000 for the surgery<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, I admit I was only thinking of the cost for society (which can afford to think long-term savings) rather than personal costs. I'm used to socialized medicine with a payment roof of 200$ a year.
<!--quoteo(post=1724412:date=Aug 21 2009, 08:06 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 21 2009, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How great is the chance to contract meningitis though? If you were to multiply the chance of winning a couple million in the lottery by thirty, it would still be negligibly low.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree per se; however this is of little comfort to the person that "wins" the disease lottery. Also remember that we're talking about placing a value judgement on certain parent's actions overall and therefore to be fair I feel the issue of health-concerns regards this kind of surgery is valid.
<!--quoteo(post=1724499:date=Aug 22 2009, 09:25 AM:name=Kassinger)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kassinger @ Aug 22 2009, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good point, I admit I was only thinking of the cost for society (which can afford to think long-term savings) rather than personal costs. I'm used to socialized medicine with a payment roof of 200$ a year.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ja, there's alot of debate over here now in the US regards health-care reform... so not sure if Obama is going to be able to bring about change here or not but stay tuned :)
(I agree about the overall/long-term saving aspect btw)
Comments
I suppose that I don't think our state is "ready" for the responsibility of having a say in how our babies are born. Sure, we already do to a certain extent with no smoking, no drinking, specific diets, Cesarean section births and so on. There's an indefinable line in my head about how much is too much, though. Like defining where red ends and orange begins.
As far as cybernetics and gene modification for adults go, I say bring it on. Adults at least have a choice in the matter. This moves us into the greater issues of who should have the power to decide. I feel that the person closest to the choice and who will be most effected by it and also able to make the decision should do it. In this case, the baby will be most effected, but can't decide. The parents will be second most effected and can decide. The state is hardly effected at all, but can decide.
I agree that a parent who would not take the medical option if it is low risk is a bad parent. I don't think there are enough parents of such low caliber that it warrants offloading such a decision to the state. If 9 out of 10 parents would rather have a blind baby that take the small risk of a medical procedure to fix it then that's another story entirely. In such a case, however, I think we'd have bigger issues because our most important responsibility as citizens is being forgotten.
Personally I feel that parents should want to give their children as many opportunities to live a happy, meaningful and long life as they can. So ja I find the notion that parents would want children specifically to be deaf to be a little selfish as I feel they should have the courage to allow their child to experience things that may be outside of their realm of experience.
However, the case of the IVF is rather interesting. If these two parents wished to use their own genetic materal (presumably) and the state decides that their genetic material is not good enough (i.e. deafness would be the likely outcome) I can very much understand how upset they would be considering that they are apparently able to thrive in society despite being deaf. Shouldn't they be allowed to use their own genetic material in this case?
I should have stated my thought a bit more clearly - what I'm getting at is that if they cannot produce a State-defined "viable" embryo using only their genetic material (or run out of the financial means to keep attempting the process) then for all practical purposes they have been barred from using their own genetic material.
A parent would have to consider the above very seriously.
Aside from that though, I can see both sides of the argument. One the one hand who wouldn't want someone else to experience a sunset with eyesight ? On the other hand do those that can't experience it with eyesight lead less of a meaningful life ?
What if in the future someone told you they could implant something in your head that would allow you to have visions of the future or become instantly aware of breaking news on CNN ? Would you consider yourself to be "suffering" without these things ? If not, why not ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe no state government should force such an operation on any family as that would be absurd. But doctors and others should strongly encourage people to do this. The question of cost is hilarious. Yes it might cost somewhat, but how do you compare that to a lifetime of hearing? You would pay for the surgery hundredfold with the easier time getting better jobs. Of course there are risks to all surgeries, but all you need to do is place a chip on the inside of the skull, and attach it to a dozens or more of nerve endings around the inner ear. It's a difficult operation as in it taking a long time, but it might even be less risky than most surgeries.
Of course, one thing people don't realize is that you get far from perfect hearing, with a low frequency range. You hear another frequency for every wire you connect to a nerve ending, in addition the chip and microphone sends the other frequencies to the same nerves, so you might hear a wider range, but everything sounds like it's similar in pitch. This is improving dramatically every year though, as we get better and better at this.
Of course, one thing people don't realize is that you get far from perfect hearing, with a low frequency range. You hear another frequency for every wire you connect to a nerve ending, in addition the chip and microphone sends the other frequencies to the same nerves, so you might hear a wider range, but everything sounds like it's similar in pitch. This is improving dramatically every year though, as we get better and better at this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I don't find the issue of cost all that amusing. Depending on where and who you are in the world it could be prohibitive. If you live in the USA for example, your health insurance may or may not help you cover the cost. I've seen price tags of $50,000-$60,000 for the surgery and in some parts of the country thats the cost of a house i.e. the kind of loan that people repay over many years and some will not be able to make ends meet with what would amount to a second house payment. Maybe ultimately the child would be able to land a better job (maybe) but that would be in the significant future whereas the financial help would be required in the present.
As for the risks of the surgery its all well and good to say "low risk" when it's not your own child. There is a reason people with implants were regarded as something like 30 times more likely to contract meningitis versus the general population. My understanding is that better technology is lowering this risk but my point is that people have had to suffer in order for this problem to be addressed and unfortunately I firmly believe that yet more problems will be associated with this kind of procedure as more long term studies are done.
Good point, I admit I was only thinking of the cost for society (which can afford to think long-term savings) rather than personal costs. I'm used to socialized medicine with a payment roof of 200$ a year.
I don't disagree per se; however this is of little comfort to the person that "wins" the disease lottery. Also remember that we're talking about placing a value judgement on certain parent's actions overall and therefore to be fair I feel the issue of health-concerns regards this kind of surgery is valid.
Ja, there's alot of debate over here now in the US regards health-care reform... so not sure if Obama is going to be able to bring about change here or not but stay tuned :)
(I agree about the overall/long-term saving aspect btw)