'The right to be deaf'

A deaf artist who rejoices in the name of Tomato Lichy  - crazy name, crazy guy - was on the Today programme on Monday, talking about "the right to be deaf". You can listen to the item via Today's website. This is on the back of a new bill going through parliament which would screen out deaf embryos in relation to IVF. Here is an earlier interview with Mr Lichy, in which he expresses delight at his daughter being born deaf. Many deaf activists refute the notion that deafness is a disability. The movement known as Deaf Culture  - 'we have a language, ergo we have a culture', the language being BSL or ASL - sees deafness as being merely a difference, like being black, or gay.

Three comment pieces about this today: one from Dominic Lawson in The Independent, who says that obviously deaf couples want deaf children, and which you can read here; one from Andrew O'Hagan in the Telegraph, who says that deafness is a "gift" children can do without, and which is here; and one from Cathy Heffernan in The Guardian, about the hearing's attitude to the deaf, which is here.

Oops, one more: Daniel Finkelstein in the Times - he thinks that "choosing a deaf baby is criminal" - is here.

Update: this was the  topic on  Radio 4's The Moral Maze this week - you can listen again via the prog's website. The discussion moved on to special needs generally (in relation to screening, genetics, "impaired" embryos and medical advances) and is really, really interesting - do listen if you can.

All of this reminds me of hearing the brilliant actor Richard Griffiths on Desert Island Discs last year (I think), talking about his silent childhood - both his parents were deaf and he learned to sign when he was very young in order to communicate with them. Would his parents, if they'd had the opportunity, have preferred him to have been deaf? And, rather more crucially, would he?
 

Comments

[Lux Aeterna]

If, for the sake of argument, we leave aside the complex issues about creating embryos that are then not permitted to develop because they are not implanted, then the argument seems to me to be simple. All humans, and the vast majority of other vertebrates, have ears. If those ears do not work, then the individual is disabled, and at a disadvantage to others. It is wrong deliberately to bring into existence a disadvantaged individual.

[Sarah]

It worries me that the discriminatory foundations of this Bill have been glossed over in much of this debate. This policy clearly states that a child without a 'serious illness' must be automatically preferred to a one that does have one (or indeed, a risk of developing one). This is clear discrimination and implies that a Deaf life is one not worth living. If this legislation is passed a precedent of statutory interpretation will have been established – that deafness is indeed a ‘serious illness’. In future what other ‘conditions’ may be eradicated in this way? This medical conception of deafness is a narrow-minded denial of the richness and value of Deaf culture and community.

Deaf persons have many unique qualities to offer the rest of the world – can many hearing people claim to be able to attend an international conference and be able to communicate with any person of any nationality? Deaf persons can through adapting their beautiful and flexible language. Far from being isolated and lonely individuals, each Deaf person may become a member of a vast global community if they wish to do so.

Clause 14 should be recognised for what it is – yet another thinly veiled attempt to eradicate Deaf persons, motivated by economics. The brave parents at the heart of this debate are not seeking to ‘engineer’ a ‘designer baby’. The embryo is deaf, it already exists. They are simply saying that they would deeply love and cherish a child that others may see as disabled. What is so very terrible about that?

[Alison]

Deaf people are being forced to respond to this Bill, because the government is intent on screening out deaf embryos. Hearing embryos *must* always be preferred. Secondly, deaf gene carriers aren't allowed to be donors.

Here the government is making a bold policy statement who is permitted to exist, and who is permitted to reproduce and trying to enshrine this in law.

Whilst selection for the purposes of gender (except where there is a threating condition) and traits is banned, the government is intent on promoting a one way selection for the purposes of "healthy" children. This is wrong. It sends out a very clear message to society that we really really should not be here, and what the government really thinks of us. Its a 2008 form of eugenics, who is permitted to live and who not.

We do not see this as a curb on feminist rights, and not e.g. entering the abortion debate, but curbing reproductive liberty.