The aforementioned article
The aforementioned article is culturally based. Duchesneau and her partner tried their best so that they could give birth to a deaf son. She does not see deafness as a disability. instead, she considers it to be a continuation of what she calls the culture of deafness. That’s why she wishes that her son is born deaf too. Making such a decision is not very right. Deafness can never be considered as a culture when we look at it differently. It is a disability that only arises with little or no human control. The little human control is only possible through genetic means, which the couple opted to use so that their son would be born deaf. Duchesneau and McCullough have made their efforts to embrace physical defeat. In my opinion, it is not a good decision to make their son deaf. The decision should be left to their son to choose whether he wants to be deaf or not.
To such an extent, the government should step in and control the reproductive powers. If everyone was allowed to freely genetically modify their children, then there would be plenty of people with disabilities, in the name of culture continuation. Scientists and philosophers have had motions on the increased number of immoralities that have been brought about by the new reproductive technologies (Rutjens et al.. 2018). The government should be involved in extents where misuse of this technology is present.
Gauvin Hughes was born with partial deafness. This was however not the expectation of his parents. The women told the family and friends that Gauvin is perfectly deaf. They did so to hide their sons’ condition. Though he had partial hearing ability his parents did not make any effort of equipping him with hearing aids. This was not right. Deafness is not a choice. They were making the wrong decision by doing so. They would have bought some hearing aids for Gauvin, then leave him with the choice of whether he would live with them or not. Parent’s rights to make such decisions should only apply only in circumstances where the decision is beneficial and end where their decision is of no benefit or cause harm, like in this case.
In conclusion, the government should be involved in any decision that parents make on their children. With the increased reproductive technology, many parents have been misusing this chance to transfer harmful characteristics to their children. Such actions should be controlled.
References.
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0409.html
Rutjens, B. T., Heine, S. J., Sutton, R. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2018). Attitudes towards science. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 57, pp. 125-165). Academic Press.