4 ms·

Cochlear implants do have side effects health-wise and consequences, though. That's precisely what I was thinking of. They are very expensive, destroys any hear

Cochlear implants do have side effects health-wise and consequences, though. That's precisely what I was thinking of. They are very expensive, destroys any hearing the person may still have, can cause nerve damage, has questionable 'hearing' clarity... Asking a deaf person "would you cure your deafness if you could with no side effects" ignores the reality that current abilities to 'cure' deafness do come with significant side effects, and people who consider them need to also consider the pros and cons of undergoing the procedure. In contrary to 'stripping away info to dive into the ethics' you are trying to do, I believe you'll never approach the ethics without the nuances of the actual circumstances people are actually likely to be dealing with.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Some in the Deaf community feel that even without side effects like that, that Deaf children should not receive them. That Deafness is not a disability, just a difference, and that "curing" it would be killing a culture much as raising Native American children in schools that banned their languages and culture did. "Should we do the procedure at all" comes before "are the side effects of a specific implementation of the procedure worth it".
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Clearly it should be the choice of the individual (or parents) to receive treatment or not. Why is this even a debate. With any elective treatment, there isn't going to be 100% adoption.
  - vertex-four 7y ago
    No, it should not be the choice of the parents - the parents should not be able to force an unethical treatment onto their child. If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people, rather than telling us to undergo treatment that we don't want to make us more like them?
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Some parents feed their kids growth hormone just so they don't end up being too short. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being short, but we do this for all sorts of things where we know people are at a disadvantage with. We give kids braces, vaccines, etc. How are any of those different? Assuming, it was a healthy and vetted treatment, how would it be different?
    - krageon 7y ago
      What makes a treatment unethical? Parents should be able to treat things that they view as disabilities to their best judgement. That is their responsibility as parents. I'm not comfortable with saying that parents need to be limited in such a way. At the same time, when we see people that do not vaccine their children that also makes me angry. Perhaps it is a fuzzy line and we need to recognise that this is the case without making too many blanket statements. > If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people Society has no requirement to accept autistic people. Some people will be willing to work with them just as they always have and some people might not. That's their choice, just like it is the choice of an autistic person (or maybe their parents! I'm not sure) whether or not to seek treatment. If you feel that being excluded sometimes is a fundamental pressure to seek treatment, I have bad news for you: You will never get along with everyone.
      - vertex-four 7y ago
        No, it is not the responsibility of parents to force things on their children. Children are not property to be owned and controlled by their parents against the children's will. That we've wound up believing this is honestly embarrassing.
        krageon 7y ago
        The reason we make parents responsible for their children until a certain age is because we as a collective have judged them incapable of doing so for themselves. I don't know how long it has been for you, but for me it has not been so long that I do not remember being incapable of making big life decisions.
  - gugagore 7y ago
    It's not entirely about choice. It's about attitudes of medical professionals. Imagine you have a deaf child, have no experience with Deaf culture, and a professional convinces you to give your child a CI. Yeah, obviously it's the parents' choice. But what are they compelled to choose.
- pkaye 7y ago
  Its not the choice of the deaf community. Its the choice of the individual and parents. And there are plenty of people who get deaf later in life that may want the treatment so research should continue.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Some in the Deaf community feel that even without side effects like that, that Deaf children should not receive them. That Deafness is not a disability, just a difference, and that "curing" it would be killing a culture much as raising Native American children in schools that banned their languages and culture did. "Should we do the procedure at all" comes before "are the side effects of a specific implementation of the procedure worth it".

chrisco255 7y ago
Clearly it should be the choice of the individual (or parents) to receive treatment or not. Why is this even a debate. With any elective treatment, there isn't going to be 100% adoption.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  No, it should not be the choice of the parents - the parents should not be able to force an unethical treatment onto their child. If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people, rather than telling us to undergo treatment that we don't want to make us more like them?
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Some parents feed their kids growth hormone just so they don't end up being too short. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being short, but we do this for all sorts of things where we know people are at a disadvantage with. We give kids braces, vaccines, etc. How are any of those different? Assuming, it was a healthy and vetted treatment, how would it be different?
  - krageon 7y ago
    What makes a treatment unethical? Parents should be able to treat things that they view as disabilities to their best judgement. That is their responsibility as parents. I'm not comfortable with saying that parents need to be limited in such a way. At the same time, when we see people that do not vaccine their children that also makes me angry. Perhaps it is a fuzzy line and we need to recognise that this is the case without making too many blanket statements. > If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people Society has no requirement to accept autistic people. Some people will be willing to work with them just as they always have and some people might not. That's their choice, just like it is the choice of an autistic person (or maybe their parents! I'm not sure) whether or not to seek treatment. If you feel that being excluded sometimes is a fundamental pressure to seek treatment, I have bad news for you: You will never get along with everyone.
    - vertex-four 7y ago
      No, it is not the responsibility of parents to force things on their children. Children are not property to be owned and controlled by their parents against the children's will. That we've wound up believing this is honestly embarrassing.
      - krageon 7y ago
        The reason we make parents responsible for their children until a certain age is because we as a collective have judged them incapable of doing so for themselves. I don't know how long it has been for you, but for me it has not been so long that I do not remember being incapable of making big life decisions.
- gugagore 7y ago
  It's not entirely about choice. It's about attitudes of medical professionals. Imagine you have a deaf child, have no experience with Deaf culture, and a professional convinces you to give your child a CI. Yeah, obviously it's the parents' choice. But what are they compelled to choose.
pkaye 7y ago
Its not the choice of the deaf community. Its the choice of the individual and parents. And there are plenty of people who get deaf later in life that may want the treatment so research should continue.