4 ms·

>I'm also frankly astonished that we have to preface stories about autism treatments with how wonderful autistic people are and how we're not trying to "elimina

>I'm also frankly astonished that we have to preface stories about autism treatments with how wonderful autistic people are and how we're not trying to "eliminate their uniqueness". Even the most profound and obvious disabilities are adopted by parents who refuse to see it as a disability. They take this so far that they will resist attempts to correct it. This is huge in the deaf community, for example. There is open aggressive opposition to cochlear implants, because they are seen as robbing deaf children of exposure to 'deaf culture'. It is a complex issue, because children need to be given cochlear implants long before they are capable of making decisions for themselves, so they are often crippled for life at the hands of their own parents - parents who can not share in the same treatment because they are too old. The lowest weaknesses of the human spirit are on display in some of these people, denying hearing to their children because they don't want their children to be 'better' than they are.

dogecoinbase 12y ago
As a thought experiment (I'm not saying it's exactly analogous), imagine some sort of genetic treatment for a fetus that gives it white skin rather than the black skin of its parents. White people have more opportunities in life, are generally more successful, certainly have a lower lifetime risk of being murdered by police, et cetera. What arguments apply in the case of a cochlear implant that do not apply here?
- endtime 12y ago
  Being deaf is an objective, unambiguous disability. I don't think the same is true of being black, even if it correlates negatively with certain metrics.
- justinpombrio 12y ago
  If you were the only person in the world, would you prefer being black or not? How about deaf or not?
- jerf 12y ago
  In a nutshell, I refuse to engage in the degree of ethical chicanery necessary to even pose such a silly question. This is one place where "common sense" has it right, and sophomoric philosophical debates are just a way of seeming sophisticated while in truth being horribly debased. But hey, if you're going to play "I'm too twisted in knots by postmodernism to understand ethics anymore", why not ask whether it would be correct for a deaf couple to deliberately induce deafness in a child not otherwise destined to be deaf? (The best part is that these questions probably cease to be hypothetical in another 20 or 30 years.... and then the shit really hits the fan....)
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    This has already happened. A deaf couple used genetic prescreening to select an embryo that that carried the condition.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Realistically because we have strong negative associations with anything to do with race. If people were changing the hair color of their kids for similar reasons, I doubt anyone would care. I don't think you can compare possible social benefits of skin color with very real benefits of loosing a major sense. How is denying them treatment functionally different than causing the condition itself? I remember a long time ago hearing about a cream which would turn your skin dark or even completely black, in the same way that tanning or genetics would do so. I.e. perfect sunblock. I haven't heard of it since, so it must not have made it to market, but I wonder if it would have drawn controversy.
jerf 12y ago
"This is huge in the deaf community, for example." Yeah, I've seen that. My other son is legally deaf and blind. It turns out this is a fairly rare combination (only several hundred such children in my state of ~8 million). Fortunately he is not fully blind (though definitely profoundly affected), and recently we got word that he can stop wearing the hearing aids. But regardless, we've seen that in the relevant communities. We have enough time in the general special-needs community and the ones specific to what our children have that we don't tread into those. (What my deaf&blind son has, there is nobody pretending that it isn't a problem. It's.... emotionally draining enough to be on those support lists.)

dogecoinbase 12y ago

As a thought experiment (I'm not saying it's exactly analogous), imagine some sort of genetic treatment for a fetus that gives it white skin rather than the black skin of its parents. White people have more opportunities in life, are generally more successful, certainly have a lower lifetime risk of being murdered by police, et cetera. What arguments apply in the case of a cochlear implant that do not apply here?

endtime 12y ago
Being deaf is an objective, unambiguous disability. I don't think the same is true of being black, even if it correlates negatively with certain metrics.
justinpombrio 12y ago
If you were the only person in the world, would you prefer being black or not? How about deaf or not?
jerf 12y ago
In a nutshell, I refuse to engage in the degree of ethical chicanery necessary to even pose such a silly question. This is one place where "common sense" has it right, and sophomoric philosophical debates are just a way of seeming sophisticated while in truth being horribly debased. But hey, if you're going to play "I'm too twisted in knots by postmodernism to understand ethics anymore", why not ask whether it would be correct for a deaf couple to deliberately induce deafness in a child not otherwise destined to be deaf? (The best part is that these questions probably cease to be hypothetical in another 20 or 30 years.... and then the shit really hits the fan....)
- Houshalter 12y ago
  This has already happened. A deaf couple used genetic prescreening to select an embryo that that carried the condition.
Houshalter 12y ago
Realistically because we have strong negative associations with anything to do with race. If people were changing the hair color of their kids for similar reasons, I doubt anyone would care. I don't think you can compare possible social benefits of skin color with very real benefits of loosing a major sense. How is denying them treatment functionally different than causing the condition itself? I remember a long time ago hearing about a cream which would turn your skin dark or even completely black, in the same way that tanning or genetics would do so. I.e. perfect sunblock. I haven't heard of it since, so it must not have made it to market, but I wonder if it would have drawn controversy.

jerf 12y ago

"This is huge in the deaf community, for example." Yeah, I've seen that. My other son is legally deaf and blind. It turns out this is a fairly rare combination (only several hundred such children in my state of ~8 million). Fortunately he is not fully blind (though definitely profoundly affected), and recently we got word that he can stop wearing the hearing aids. But regardless, we've seen that in the relevant communities. We have enough time in the general special-needs community and the ones specific to what our children have that we don't tread into those. (What my deaf&blind son has, there is nobody pretending that it isn't a problem. It's.... emotionally draining enough to be on those support lists.)