The two young hearing couple, vibrant and excited with the news that the wife is along three weeks pregnant. Hopeful that their first child will turn out fine just like all soon-to-be Moms and Dads would hope for. A healthy baby. But they have a nagging concern about their baby. They are apprehensive about the prospect that their child may carry the deafness gene and be born with a hearing loss. Their concerns are rightly noted since both of their parents and grandparents have a history of genetic deafness with a nasty habit of skipping around within each new generation. What makes this even more troublesome for the parents is that both the wife and husband each carry the deafness gene. And they discovered recently that there is high probability that their child would be born profoundly deaf.
With help of biotechnology genetic deafness can easily and quickly be determined in an embryo and with that valuable information the couple can prepare themselves the decision on whether to keep the baby or abort it. Genetic results for embryos are de riguer. So is giving out abortion pills. Doled out like Halloween treats but the consequences of swallowing that pill comes with a terrible cost to the unborn.
The genetic results came in.
Not good.
Their doctor confirmed that their baby if carried to term will be born profoundly deaf in both ears.
The wife wept quietly with a soft sobbing sound at the prospect of giving birth to a completely deaf baby. Her husband wrapped his arms around her and hugs her softly in a shared solace.
The doctor continues with the news and gave them two choices. Keep the baby or the wife can take an abortion pill to help abort their three week old embryo. With the new law in place a final decision cannot be accepted until three days after being informed of the choices. The doctor also warns that because the husband and wife both carry the deafness gene they have a 10% chance of producing a child with full hearing the next time they try and conceive another child. That means after 10 conceptions 1 baby will be born with full hearing.
Three days later. The wife decides to take the abortion pill to abort the embryo diagnosed with the deafness gene. The doctor nods his head and gives her a single white pill, easy to swallow pill. Her hands trembles seeing the white dot of a pill sitting in the middle of her right palm knowing that the pill would end a precious life. She grabs a glass of water and quickly swallowed the abortion pill. She cries and sobs. She made the decision to end a life and, in her mind, to spare a child's lifelong dealing with deafness that she finds cruel, unnecessary and unwanted.
They will try again for another baby very soon. Even if it means doing it 10 times until they get what they want.
From the NIH see graph below (SOURCE):
19 comments:
Your hypothetical story aside, the statistics in the paper are more positive: the more experience Hearing people have with culturally Deaf, the more positively they are likely to regard the prospect of having Deaf babies.
Even with no experience with culturally Deaf people, the trend is more toward acceptance than abortion.
The very small number that would consider abortion represent what we would call an extreme reaction. For discussion, this is not significant except to play with in what-if ethical questions.
Yet with almost 10% of those more involved with the hearing community would actually go for the abortion. Suppose you have 10,000 couples that were told about the baby 10% of them would take the abortion option. That's 1,000 deaf babies that won't be born. I imagine in many other countries that percentage would be much higher if they knew what was in store for their unborn babies.
Well, I know plenty of people who avoid having children out of fear of having deaf children. But most are fine with deaf children, just like how they are fine with down syndrome and will not abort.
I think it also depends on the couple's personal beliefs. The ones that decide to abort, that's their prerogative and they have to deal with it - their own conscience,if they have any.
Simple solution, don't have kids if the chances are higher in having a deaf child and the individual/couple does not want to bring a deaf child into the world.
Getting pregnant then getting rid, till you get what you want, shows a callous and fickle regard for life. What is the betting the Americans will do it first though ? Freedom of choice, perhaps you need to re-appraise what that actually means in real terms ?
That would be the controversial topic for long time, Mike.
Take a hard look at the Roe vs. Wade case. Solved? Never will be.
Dianrez.....think about the downs syndrome. They also would not experience living with culturally downs syndrome people. During the pregnancy trimester along with the dependably age, they have the right to use the genetic engineering tests in order to prevent from getting some risks. In spite on their own personal beliefs, they also don't want to get either burden or guilty for carrying the full term eventhough they *knew* there would be happening relating to the health issue. It's about the constructive argument.
White Ghost
very sicko vlog and you, too yourself enjoy picking on us Deaf people daily
if YOUR parents had that knowledge back then, they might have not decided to keep YOU.
Anony @9:16 AM,
Something eating your craw or what?
My mother contracted the German measles during the great Rubella outbreak of the early to mid 1960s in the United States. Doctors already knew of the possible consequences on what Rubella could to a baby inside the womb such as mental retardation, blindness, deafness, severe heart disorders, or other life threatening organ disorders. The most common condition is hearing loss. Her doctor tried a few times to persuade my mother to abort me. She refused. My mother discussed this history with me a few times and how she continues to this day remarked that she was glad that she didn't take her doctor's advice.
So, yeah, I DO KNOW! A FACT! That she wouldn't abort me knowing that the potential outcome after birth wouldn't be good after contracting the contagious German measles. She and my father had that knowledge in hand.
Nice try but a spectacular failure on your part in this abortion argument of yours against my parents.
Chery,
This has nothing to do with picking on "Deaf people." This has to do with the NIH survey asking people if they had the knowledge that their baby would be born deaf would they take the opportunity to abort it early in the pregnancy. It's about a fact of life that people would actually and incredibly so abort a baby just because of a hearing loss. Just goes to show just how selfish people are over something that small.
I said it is a personal belief because as much as I am against abortion, there are always going to be people that will argue for their right to have one for whatever reasons.
Cheryl..
You have serious issues. But, I think it is more of you not understanding anything Mike is saying. White Ghost is correct, this is and has always been a controversial topic. There are and always will be parents who don't have what it takes to raise a child that isn't "perfect" in their eyes. Deal with it, Cheryl, instead of throwing lame ass accusations. Mike isn't picking on deaf people. That's the best you can do?
Hmm... I don't see anything that Mike picks on Deaf people or something. But I'm not surprise if people actually would want to abort a disabled (or D/deaf) child for whatever reasons are. I already read some discussions that most pro-choice people seems to have no problem with aborting "abnormal" children. Really, I don't get some people who just wished that they would be aborted... just because they're disabled ones and thought it sucks. Even, they actually do think "I wish I was aborted." is "cool". No kidding, really... =/
You made this blog more interesting, through, Mike.
- KarissaMann05
Thank you, Karissa.
I also think its sad how people think other people should have been aborted because they are disabled. It suppose to be pro-choice, not pro-abortion for the disabled.A mother made the decision, and people should respect that. since the child is born, they have no rights going around saying she should have aborted that child. Its very damaging to that person's self worth... suicide does happen.
CherylfromMa....
I don't see anything wrong with Mike for being picking on deaf people. He always plays the devil's advocate on many d/Deaf issues. For example, when the medical technology brings up on the deaf issue, he always researches and pulls some articles or the bar/circle graphs to prove his thoughts to all of us. All we HAVE to challenge him and use our thought-provoking on those issues he brings up.
I know he's supporting the d/Deaf cultures and community.
Anyway, get back to this subject. Speaking of the couple's carriers and non-carriers in the genetic engineering and testing. If a couple want to learn about the carriers and non-carriers on many heredity, diseases and cancers, all they have to pay lots of money for the genetic research and testing.
White Ghost
Hi MWK!
*waving hands*
Did you read my response about your comments about my parents aborting me?
That is really selfish and superior of us to think something so negative. What power has God given us to judge a child from the minute s/he is convinced?
It is the greed that has infected our minds to destroy innocent lives.
MWK,
I don't think you understand something here.
My mother's doctor warned my mother that most babies affected by the Rubella virus either come out deaf, blind, mentally retarded, have a malformed heart or a combination of those.
Why do you think that my Mom's doctor tried to convince her to abort her baby (me)? Simply knowing that her baby would be born deaf gives her a much more definitive answer but even with that knowledge she would not have even aborted me. But in this case my mother had to deal with a very, very real possibility seeing the odds as much greater for her baby (me) to come with more defects than simple a hearing loss. I could have been born mentally retarded, deaf, blind and with a heart defect. A worst case scenario with the Rubella would've been a miscarriage.
Again, MWK, you do not know my mother. She made the right decision. The preservation of a life.
I asked my mom & dad if both would ever think of aborting me when both knows that the baby is going to be deaf. Both flatly refused.
Asked 'em if they would ever put C.I. on me if I was born today? Again, they refused. They explained that they would not want to mess up anyone's inner ear which may trigger some vertigo or something like that.
Asked them if I am diagnosed with Down Syndrome, and would she choose to abort me ? Mom said, "To be honest, no idea because it was never brought up during my pregnancy."
She knew that she may be the carrier of a deaf child gene because she has a deaf sister (oral one) and a deaf niece (culturally deaf). My dad came from poor country and went along with my mom.
Interesting?
Post a Comment