Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

Deafness, Genetics and Dysgenics

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

It has been argued by some authors that our reaction to deaf parents who choose deafness for their children ought to be compassion, not condemnation. Although I agree with the reasoning proposed I suggest that this practice could be regarded as unethical. In this article, I shall use the term “dysgenic” as a culturally imposed genetic selection not to achieve any improvement of the human person but to select genetic traits that are commonly accepted as a disabling condition by the majority of the social matrix; in short as a handicap. As in eugenics, dysgenics can be achieved in a positive and a negative way. Positive dysgenics intends to increase the overall number of people with a particular genetic trait. Marriage between deaf people or conceiving deaf children through reproductive technology are examples of positive dysgenics. Negative dysgenics can be obtained through careful prenatal or pre-implantation selection and abortion (or discarding) of normal embryos and foetuses. Only deaf children would be allowed to live. If dysgenics is seen as a programmed genetic intervention that undesirably shapes the human condition – like deliberately creating deaf or dwarf people – the professionals involved in reproductive technologies should answer the question if this should be an accepted ethical practice because the basic human right to an open future is violated.

Keywords

deafness dysgenics eugenics genetics repro-genetics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American College of Medical Genetics2002‘Genetics Evaluation Guidelines for the Etiologic Diagnosis of Congenital Hearing Loss’Genetics in Medicine4162171Google Scholar
  2. Bitner-Glindzicz, M. 2002‘Hereditary Deafness and Phenotyping in Humans’British Medical Bulletin637394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Committee of Ministers: 1990, Recommendation No. R (90) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Prenatal Genetic Screening, Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and Associated Genetic Counselling (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1990).Google Scholar
  4. Council of Europe: 1996, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Council of Europe, Approved by the Committee of Ministers, 19 November, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, D. 1997‘Genetic Dilemmas and the Child’s Right to an Open Future’Hastings Center Report27715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Denoyelle, F. 1999‘Clinical Features of the Prevalent Form of Childhood Deafness, DFNB1, Due to a Connexin-26 Gene Defect: Implications for Genetic Counselling’The Lancet35312981303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engelhardt, T. 1986The Foundations of BioethicsOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Feinberg, J. 1980

    The Child’s Right to an Open Future

    Aiken, W.LaFollette, H. eds. Whose Child? Children’s Rights Parental Authority and State PowerTotowaLittlefield
    Google Scholar
  9. Jacobs, L. 1989A Deaf Adult Speaks Out3Gallaudet University PressWashington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Keats, B., Berlin, C. 1999‘Genomics and Hearing Impairment’Genome Research9716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kevles, D. 1996In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human HeredityUniversity of California PressBerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Lane, H. 1992The Mask of Benevolence – Disabling the Deaf CommunityVintage BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Lane, H., Grodin, M. 1997‘Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child’Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal7231251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lappé, M.: 1998, ‘Eugenics. Ethical Issues’, in: W. Reich (ed.), Bioethics: Sex, Genetics and Human Reproduction. Macmillan Compendium. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Levy, N. 2002‘Deafness, Culture and Choice’Journal of Medical Ethics28286288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lynn, R. 1996Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration of Modern PopulationsPraeger PublishersWestportGoogle Scholar
  17. Mesolella, M., Tranchino, G., Nardone, M., Motta, S., Galli, V. 2004‘Connexin 26 Mutations in Nonsyndromic Autosomal Recessive Hearing Loss: Speech and Hearing Rehabilitation’International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology689951005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Moores, D. 1987Educating the Deaf. Psychology, Principles and Practices3Houghton Mifflin CompanyBostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Morell, R., Kim, H., Hood, L., Goforth, L., Friderici, K., Fisher, R. 1998‘Mutations in the Connexin 26 gene (GJB2) Among Ashkenazi Jews with Nonsyndromic Recessive Deafness’The New England Journal of Medicine33915001505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray, C.: 1998, ‘Genetic Counseling. Ethical Issues’, in: W. Reich (ed.), Bioethics: Sex, Genetics and Human Reproduction. Macmillan Compendium. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon and Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Murray, T. 2005‘Will New Ways of Creating Stem Cells Dodge the Objections?’The Hastings Center Report3589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parens, E., Asch, A. 1999‘The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing’Hastings Center Report29S1S22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sacks, O. 1990Seeing Voices. A Journey into the World of the DeafHarper PerennialNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Spriggs, M. 2002‘Lesbian Couple Create a Child Who Is Deaf Like Them’Journal of Medical Ethics28283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Steel, K. 1998‘A New Era in the Genetics of Deafness’The New England Journal of Medicine33915451547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Suzuki, D., Knudtson, P. 1991GenEthics. The Ethics of Engineering LifeStoddart PublishingTorontoGoogle Scholar
  27. The Danish Council of Ethics: 2002, Ethical Problems Concerning Assisted Reproduction, Part II, Anonymity and Selection in the Context of Sperm Donation, Annual Report.Google Scholar
  28. Tucker, B. 1998‘Deaf Culture, Cochlear Implants and Elective Disability’Hastings Center Report28614PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. United Nations: 1989, Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 20 November.Google Scholar
  30. Wachbroit, R., Wasserman, D. 2003

    ‘Reproductive Technology

    LaFollette, H. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Practical EthicsOxford University PressOxford
    Google Scholar
  31. Warnock, M. 1992The Uses of PhilosophyBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Weatherall, D. 1994

    ‘Human Genetic Manipulation’

    Gillon, R. eds. Principles of Health Care EthicsChichesterJohn Wiley and Sons
    Google Scholar
  33. Wellman, C.: 1998, Rights, Systematic Analysis, in: W. Reich (ed.), Bioethics: Sex, Genetics and Human Reproduction. Macmillan Compendium. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon and Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Wertz, D., Fletcher, J. 1988‘Ethics and Medical Genetics in the United States: A National Survey’American Journal of Medical Genetics291527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wever, C. 2002Parenting Deaf Children in the Era of Cochlear Implants. A Narrative-Ethical AnalysisCIP-gegevens Koninklijke BibliotheekThe HagueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Director of the Department of Bioethics of the School of MedicineUniversity of OportoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations