Essay on Deaf People Should Not Use Sperm Donor Who Is Likely to Give Them a Deaf Child

Nowadays the topic ‘to design’ or ‘not to design’ a deaf child turns the debate over designer babies, providing various specialists, such as genetics counsellors, ethicists, scientists and others with a dilemma. Some stated that it is immoral to prohibit people creating a deaf child, but others are sure that it is a right step and it will help to change contemporary situation in better side. I agree with the last group of people and think that Deaf People should not use sperm donor who is likely to give them a Deaf child.

The are two different categories of deaf people, one are ordinary people with hearing disabilities, while others are unusual people, who identify themselves as ‘Deaf’ with a capital ‘D’. Both groups are people with hearing disabilities, but their attitude to this question is quite different. The last consider that their Deaf status is a kind of their special culture, their special world and people should to respect their wishes, but society is observing this issue from different side and is disagree to allow the appearance of deaf children by their parents’ wishes.

Debating this topic it is important to think about true nature of things and remember the beginning of our life on the planet. Centuries ago people were mostly healthy and were strong, they were able to struggle for their lives and natural selection regulated the situation without many difficulties; it is not genetically right to have disabilities and various genes mutations were caused by special conditions. According to Lieberman, Volding & Winnick (2004), it is wrong to choose the future of unborn baby only thinking about own wishes and forgetting about natural harmony.

Arguing this topic from scientific point of view, it is possible to mention that doctors are opposed to ‘create’ deaf children by their hands. Into the acknowledgment of the previous words Templeton (2007) presented the following: “professor Gedis Grudzinskas, medical director of the Bridge Centre, a clinic in London that screens embryos, said: “This would be an abuse of medical technology. Deafness is not the normal state, it is a disability. To deliberately create a deaf embryo would be contrary to the ethos of our society.” Thus, it helps to protect the opinion that sperm donor should be genetically free from disabilities.

It is normal that some people are in despair in their great wish to born a deaf baby, they think about their deaf identity, but nobody tries to change their identity or to influence their culture. It is a fact that society needs healthy people and to deliberately create a baby with some hearing problems by choosing a special sperm doctor with hearing difficulties is a mistake, and a kind of egoism to own future generations. Nature is on side of the generations without genetic mutations and to be against the nature is not a human right.

Thus, taking everything into consideration it is possible to conclude that there are many questions concerning the main issue of this debate, but there is only one right decision that will help to control the situation. It seems to me that it is not the violation of deaf people’s rights, but a possibility to give their children other ‘hearing’ future even despite parents’ wish. In the first rate, it is necessary to think about child’s needs and it seems that it is better to be able to hear everything than to live in silence for the whole life that could lead to isolation and other problems.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that deaf people should rethink their position in direction of creating a baby without hearing disabilities and as a result they should not use sperm donor who is likely to give them a deaf child.