Home

Witness the past! | Glimpse the future!

We'll all have to speak up

  • Mar. 10th, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Terry Photo, publishing, Terry Jedi, Fizzers, books, Mercat, dinosaurs, book, Terry Fizzer, Julia, Riddler
I really, really don't know what to think about this.

I recently listened to a presentation by Dr Tom Shakespeare, a noted visual artist and academic who happens to have achrondoplasia, in which he made a similar statement to that being put forwatd by Tomato (?) Lichy and his partner; that there is no such thing as a disability, merely a circumstance that society does not readily accommodate. In other words, a better, more tolerant and egalitarian world would include no-one who could be considered disabled.

It's certainly a challenging and noble sentiment. Dr Shakespeare's condition clearly denies him only a few physical dimensions. His cognitive abilities and senses are fully realised, and so it's easier for "normal" people to swallow his proactive approach. His life experience cannot differ so very greatly from that of the majority, we can imagine being in his place and the prejudice and the set backs he encounters, admire his good-humoured but straight-talking ownership of the genetic card he's been dealt.

It's harder when a person who cannot experience the world in the same way that most do, as Mr Lichy and his family cannot, claims that his lack of a primary sense is not only not a disability, but speaks of the deaf as if they were a nation, one with a language, culture and traditions of its own. Mr Lichy bandies the words "eugenics" at anyone who claims his desire to intentionally bring another deaf child into the world is morally wrong; he sees no difference between the civil rights movements for women, ethnic minorities, lgbt groups and the disabled. To deny the latter the right to be born is as abominable as permitting no black children to born, says he.

For the moment I'll leave to one side the point that sign language can be acquired by hearing or non-hearing people, allowing both to engage in the "deaf culture" he describes, while nothing in the world can teach a deaf-from-birth child to hear. I listened to Mr Lichy and his partner speaking through an interpreter today. Time and again they used the example of their living, deaf and by all accounts happy and brilliant child as justification for actively choosing to have another with the same condition. Tellingly, they relied again and again on visual examples; the couple both work in a theatre company, so they frequently mentioned the child's joy in performing arts, invariably talking about colour and movement and so on.

So the question has to be asked of this pair of doting parents; are blind people disabled? If you were to be told one of your frozen embryos would certainly develop into a child who could hear but could not see, would you be thrilled at the opportunity to induct her into "blind culture" or would you pause? Reconsider? Consciously reject her in favour of another?

I'm loathe to condemn this couple, I think they are highlighting something that needs to be debated, but I'm saddened that they feel the need to be so wilfully contrary. Going so far as to describe a child who can hear as disabled and saying they "feel sorry" for John Humphries because he can't appreciate a joke told in sign language just makes them appear like post-libertarian weirdoes.

What happens to human gametes and embryos in future, as stem cell research continues apace, infertility spirals ever-upwards and we in the West have less children and later in life to boot, is crucial. Human organs likewise. Personally, I say donation of any and all tissue should be an opt-out, not opt-in proposition. Living people are more important than the dead and yet to be born, end of story. As for who gets to be born and who doesn't... Urgh.

All I can say is this. I always thought a hallmark of parenting was the aspiration that your children would have better, fuller, longer, happier, richer (in every sense) lives than your own. In appearing to campaign for the "right" to ensure their next child will not be able to do a thing that they also cannot do (the least loaded way I can put it), this couple might be at the cutting edge of societal dynamics but they're stretching the definition of familial love to breaking point.

Comments

[info]mcgazz wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2008 11:46 pm (UTC)
You're spot on in that it's all about how you define disability.

Given that the Government and the Pharma industries are working hand in hand to pathologise an ever increasing range of behaviours as deviations from a non-existant norm, screening embryos for 'disabilities' could lead to the eugenic disappearance of, say, introverts.
[info]semi_retired wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 11:51 am (UTC)
Brilliant post Terry...I too had severe reservations about their stance...The inability to hear is of course a disbility since that particular sense is disabled and so why would anyone choose offspring to be so?
Maybe their concern is that they want to choose NOT to have a hearing child rather than actively choose the deaf version..I know that sounds a bit like a commercial proposition but I did kind of perceive their argument a bit like that...and it got me thinking about the quality of life for a hearing child in a deaf family. Unless the parents were really clued up on language teaching techniques, speech therapies or were able to employ almost permanent tutors, the child's language skills in early years would be severly retarded since they would be immersed in a primarily non-speaking environment and as far as I know there are no NHS or welfare support systems in place for non-disabled kids in this situation...its something to consider.
[info]schism_schasm wrote:
Mar. 18th, 2008 04:38 pm (UTC)
Personally I think that the failure to communicate is a major factor in what this couple are saying. But my response to that is, where their parents deaf? Presumably not, and yet they tuned out fine. How? Through the support of a community of both deaf and hearing people. So shall it be with their hearing child, but moreover that child will will be uniquely placed to understand and participate in both cultures they describe. Once again, we come back to the idea of not just allowing or permitting, but ensuring our child is capable of more than yourself. No value judgements, no conditions, just the potential do do things that you cannot. To limit them in any capacity from birth is surely abhorrent.

Yet articulating this desire to have a child exactly like you, even if that means actively choosing a less capable child, is necessary, it seems, if the spectre of eugenics is to be confronted and slain. Once again, I'm at an impasse on this.

Links

Latest Month

May 2008
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner