Giving hearing to the deaf, sight to the blind
Scythe
Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Yet some people object?</div>You may have heard of the objections that some blind and deaf people have towards treatments for their conditions. They insist that nothing's wrong with them, they're just different. They refuse treatment that would restore sight or hearing, stating that they aren't handicapped, just different.
This is fine. They can suffer all they like, it's a free world.
However my grievance is when parents make this judgment for the children. To deprive a child of sunsets, or Beethoven, is a crime of incredible cruelty.
Discuss.
--Scythe--
This is fine. They can suffer all they like, it's a free world.
However my grievance is when parents make this judgment for the children. To deprive a child of sunsets, or Beethoven, is a crime of incredible cruelty.
Discuss.
--Scythe--
Comments
To frame the discussion about whether children will be handicapped or not, this indicates a bias for state ownership. The idea is that only individual sets of parents would be ignorant enough to make their children handicapped. The state would never do such a thing. In fact, history demonstrates that the state prefers simply to euthanize those who won't be able to haul their own weight.
I have a pretty good grasp of what I believe personally. I know how I would raise my children, and therefore how all children should be raised (a pseudo-algorithm, not necessarily the same process for everyone, because everyone is different). The question is how does this translate to who gets rights over them?
This comes down to risk assessment. When parents have rights over them, I'm at risk for some fraction of the population to be raised improperly, due to bad parents. But when the state has the power, I'm at risk for ALL of them to be raised improperly, although the idea is that the probability of this will be much less, and most people who advocate for state control imagine that this will give them some measure of indirect control over how other peoples' children are raised, so they are raised properly. No one likes to feel powerless.
<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->So, do you like to gamble?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> If you're risk averse, you'll give the rights to the parents, since you'll be virtually guaranteed that many children are raised well, at the cost of the few who are not. But if you're risk tolerant, then you'll hand them to the state, to go "all in" with the future of our children.
I'm not willing to do that.
However we already trust the state to mete control over private citizens via the criminal justice system.
Would a jury-of-your-peers arrangement be suitable for determining when the state should intervene in a person's private life in situations other than criminal cases?
--Scythe--
I don't know what you mean when you talk about situations other than criminal cases in which you are being prosecuted by the state. The state must prosecute based on laws, unless you're in some totalitarian regime where it just does whatever it wants, or some 3rd world country where mob rule decides your fate.
There is no precedent for some group of people to get together and decide how to intervene in people's lives based on their own personal convictions rather than laws, and enforce their will using the power of the state.
[citation needed]
Honestly, after reading that I was tempted to skip the rest of your post.
Megan's Law(s), MADD, Abortion(or lack thereof rather), ###### Rights(or lack thereof rather), this definitely all ready exists in the U.S.
Edit: Can we unfilter the word "g a y" and just punish the posters who use it incorrectly yet? This topic comes up often enough that it's not like it's a rarely used definition of the word.
Actually, that is what laws are...
The ethics of 'society' imposed on all people. I mean, I don't know if you are trolling or trying to make a point (if you are I suggest you just say it).
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Laws exist. If you break them you are prosecuted as a criminal. The suggestion brought in this thread which has no precedent was to create some system outside of criminal court without laws but with judgments by a jury of peers.
"Megan's Law(s), MADD, Abortion(or lack thereof rather), ###### Rights(or lack thereof rather), this definitely all ready exists in the U.S."
I did not say there exist no laws in which the state is involved in people's lives.
What I'm saying is that there is no precedent for a jury of peers to make judgments <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->of their own<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, irrespective of any law, to determine the involvement of the state.
I would quote Scythe and Insane to prove that I'm not "trolling", but this thread is pretty short so you can read their posts directly if you choose.
Also, the FCC and ICANN are 2 good examples of bodies that oversee/control various things, have governmental backing, and yet are not actually courts of law. We also have other regulating bodies that do similar things.
I assume that Scythe's Idea would be an arbitration body that is in charge of such things. They are not intervening because you have broken the law, but if you ignore their rulings then you have broken a law. The concept isn't that hard.
As for the actual discussion:
I can't answer it.
The idea of parents condemning their children to be with out one of their senses is abhorrent to me. Yet at the same time I don't really like the idea of the government imposing on a parent's ability to raise their child when the child is not being put in danger.
I mean, I find the idea abhorrent, but I also find the idea of raising your kid to be a racist to be horrible also. I also don't like:
Many religious teachings
Any sort of intolerance
Not giving your kid a healthy diet and exercise.
so which are ok for the government to regulate, and which are not?
Being born lacking a sense doesn't harm you implicitly. It robs you of experiences that you will never have, but so does being born poor.
According to The American Dream, it's your own fault if you STAY poor.
shush :P
<!--quoteo(post=1723329:date=Aug 17 2009, 04:20 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Aug 17 2009, 04:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1723329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's my opinion that the likely-hood of a parent refusing such treatment is very low while the likely-hood of litigation or a governing body to abuse power meant to straighten out such parents is relatively high. The benefit to cost ratio is quite low and so I'd say it's better to not force the issue on foolish parents. That actually sums up how I feel about any social improvement that aims at the margins of society.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That really is the best argument I can see. I was approaching this as if it was a serious issue that needed a solution, but Rob is right that it is really a trivial issue where any 'solution' would just create many more problems.
Confused such that they are touched by evil influence and directed to do sadistic things by the voices inside?
I like how this man thinks.
And the operation can only be done on small children or people who had hearing at an earlier stage in life, because only a child's brain can learn hearing. So if you are 20 and was born deaf it's not much that can be done really. This also makes it a real moral dilemma, as the kiddos can't suddenly decide several years later that their parents were wrong.
This is fine. They can suffer all they like, it's a free world.
However my grievance is when parents make this judgment for the children. To deprive a child of sunsets, or Beethoven, is a crime of incredible cruelty.
Discuss.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to know more about what the actual procedures are though firstly. What are the risks/complications/cost ? Who bears the cost ? My guess is its not like waving a magic wand and all is well unfortunately.
A parent would have to consider the above very seriously.
Aside from that though, I can see both sides of the argument. One the one hand who wouldn't want someone else to experience a sunset with eyesight ? On the other hand do those that can't experience it with eyesight lead less of a meaningful life ?
What if in the future someone told you they could implant something in your head that would allow you to have visions of the future or become instantly aware of breaking news on CNN ? Would you consider yourself to be "suffering" without these things ? If not, why not ?
I have heard of this happening when the parent had the same disability and say they have become 'stronger' because of it so now they want their children to have the same struggle. But I think they are just being ######bags, life can be hard, they is no reason for the parents to willingly make it harder.
Perhaps it's because I knew a blind guy once, and have seen first hand what a disability it is. Being blind or deaf is a handicap, a disability, a disadvantage. This is a fact that cannot be argued against.
I cannot imagine that this choice, to withhold treatment from your child, is one that parents that were not born blind or deaf would make. Nobody is happy to lose sight or hearing, and anyone it happens to would want to regain it. I cannot imagine they'd want anything less for their children.
What, then, do we make of those who would do so anyway? I hypothesize that they view their disability as not a disability but a simple difference (like skin or hair colour), and therefore see no need to cure it. This is plainly false. Quote Wikipedia: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disability is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a society, we charge parents with doing what is best for their children. We give them substantial leeway in how they go about this, but the existence of child services shows that we're willing to step in and take corrective measures if parents don't live up to their responsibilities. We will take action if parents don't send their children to school, or don't take them to the doctor if they get ill. Why not if they are being denied treatment that could cure a disability?
Larry makes a good point about the risk factors, too.
You want to force them to have a surgery which involves drilling into the skull potentially and hooking/integrating an electronic device into the brain ? What if the child dies or develops menengitis later as a result of the surgery and is left worse off than before? What if its found later that this procedure increases the chances of brain-cancer ?
Look guys, try to put yourself in the place of a parent who has to make this kind of decision. Do you have any idea how agonizing it must be to elect to have a highly invasive surgical procedure on a toddler ?
I understand the emotional outrage - which is a natural response - that takes place when one sees what one perceives as an injustice i.e. some parents not doing the "right" thing by refusing treatment/surgery however I must appeal for calm here gentlemen please.
Futhermore; I feel I must remind everyone here that Helen Keller lived a meaningful life IMO - despite it being hard to the degree that most of us will never understand.