cures, good or bad?

[kuwaizair]

a few days ago there was, what hopefully was a documentray film "sound and fury", http://www.pbs.org/wnet/soundandfury/
It is about two families and their children and Cochlear implants. Two brothers, are followed by the filmakers in the decision, or lack there of to put the implants in their child's head. This would bring the children into the world of hearing.

One family was all for it, the other was apauld at the thought of "forcing" a little child to have this surgery done.

the issue here is that some of these deaf people have a lot of deaf pride, they even fear that one day "there will be no more deaf people", and that is a bad thing. Parents who get this surgery for children were seen as selfish to the wife in one of the families, who is deaf, there is also a whole deaf culture out there, having the children be able to hear will destroy that. The grandmother (I think) in one family was even afraid her now-hearing grandson would eventualy make fun of her deafness. The pride and cultrue is so great, that there are even whole communties, for deaf people. They can be seen like an ethnic village and not "handycap-village".

on a differnt, yet simiular note, there are pro-autism groups, whos goal is to unstigmatise autisim, and show that it is not a thing to hate or cure, it can be a good thing, and any studies to erradicate it, like the deaf situation above strips an individual of their person, their uniqueness.

what do you people think of situations like these? and others? where proud people fight with vigor on how its not right to cure "ailments"? is it wrong to find a way to cure blindess? so babies born blind can have surgery that will allow them to see, with new technolgy? or is it "wrong" to rob them of what they were born with? One thing that I'd like to know in a situation like that is how the body compnisates. If you don't have once sence, another is stronger.

Do you think we're wrong to push 'cures', as we do with medications? Should we allow people do choise these options when they can? or should we go as far to see if we can ensure hearing, sighted, non autistic children will not be born in that condistion in the first place? Is that as bad as putting implants into children's heads, even at 3 years of age?
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

[Trevoke]

Very, very iffy subject. What is a disease? What is simply 'different' ?
My controversial belief is that western medicine wants to make everyone 'normal', which means everyone the same. I believe that is not good. Whether autism and deafness are simple changes or diseases, I do not know. Is ADD, or ADHD, a disease, or something different?
Well, it can be 'cured' ... But then, aren't we talking about eugenics again?
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching

[Sailor Sexy]

Well, I'm not very good at looking at the other side of the coin, so as someone who can hear and see, I don't understand why anyone WOULDN'T want to be able to do the same. They may have their pride in their disabilities, but shouldn't you give your child every opportunity in life that you're able to? If you can afford to pay for these implants or whatnot, I don't understand why you wouldn't. "Deaf pride" is the absolute stupidest reason I have ever heard for not doing it. You don't have to be ashamed to be deaf, or blind, but you also don't have to think that just because the child was born that way they should stay that way. This isn't about making some master race here, it's about putting people on equal footing. As proud as they are, they cannot tell me that life is very difficult when you don't have all the senses that other people have. But hey, what do I care? Like I said, I can see and hear and am relatively disease free, so they can do what they want. I just know that if my child were born deaf, or with autism, or whatever, that if I could, I'd have some surgery done that would correct that. If it can't be corrected that doesn't mean that I would love my child less. I just feel I should do everything I can to make sure they start out life on equal terms with everyone else.
_________________


~Uguu!~

[RedCydranth]

Living with several disorders and/or diseases myself, I' biased and partial on this subject. However since I fall into the category of the affected I feel my right to speak up and what I say is more heavily weighted than those who aren't affected by any of these problems.

I suffer from Cystic Fibrosis, a lung disease. I suffer from ADHD, a disorder of the brain (i guess its best called). I suffer from degenerative hearing, a syndrome that will render me deaf or near deaf in 5-7 years. Also because of my Cystic Fibrosis I will eventually become Diabetic, a disease of the pancreas.

There's my chriterion and thats what I will cover. It is my deepest desire to be considered normal. Living with a deadly lung disease that will one day kill me and give me diabetes, I'm all for finding a cure for that. Any disorders or diseases which are life threatening and hinder the lifespan and way of life so dramatically if forces a person to be a dredge on society should be cured. This includes CF, Cerebral Pulsey, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Crabbe's Disease etc etc. Any diseases like these where they destroy ythe person's body is definitely worth curing. As early as possible too before the effects of those diseases become permanant. If I were to be cured of CF today, I still would be unable to work because of the damage done to my lungs, pancreas and stomach. Had I been cured when I was 4 or 5 I'd be considered completely normal. I'd be able to breathe fine, I'd be able to work, I'd be able to have children naturally(CF Males 98% of the time can not bear children naturally because their vas deferens are dissolved). However the effects of the disease has set in and I'm unfixable.

So in that respect I say let science do its thing and let it all be wonderful. However my opinion on the deafness and other diseases are different

While my reasons aren't to "protect deaf culture" or some non-sense like that, I do beleive it is a person's right to be different. If a person who is deaf wants to have the implant or whatever, thyen by all means they should get it. It should not be up to the parents to decide and it should be up to the child. They were born woth deafness, which is a gift in some ways because it gives them an insight on life that the majority of the populace doesn't get to experience. Deafness is not, in itself, lifethreatening, so I see no reason to institute a widespread cure. It should be optional to those who want it. Once a child reaches a certain age and has learned that being deaf is not always a disability, he or she can then make the decision to be different or be the same. This should also go for blindness and other diseases. It would just be like a safe conjoined twin seperation. Do they want to live life seperately or do they truly like the way they are, being paired together. Sometimes the pair choose to be together because thats how they like living and wouldn't want it any other way. I imagine that when I go deaf, I will learn sign and still be the same as I am now, but without hearing. Would I ever do the cochlear implant/ I don't know. I'm not deaf yet to make that decision. I imagine after a life of hearing (although it gets harder and harder slowly) I will miss hearing the television and learn to hate the buttheads who do the subtitling on shows and opt for the surgery. But this will be my decision, not some doctors or anyone elses.

Some diseases like Autism, Bi-Polar disorder and such are a mixed bag. While these aren't deadly and degenerative, they do present a problem to the people who have them. In many cases they can not rationally make this decision and base their decisions off of what they were taught to respond. A mentally challenged person will not undertand the concept of a transplant unless someone explains it to them, and chances are if the person makes it sound not so bar they'll do it, if the teacher makes it seem bad, the autistic will not want to do it. They do not have the rationale to weigh the pros and cons. This is the moral problem we now face. since they can not make this decision, but might truly be happy with the life they were given, should we or shouldn't we administer a cure to them?

I have always been a beleiver of nature's way. It goes completely against what I said above, but I know my way of thought will never be the popular one. If I were to be the emperor and mighty ruler of Earth, I'd have all the suffering people killed because nature intended on them to die. Nature has a survival of the fittest rule that we've broken. But since I am not the overlord of the realm, I'm forced into either living with overpopulation or dying for a moral standing I beleive in, but will never see come to fruition. I like living so I'm forced to agree to the cure.

So yes, cure those who direly need it, but the rest of people with minor problems, if a cure is available, it should be optional.
_________________
I'm sorry and I apologize are the same thing.
Except at a funeral.

Fantasy Football (NFL) Sign Ups in Sports Forum!

[Yohn]

Quite a touchy subject, indeed. One of my close friends, Ayame, has a boy that she converses with on a regular basis over the internet. He's a polite kid who has been deaf since birth. He's absolutely elated that he will, in a few years, be able to get a specialized type of surgery that will enable him to hear again (they have to wait for the body to stop maturing beyond a certain part).

I can't put myself into these people's shoes, but I do believe that I'd feel completely hopeless if I lost my hearing. To never hear the voices of people that I know and love again would pain me greatly. I also enjoy music so much that I'm not sure what I'd do if I couldn't listen to a lot of the melodies that have gotten me through some of the craggiest moments of my life, or even the most joyful. :(
_________________

"And as the lion slaughters man, I am the wolf and you're the lamb." ~Blind Guardian

[Vertius]

It's up to the individual. I know, myself, that if I became deaf or blind, and there was a method to regain it, I would take it without another thought. That may only be because I enjoy those senses now.

All cures should be investigated. While there may be those who would prefer to be blind or deaf, there are also those who like to be cured. If the former don't wish to avail of it, that's their choice, but just because they don't want a cure doesn't mean the latter shouldn't have one.
_________________

[Goldy]

I have Ankylosing Spondylitis of which there is no known cure.
Would i opt for the cure if there was one? Like hell i would, i wouldnt even give it a second thought!
This disease mainly causes chronic pain and inflammation of the spinal joints....but being a rare disease with other rare symptoms i managed to get these every now and then, hips, shoulders, neck, chest, legs, arms, jaw and my eyes ( currently affecting my eyes ) have all been affected....it aint nice believe me!
But thankfully i have been told i have a mild version which has been very inactive. I would hate to be hit with a major version of this considering what i have had put up with!

In relation to the parents with the children who are deaf, why not give your child the surgery to give him/her a better opportunity at life? I know i would. Now i am not saying deaf people have a lesser opportunity in life then those who can hear but i would imagine alot of deaf people, if the circumstances were correct, like to be able to hear.

So yeah, i believe if the cure is available it should be optional, if you are of sound mind and mature enough to make the decision yourself. And carefully view and do what is best for your child.

Which brings me to my next point.
Just recently here a young woman who is a jehovah witness, gave birth to a baby, in doing so she lost 80% of her blood and refused a blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs knowing full well that she would die.
But the doctors went to court to get an injunction to allow them to give her the transfusion and the court granted it, against her wishes.

I have mixed feelings about this scenario:
1: She is being selfish knowning full well she would die with no other family member around to care for her new born child.
2: No cure should be forced on anyone who does not wish it.

So what do you do??

[Eden]

Tough question... I believe that even or perhaps especially an illness creates the person you are. If a disease is a part of your life, it will influence it depending on the illness and what it causes and how much a person suffers from it.

Anyway, I am no religious guy (not talking about any specific religion) and so I can't believe that deafness shouldn't be cured, because it is chosen by god or any other divine entity. I still think that blind or deaf our people with these handicaps are worth less than a person without these illnesses and since it shapes the person it isn't bad in general. Keeping that in mind the person could be happier if he could hear or see for example, but he won't be the same person, because human beings are changable creatures. Does the same apply to illnesses which kill people like cancer? My mother died of lupus erythematodes and seeing how she suffers was terrible. Keeoing this in mind I have to say that a healed mother would be better than the ill woman, no matter how much the personality may change.
_________________


The Fool

[Queen]

[Nimble Jack]

There is a difference in the two cases brought up. That is the difference for one person to decide for themselves to refuse a treatment as apposed to one person being able to decide for another to refuse a treatment. In the case of the latter I think that the treatment should always be adminastered. In the case of the former I generally believe in a person's right to die, I think that if someone wants to die, or is not willing to do what it takes to live then they should be allowed to take that path no matter how selfish it is.

To the original topic, I would go for the implant. From my perspective, it wouldn't be taking away their deafness, it would be giving them the ability to hear. Although I do see and admit the validity of Red's point:

[Camus the Noble]

At the risk of seeming highly insensitive, I think it's important to realize that being able to hear is better than not being able to hear, under any honest definition of the word "better." Auditory capability is one of our most important senses, and lacking that is a handicap, plain and simple. It makes life a lot more difficult. I don't think any of this is disputable. Given that, therefore, should we make deaf children able to hear? I don't see why not. People may raise objections, as kuwaizair said, about the surgery being "forced" on the child, but we force many things on children that, on their own, they wouldn't choose. Why do we do this? Because we judge that these things (school and vegetables are examples) are good for them, and we're so sure of this that we allow this goodness to override their personal objections. In other words, we take control of their own lives out of their hands. There is no reason why we should be willing to force education and broccoli on children, but not hearing. For this reason, I do think that anyone born deaf should have this problem corrected -- and yes, I did say "problem" and "corrected."

"So, Eugenicist Camus, you want everyone to be the same, eh?" I can hear you say. This is, however, not the case. Let me explain. No deaf child can make a truly informed decision as to whether they want to be able to hear or not, simply because anyone who has been deaf from birth has no idea of the sensation of hearing. It's a completely foreign concept to a person who has lived a life of silence. A person who can hear, however, can certainly imagine silence, although, admittedly, the magnitude of total deafness may be to some extent lost in translation. I propose, therefore, that a deaf child should, if it is medically possible, be given the use of his ears, but that, as adults, elective surgery to induce deafness should be available. (I'm assuming that such a surgery would be possible; I'm no doctor, so I can't say for sure, but it seems intuitively that it would be not difficult.) If a person wants to deaf and can make an informed decision, they should be able to carry that decision out. We have other elective surgeries available to let people "customize" their bodies, so why not this one? In my opinion, anyone who would want to be deaf is being irrational, but I believe strongly that one should be able to make irrational decisions that do not harm anyone else.

It is probable that over a period of time these steps would greatly reduce the number of deaf people in the world. "Deaf rights activists" like those described by kuwaizair might have a problem with this. However, since deafness would be available as an option to anyone who wanted it (including those who were given hearing as children), the decline of the deaf community would be a simple result of the fact that people would not want to be deaf.

To address Goldmember's scenario, I strongly support the right to die in the vast majority of cases. In this case, however, there is a complicating circumstance: namely, the child. Should the woman be forced to live to help raise the child? My gut reaction was "forget her wishes, save her so her child can have a mommy." However, you have to consider what kind of mother that woman would be, and what kind of childhood, consequently, the kid would have. It seems to me that a woman forced to continue living against her wishes, especially if they are religiously motivated wishes, might be a tad bitter, and therefore not a model of motherly love. And what if the child was injured him- or herself and needed a blood transfusion? The mother would no doubt let the child die. Therefore, I think the woman simply ought to be left to die. She gets her wish, the child, although not guaranteed a good childhood, escapes what would likely be a bad one (and potentially a fatal one); everyone is either potentially or actually better off.

Of course, I think that to die because your god is opposed to medicine is absurd. This reminds me of a quote from House, when a super-religious teenage patient declared that he would have "no more of man's medicine!" But how does this make any more sense than "no more of man's garments" or "no more of man's food" or "no more of man's transportation"? Still, as I said above, rationality should not be forced onto people, nor, for that matter, should life be. It's the dying patient's choice.