The Deaf Baby

A Different Kind of Choice

Imagine that in the future, parents can genetically engineer their children before birth. They can eliminate diseases, modify traits, and even choose characteristics that their child will have throughout life.

Now imagine a deaf couple decides they want their child to be deaf.

Their reasoning is simple. They are deaf themselves, they participate in deaf culture, communicate primarily through sign language, and view deafness not as a defect but as an important part of who they are. They want a child who can fully share their experiences and culture.

Should they be allowed to make that choice?

Disability or Difference?

Many people instinctively think the answer is no. If parents have the ability to prevent a disability, shouldn’t they do so? Being able to hear would seem to provide more opportunities and make certain aspects of life easier. Choosing deafness appears to deliberately limit a child’s future.

Philosopher Julian Savulescu argues something similar through a principle called procreative beneficence. According to this view, parents should select the child who is expected to have the best possible life. If hearing generally creates more opportunities than deafness, then parents have a moral reason to choose a hearing child.

But supporters of the deaf couple challenge an important assumption: Is deafness necessarily worse?

Many members of the Deaf community argue that deafness is not simply a medical condition. It is also a culture, language, and identity. If deaf people can live meaningful and fulfilling lives, why should hearing automatically be considered superior?

Who Decides What Counts as Better?

One issue is that it is difficult to separate disability from social expectations. Some challenges faced by deaf people exist because society is built around hearing. If more people knew sign language and public spaces were designed differently, would deafness seem as limiting?

At the same time, the child cannot consent to the decision. Choosing deafness means intentionally removing an ability the child otherwise could have had. Critics argue that parents should not make irreversible choices that narrow their child’s future options.

Others respond that every parent shapes a child’s future in some way. Parents choose schools, values, religions, and lifestyles. Genetic choices may simply be another extension of that influence.

The Final Verdict

The debate ultimately comes down to a difficult question. Should parents try to give their child every possible advantage, or should they be free to pass on a trait that they see as a meaningful part of their identity?

If you could choose, would you engineer the child to hear, or would you respect the parents’ wish for a deaf child?