The Glade 4.0

I've seen similar cases as mentioned in the thread, where deaf parents actively want their child to be born deaf. So out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? When I say "what are your thoughts," I mean what do you think are the legal, medical, and personal ramifications of the decisions presented?

Scenario A) Two deaf parents want a deaf child. They find out that their baby began life in the womb fine, but is not developing properly and will be born deaf. There is a treatment that they can provide in utero to fix the problem and the baby will be born with no hearing difficulties. They decide not to do this.

Scenario B) Two deaf parents want a deaf child. They find out that their in-utero child will be born without hearing deficiency. They request and are granted a medical treatment that will effect hearing loss and thus the baby will be born deaf.

Scenario C) A hearing father and a deaf mother are having a baby. The father wants the child to be able to hear, and the mother wants the child to be deaf. The mother, without consent of the father, requests and is granted a medical treatment that will effect hearing loss and result in the baby being born deaf.

A. No issue
B. They caused harm - removal of custody and jail time for parents and doctor(s).
C. Same as above for mother and doctor(s) with custody given to the father.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

C.


At this point it should be completely acceptable for the father to take sole custody and be granted a divorce and punished legally.

And personally I think that depending on the situation, the offending parent should be publicly beaten.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I wish having Ron Jeremy bust a nut in your ear was a sentence a justice of the peace could impose.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Makes me 4

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I second Elmo's opinion, with an endorsement for public beating of the mother in case C, and both parents in case B.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There's nothing wrong with denying in-utero intervention and letting God (nature) take His (its) course. Such treatments are not always successful and can cause miscarriage also.

Actively perusing a course to maim/harm a child in the womb should be criminal assault of a minor and be handled by the courts and CPS in proper fashsion. If the child dies of the process the felony/murder statue should apply. In scenario C the father should not be charged and should be allowed custody.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I'd add that in situation A, it could be construed as negligence. If you have the ability to provide treatment to make your child whole, you should. In all cases (Except for the father in C) the parents are monsters.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Being that I am actually affected in a way similar to this hypothetical, I will say for A it depends on the efficacy of the treatment and the possible adverse consequences. It also depends on if the mother's condition and if the fetus is maldeveloped or being exposed to something as a result of the mother.

In the case of vertical transmission of diseases, the parents have the right to choose what is in the best interest, but if you don't make the easy choice, the child has every right to hate you.

It could be, I don't think it is. Are you obligated to risk your child's life on the possibility of saving their hearing? I don't believe so. I don't think there's a clearly right or wrong answer to that question -- it depends on the magnitude of the risk and your tolerance thereof. That's a matter that I believe should be left up to the parents, even if the choice seems questionable to some or even most of us.

Edit: Just noticed that in A the parents want a deaf child. That's definitely a shitty motive, but my answer still stands. Application of law shouldn't be based on the motives of its subjects, however distasteful they are.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

For sake of argument, all treatments are 100% safe. Well, "safe" is a relative term here, as we're discussing a treatment that would deafen the child. We'll say all treatments perform only their intended function with no side effects.

One of my main questions is: particularly in cases B and C, does/should the child have legal recourse when it comes of age?