Ok but for scenario 2 have you asked the deaf? Many of us say to do just that. In fact we disproportionately fight the hearing by saying that infants cannot consent to cochlear implants
I took several years of sign language and I have to be real, the deaf community at large have some fucking weird opinions about healthcare
Deaf kids getting shunned because they got a cochlear implant is a good example
Or parents refusing inexpensive implants early in life for their kids because they’d rather their kid be deaf like them than even have a chance to develop regular speech patterns. It’s cruel.
Combine this with the simultaneous victim-complex about how hard it is being deaf (which is entirely fair. We did a project where we all wore earplugs for a week at school, and that was HARD. Got really good at cheating in ASL tho) and it all makes me feel kinda…. Icky?
“Being deaf isn’t a disability, but also we will shame you if you get treatment. Also being deaf is so hard and there’s a lot we can’t do. But I won’t let me daughter get implants, because then she would be less deaf than me, which isn’t a disability”
That is a difficult question. I would err on the side of yes. With some caveats.
Not treating some serious genetic conditions when safe, effective and proven treatments are available. Could easily be construed as abuse.
When considering the Star Trek universe medical care is free and easily accessed. Treating these conditions would be the default.
Turning this the other way around, and looking at it from the point of view, that the technology is the standard. What argument could you make in favour of leaving the condition in place?
Except that’s way after critical language development could be aided by implants, leaving deaf adults who later decide to get them stuck having to relearn how to talk.
That is an interesting point, as you say infants cannot consent to implants. Which does raise ethical questions.
But you are, I think, still looking from a 2024 perspective, where none of the technologies are even remotely available.
If you can consider it from the 2424 perspective, the treatment is non-invasive, permanent, safe and effective. It has been the standard for 100 years. Star Trek medical tech is magical to us because it is simply a story, but consider if it were real, what argument could you make to withhold the treatment?
I would see this as similar to the anti-vax arguments; withholding vaccines from a child who then goes on to catch a life altering disease, is a form of abuse. The kid cannot make its own judgements or medical decisions, but it sure can catch polio.
Ok but for scenario 2 have you asked the deaf? Many of us say to do just that. In fact we disproportionately fight the hearing by saying that infants cannot consent to cochlear implants
Would deliberately withholding “cures” be considered child abuse?
I took several years of sign language and I have to be real, the deaf community at large have some fucking weird opinions about healthcare
Deaf kids getting shunned because they got a cochlear implant is a good example
Or parents refusing inexpensive implants early in life for their kids because they’d rather their kid be deaf like them than even have a chance to develop regular speech patterns. It’s cruel.
Combine this with the simultaneous victim-complex about how hard it is being deaf (which is entirely fair. We did a project where we all wore earplugs for a week at school, and that was HARD. Got really good at cheating in ASL tho) and it all makes me feel kinda…. Icky?
“Being deaf isn’t a disability, but also we will shame you if you get treatment. Also being deaf is so hard and there’s a lot we can’t do. But I won’t let me daughter get implants, because then she would be less deaf than me, which isn’t a disability”
That is a difficult question. I would err on the side of yes. With some caveats.
Not treating some serious genetic conditions when safe, effective and proven treatments are available. Could easily be construed as abuse.
When considering the Star Trek universe medical care is free and easily accessed. Treating these conditions would be the default.
Turning this the other way around, and looking at it from the point of view, that the technology is the standard. What argument could you make in favour of leaving the condition in place?
The deaf see it similar to how the intersex do, that it should be the individual’s choice when they’re old enough to decide.
Except that’s way after critical language development could be aided by implants, leaving deaf adults who later decide to get them stuck having to relearn how to talk.
That is an interesting point, as you say infants cannot consent to implants. Which does raise ethical questions.
But you are, I think, still looking from a 2024 perspective, where none of the technologies are even remotely available.
If you can consider it from the 2424 perspective, the treatment is non-invasive, permanent, safe and effective. It has been the standard for 100 years. Star Trek medical tech is magical to us because it is simply a story, but consider if it were real, what argument could you make to withhold the treatment?
I would see this as similar to the anti-vax arguments; withholding vaccines from a child who then goes on to catch a life altering disease, is a form of abuse. The kid cannot make its own judgements or medical decisions, but it sure can catch polio.
And it’s cruel, because then they never get the opportunity to develop speech when they’re young with audible feedback.