So if you are confused by the title, let me explain what's going on: Over the past few years, medical science has made many advancements to the point of being able to give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, legs to the wheelchair-bound, etc. Basically, we are getting to the point where less and less "disabilities" are as permanent as they once were. However, something else that has happened over the past few years is a growing amount of tolerance and acceptance of differently-abled individuals. In some cases, entire communities of people with something in common, like being deaf, take pride in what they've gone through to adapt and how it's a part of their identity. So the question at hand is more philosophical now. It's a matter of: what is the ethical thing to do? Should we be curing people of these, what many view as disabilities, or are we robbing people of identity when we should put more effort into acceptance of differences? And whatever your position is with consenting adults, how do you feel about when children are involved? Should doctors be performing these surgeries on kids? (Is it ethical for a parent to make that decision for a child?) > My Opinion > While I personally have respect for the wishes of people who are in a certain situation and don't want "treatment" forced upon them, I think I take the stance that preventing a child from developing a disability later in life, or giving treatments to adults that do want them is perfectly acceptable, and to deny these treatments is less ethical than any "ableism" inherent in them. While my stand is with the treatment of these conditions where they can be, I still also firmly believe in the measures that many nations have taken to make life easier for those who don't undergo these procedures: making every building wheelchair accessible, making accommodation for people who are deaf, etc. So that's my opinion; what do you all think? I'm especially curious what anyone here with a disability thinks of all this.
Let people decide, if someone wants to get a prosthetic, surgery or whatever let them make the choice. It is their body after all. As for kids, I say let it up to adults but some of them are stupid, what with the prayer healing and all. I'd say parents should try to give their child the best future they can. If they deem something to dangerous then don't have it done.
Let people decide. It's really as simple as that. I also feel the same way about euthanasia. If people do not wish to go on after being in pain for a long time, they should be given the option of humane euthanasia,
It should be entirely up to the patient in question, be they child or adult. Maybe someone who has had a disability from birth or an extended period of time may not want a cure, I couldn't say as I do not have that mindset. The only ethical conundrum I can see is this being a slippery slope to parents deciding cosmetic factors of their unborn children. Not having, say Cerebral Palsy is an entirely different kettle of piscines to blonde-haired-and-blue-eyed.
Patient's choice, of course. If a developing child is at risk for getting a disability, then the parents should have the right to decide for the child. Of course, then there's the opposition of wackos that will be yelling, "That boy/girl was MEANT to be blind!"
I'm going to have to agree with both of you on this. If I say, lost an arm.... I'd take the option of having a new one equipped if the option is available. If someone else says something like, "hey, this was meant to happen so I just wanna live with it" then hey, that's their decision. Not a very logical one, but nonetheless, it's their choice. And I'm definitely for giving children the best future possible and for he most part I would entrust that decision to the childs' parents. Sure, there are some bad parents, but I think on the whole most parents try to do the best for their kids as they can. That and leaving important, life-altering decisions to a minor is never really a good idea.
Let people have what people want to have. For all you know, being blind or deaf can SAVE a person from some unknown future trouble, and if it doesn't bother the one with that "adaptation", then I see no issue. In fact, if someone would like to BECOME blind or deaf, I would welcome that decision, as well. If a person has the right to expand their horizons, they should be allowed to narrow them, within reason. Children: parents ALREADY decide which disabilities are worth fixing in their kids. I don't see that changing, but I would LIKE for most important decisions to be made once the child is of age, so as to avoid doing something permanent and possibly life-altering to a person who does not want it.
I'm leaning towards this line of thinking - whenever it's possible, the person being operated on is the number one person to ask: "hey do you want this? Y/N. It seems like everyone that's posted something is also on board with this so far. However, I was sort of interested in what people thought of parents making these decisions. Say for instance a cure exists for something, where is the line between parent endangering their child vs neglecting the child. Who decides what is cosmetic, or what is actually "necessary". If it's a toddler, or a newborn baby, they obviously can't just be asked what they want, so someone other than that baby has to make the decision.
As I said, parents make these decisions. As to who SHOULD make these decisions--in a better world, it should be the child, but we do not have the means, at present, to allow a newborn to explore the whole of the world in safety. So, I fear that the decision must, for now, fall on the parent and the parent alone. Neglect should, I think, be a matter of further damage and foolishness, not some category to be examined by an official ("you didn't save the baby's life when you could have" sounds less like government control than "you failed to provide the baby with proper medical care").
