[LAF] [Fwd: [smygo] UK: Government pushes eugenic embryology bill; media lies]

Tue Jan 15 13:58:28 UTC 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I'm sort of interested what people think about this. Is this a desperate
struggle against the government-backed eugenics or is this just political
correctness gone mad.

                     - VolodyA! V A

- -------- Original Message --------
http://stopeugenics.org/

Not quite with the Times .
By Dr. Steve Emery | December 22nd, 2007

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This blog post relates to this article in the Sunday Times.

After four weeks in which a group of us have carefully investigated and analysed
Clause 14 (4) (9) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Sunday
Times covers the story in typically 'sensational' fashion.

The most unforeseen aspect of the article for those of us painstakingly trying
to build a campaign against the Clause 14(4)(9) is that it is the RNID who are
at the centre of the story, even thought they have not been involved in the
campaign. It makes sense though from a media perspective: Jackie Ballard, the
CEO of the RNID, is also an ex-Liberal Democrat MP, and therefore it makes
better 'news value' to focus the story on an individual who has some kind of
status in the world of politics and business (the business being a charity in
this case).

The article is very much to be expected:

* the story is being spun as a demand of Deaf people to create designer children
- - i.e. a sensational angle for an almost entirely hearing readership;
* misinformation with regards to the US case (it has happened there and they
want it to happen here);
* the campaign being centred on a demand for 'rights' to choose the make up of a
child pre-birth.

The RNID comes across as contradictory in the article; Jackie Ballard is quoted
as saying the RNID believes parents should not be prevented from children being
born deaf, but later on the RNID spokesperson states that they would not
actively encourage the choosing of a deaf embryo over a hearing one!

The campaign that is being launched to stop Clause 14(4)(9) has already been
seriously misrepresented by a high ranking newspaper such as the Times. If this
is the news being reported from a supposedly respected broadsheet, one dreads to
think what the tabloids will make of it.

The Sunday Times seems to have missed the simple fact that this particular
Clause is only applying to those seeking IVF treatment.

It also ignores the fact that the campaign that is being launched is not one
that has been set up to 'demand' the 'choice' of 'genetic abnormality'.

Therein lies an irony; Clause 14(4)(9) is specifically aimed to ensure the
creation of a hearing/non-disabled child. Yes, there is a 'designer baby 'issue
here, but the Clause is aimed to ensure the baby is hearing or non-disabled.

The key word in the Clause 14(4)(9) is the word 'preferred'. IF a couple decide
to have a test at IVF stage and IF there are found to deaf and hearing embryos;
a hearing embryo MUST be used. Individuals who WANT to have a deaf embryo will
simply not take the test, because they know that they won't have the choice; but
individuals who WANT to have a hearing embryo WILL be able to take the test,
because it gives them the ability to have the hearing embryo implanted, and to
have the deaf ones discarded.

Those who want a deaf embryo, therefore, are being BANNED from doing so; those
who want a hearing embryo, aren't. Discrimination, pure and simple.

Deaf people have reacted to this, because it means that if it becomes law,
Clause 14(4)(9) bans a parent from choosing a deaf embryo at the IVF stage, IF
they so desire to do so. I make heavy use of the word IF for a reason - only a
tiny percentage of people will actually want to do this, but while this is so,
it is when clauses like this become law that it becomes not only harder to get
them changed, but also easier to develop them in other ways.

You only have to read Professor Gedis Grudzinskas quote in the article to see
how this might develop. Deafness, he says, is not the 'normal' state. Gay and
lesbian people, Black and ethnic minority people (in the UK), also are not
'normal' in our society (i.e. they are a minority in majority), so should they
also be banned from using technology, if the gay gene or the black gene be
identified?

Deafness is being defined as a 'disability'; which of course ignores the fact
that being Deaf is about having a unique language and culture, one that has
existed for as long as humans have been on planet earth. Deaf people have been
striving for 30 years to bring to awareness to the public of Deaf people's
linguistic minority status, with some success.

The UK government actually recognised BSL as a language in its own right, on
18th March 2003 to be exact. There has been a huge explosion in sign language
classes in the last 20 years, with something like 400,000 hearing people
learning sign language, having been taught mainly by Deaf people proficient in
the language. And the value of sign language is confirmed by another explosion:
hearing people with hearing babies are teaching their children to sign before
they speak.because it is easier to communicate with their children earlier in
their life by using gestures and signs.

Deaf people are recognised as possessing a real, true language, no different
from any spoken language other than it being of a different modality. This is
also evidence of the value that Deaf people and their language and culture bring
to society.

Deaf people being of a language minority: so does that mean that those who are
also of a language minority - Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish etc - should be banned from
using technology if somehow a 'language gene' was identified? After all, these
languages are not 'normal' in our society, and are spoken by a minority.

The majority of citizens would object to denying black people, gay people,
linguistic minority groups, or any other group that is a minority, to choose an
embryo that closely resembled themselves, but the argument persists that deaf
people and disabled people are somehow not 'normal'; the article refers to
hearing embryos as 'healthy'; which in turn implies the deaf ones are
'unhealthy'. The hearing gene being 'healthy' therefore justifies enforcing
individuals to choose (or 'prefer') such an embryo, if they have a test that
identifies such genes in embryos created from IVF.

The campaign is not one that is being launched specifically to try to give
people the right to create a deaf baby; it is one that has been launched as a
reaction to Clause 14(4)(9). As Francis Murphy put it in the article, if
embryo's are allowed to be chosen on the basis they are hearing, the same choice
should be allowed for those who are deaf.

But the whole article misses a far more fundamental point: our entire society is
built on diversity, and deaf people and disabled people have always been part of
that diversity. Once you start passing laws to ensure that some of the people
who have been part of a diverse society shouldn't be 'preferred' over others,
you begin to 'play god' with humanity. Deaf people have brought something to
societies and to our understanding of what it means to be human; sign language
and Deaf culture are not 'abnormalities', Deaf and disabled people are not ill
or unhealthy; they are artists, lawyers, workers of all trades and skills,
abilities, professions.this author and many other Deaf people around the world
hold a PhD, and those like Stephen Hawking have made invaluable contributions to
science and knowledge.

The Sunday Times is meant to be a broadsheet newspaper that explores issues with
thought and depth. But in this article, it has seriously failed in that respect,
and leaves us with far more questions than there are answers.

In the New Year, a group of concerned citizens who have coalesced around the
www.stopeugenics.org website, will launch a Press Release calling for Clause
14(4)(9) to be discarded.

The simple outcome of the scrapping of the clause is that individuals will not
then have to 'prefer' a deaf or hearing embryo. For us in the campaign, there
should be no 'preference' of an embryo; they should be treated as equals.

We do not seek to remove the entire Clause, just the specific part of it that
would enforce a couple to 'prefer' a hearing embryo over a deaf one. It is
discriminatory and tries to ban deaf (and disabled people) from doing something
that would be freely available to others. But more seriously of all, it is a
step towards eugenics, since it will mean that couples going for IVF can design
a baby, in this case, they can ensure it is a hearing one. And if it can be
available to ensure the baby is hearing, the next step could be: why not ensure
it can also be blue eyed, blonde, straight, etc.

As many people as possible are needed to come forward and sign the press release
before it is sent out to the general press in the New Year, and to get involved
with the campaign in whatever way you can.

This part of the Clause simply must be stopped and misleading and misinformed
reports like those in the Sunday Times today must be urgently countered as part
of that campaign.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:smygo-digest at yahoogroups.com
    mailto:smygo-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    smygo-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

- --
http://freedom.libsyn.com/       Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/     Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal

 "None of us are free until all of us are free."    ~ Mihail Bakunin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHjLwDuWy2EFICg+0RAoVwAJ9ufuwvoQkfYp8uDtCpMrR+bWuYmQCeNLdl
xx8m0vudS7hJkbFvWo6kk2g=
=Ux8n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----