University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Arts
  • School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
  • School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Arts
  • School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
  • School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Better off deaf?

    Thumbnail
    Download
    Better off deaf? (52.52Kb)

    Citations
    Altmetric
    Author
    SPARROW, ROBERT
    Date
    2002
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    SPARROW, ROBERT
    Affiliation
    Arts: Department of Philosophy
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Preprint
    Citations
    Sparrow, Robert (2002) Better off deaf?.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33685
    Description

    The papers are considered Draft Only and are not to be cited without the permission of the author. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics Working Paper number 2002/11.

    Abstract
    Criticism of Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough's decision, reported in the Washington Post, to seek out and employ a sperm donor with a family history of deafness in order to maximise their chances of having a deaf child, has concentrated on two aspects of this decision. The first is that they are consciously seeking the birth of a child that the vast majority of people would consider to be"disabled". The second argument, which may or may not presume the first, questions their decision to bring a child into the world who is likely to have greatly reduced opportunities by virtue of being deaf. In my response to the controversy surrounding the case, I want to concentrate on the second of these arguments. The idea that deafness need not be a disability and can instead be an entry point to a minority culture coalesced around a signed language, and the foundation of a cultural identity as"Deaf", is one that I am personally sympathetic to. But this argument has been well made elsewhere, by Harlan Lane and others, and for reasons of space I shall not repeat it here.1 In any case, settling the question as to whether D/deafness is a disability or a cultural identity does not in itself resolve the question of the ethics of deliberately seeking to bring about the birth of a D/deaf child. One may concede that deafness is a disability but hold that this is unimportant because deaf children can have sufficient opportunities in life to justify bringing them into the world. Alternatively, one may agree that deafness is a cultural identity, but still be concerned for the opportunities available to the child as a member of that culture. The question of the obligations of parents with regard to the opportunities available to the children they choose to bring into the world remains crucial.
    Keywords
    deafness; disability; moral education; deaf child; deaf culture; deaf parents

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Research Publications [1511]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors