ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2020
Is it ever morally permissible to select for deafness in one's child?
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Ongoing Challenges of Hearing Loss: Stigma, Socio-Cultural Differences, and Accessibility Barriers.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Defending the de dicto approach to the non-identity problem.Monash bioethics review · 2023Article
- They have a Voice; are we Listening?Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Polygenic risk score for embryo selection-not ready for prime time.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Reproductive Considerations for Patients with Early-Onset Breast Cancer.Current breast cancer reports · 2022Article
- What is a mental disorder? An exemplar-focused approach.Psychological medicine · 2021Review
- Letter to the editor. Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Iñigo de Miguel Beriain.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- All in the family.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As reproductive genetic technologies advance, families have more options to choose what sort of child they want to have. Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), for example, allows parents to evaluate several existing embryos before selecting which to implant via in vitro fertilization (IVF). One of the traits PGD can identify is genetic deafness, and hearing embryos are now preferentially selected around the globe using this method. Importantly, some Deaf families desire a deaf child, and PGD-IVF is also an option for them. Selection for genetic deafness, however, encounters widespread disapproval in the hearing community, including mainstream philosophy and bioethics. In this paper I apply Elizabeth Barnes' value-neutral model of disability as mere-difference to the case of selecting for deafness. I draw on evidence from Deaf Studies and Disability Studies to build an understanding of deafness, the Deaf community, and the circumstances relevant to reproductive choices that may obtain for some Deaf families. Selection for deafness, with deafness understood as mere-difference and valued for its cultural identity, need not necessitate impermissible moral harms. I thus advocate that it is sometimes morally permissible to select for deafness in one's child.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.