It's more than that (not deaf either) - if suddenly there is a new therapy to grow a third eye in the back of your head, should you?

Or should a fish be able to breathe without water?

In both cases there are ways to function without fundamentally altering the body, and neither is wrong.

It is not so clear that there is "abuse", when there is an empathetic standard of living.

Now to me, the best argument for taking this is that deaf people do have ears, whether or not they function. So it is reasonable for them to experience sound, but also, they have a right not to, if they so choose.

What I think is harder, if you have experienced neither, to be able to make that decision well. And nobody is talking yet about reversing such a therapy...

Abuse by who? It's themselves who are against adopting it. It's just autonomy at work.

Being able to see was more evolutionary pertinent to us. Same with smell...

Animals that can hear extremely well (owls for instance) rely on this trait to be able to survive.

It's always been more important to us to be able to see versus hear things, we evolved our large brains to take advantage of symbols and information. You can hear a symbol but it requires relatively a lot of energy to relay that over any long distance. In contrast, a smoke signal is visible for many many miles.

Things that are seen tend to be more durable, too. A scream lasts for only an instant, but the signs of a scuffle may last for days or weeks. A carving in stone can last for hundreds of years... and many of the things we eat can be seen but not heard (well).

So it is a far bigger deal to us to be blind than to lack any of the other senses.

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you basically saying that there's no real negative aspects inherent to being deaf, outside of those imposed by society?

This is a valid question. My gripe is people aren't asking the obvious other questions:

1. What are the positive aspects of deafness?

2. What are the different aspects of deafness (neither positive nor negative, but leads to a very different human experience).

If either of these significantly outnumber the negative aspects, I can see why imposing a treatment on children without the parent's consent is problematic.

> I think there's an immense qualitative and quantitative difference between someone's brain working differently and the straightforward presence or lack of a specific physical capability.

In this case, the lack of a specific physical ability results in that person's brain working differently.

I don't doubt your experience at all. The question I have for you is: Can you speak for all deaf people? I'm not saying everyone who is deaf is fine. But I do know that for many (even if a minority), it is fine, and it is different enough that they worry their kid will not have the experience they had, and may have a worse experience (in some ways) with hearing.

It's not a clear cut easy decision. I would say one should understand and respect the parents' decision. They know the factors way better than I do, and likely in many ways better than you do (especially as you don't know ASL).

I work with a deaf person (not born that way, but been that way most of her life). I'm sure she'd pay a hefty sum to get normal hearing - partially because her whole family (kids, etc) are not deaf. Even when she openly talks about the advantages of being deaf. If she did have a deaf child and chose treatment for her kid, I'd totally understand. But if she chose against it, I'd also totally understand.

What I don't get is people insisting they are totally wrong/evil for not pursuing the treatment for their kids. Almost always they don't understand the factors at play.

to be honest, you;'d have the same issues with that said magic wand and normalcy, because hearing aids do amplify sound and allow you to hear everythig.

You'd have the same issue, if not more, with background noise, group settings and context acquisition

Processing input is the hard part, if you're already having issues, that isn't going to go away

> distinct lack from one's natural capabilities in the way that deafness is.

The original commenter wanted to state that deafness can and should be seen as a natural occurrence, instead of a disability, that pushes people to better use other faculties. In the computer analogy, it would be someone who protests the use of computers entirely like for school children, to push them to use other skills.

I have a specific “disability” that I often cannot smell (because of allergies). I have learned to “feel” smell with my fingers running through the air. In such a situation, am I really disabled? Despite how important smell can be especially with spoiled foods? Few would think so. This deaf commenter sees his deafness in the same manner. And sees efforts to broaden people’s senses in the same manner as children being given calculators and computers at an early age.