I'm empathetic to this argument, but there needs to be some kind of differentiation between preserving culture and abuse for the sake of community. I can imagine the same argument applying to a cult with cruel traditions, or hazing in general.

▲

smaudet 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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...

▲

guerrilla 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

	▲	og_kalu 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Parents and children ? Sure Adults opting out of such treatments on such grounds is fine. Parents doing so to their children, not so much. I mean you can't exactly go, "We'll wait for them to be old enough to make the decision for themselves" for hearing.
	▲	UltraSane 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Abuse of deaf children. Being able to cure deafness in a child and not doing so isn't much worse than intentionally making the child deaf.