Daniel Finklelstein is advocating treating a person as a catagory and not a person, using his own words . He argues that mr.Lichy and people like him are imposing their own misfortune upon a child. I doubt very much that these people cosider themselves misfortunate, Mr. Finkelstein is rather imposing his views and own belief systems on the nation or on his readers, without giving sound, balanced argument on behalf of the deaf community or society who are linguistically impaired not 'disabled'.

julie stacey, Rotherham, Great Britain

Profoundly deaf infants now have the opportunity to live in the hearing world and acquire excellent speech and language with the use of cochlear implants and extensive speech therapy. Without this fantastic technology learning speech and language is not always an option. The world of deafness does not have to be closed, infact as tchnology progresses deaf people will live in the hearing world

My three year old son was born profoundly deaf, he had an implant at 16 months and now has age appropriate language and attends a mainstream nursery.

Of course I would prefer him to have been born hearing but I have also learnt so much in the last three years. When he is older he can decide how his deafness will ally itself to his identity.

His identity is not something I am going to choose for him but in the meantine he deserves to have all opportunities that hearing children have available to him.

Sue, London,

This article grossly misrepresents the issues here. We are confusing embryo selection with genetic engineering. Embryos are already conceived and when presented in a womb will grow into a child.

Deaf people feel that their lives are of value to themselves, their community and society as a whole. They would rather nurture the unborn embryo in the test tube into an adult. Daniel, and some other contributions here, seem to think that disposing deaf embryos into the dustbin is justified because deafness does not fit in their eyes of a 'human being'. This thinking, to me, is eugenics.

Tomato Lichy, I agree, is brave to stand up for all of those already fertilised naturally conceived embryos and giving them the right to life, and not death in the hospital dustbin.

John Walker, Brighton, UK

Lyn said. 'have no doubt whatsoever that your children are lovely. But to suggest that they are not missing out on anything is daft: what about music? The sound of your voice? The sound of each other's laughter? Would you not give them that, if you could? '
Again, you can't miss something you didn't have. They see my voice and they see each others laughter. It's not about 'making' babies Deaf, it's about not deciding they can't be born. By saying that they shouldn't be born, means you really feel that they are of less worth than you. Take it from me, they really are not, they are no less equal than you or I, maybe they wll just have a bit less ignorance

Karen Page, Luton, England

I dont understand why everyone keeps referring to Deaf children/people, missing things that hearing people have. How can you miss something you have never had?
Daniels article was insulting to the Deaf Community, as some of the comments are, mainly from people who appear not to be educated enough about Deaf Culture and community to be able to comment intelligently. Why does being Deaf have to be a disability? Why cant it be a language difference? That puts it into a whole other area. I dont recall BSL being recognised as a minority 'disability' language? Daniel needs to spend some time in the Deaf world, (possibly anonymously after that article) and learn what I have: that hearing society and its values and opinions are embedded in Victorain attitudes and that dont belong in the 21st Century. I dont think any life should be discarded, whether hearing or Deaf. One more thought...dont most hearing parents crave a hearing child? whats the difference?

carole, kings lynn, norfolk

I am utterly amazed at the responses to this. Please, those of you who are deaf, understand one simple thing - this is not about YOUR rights but about the rights of another human being. You have no right to make a child in your image just because you are deaf. The child cannot choose and you should not choose for it. As an example, try this thought experiment: assume that there is an operation that can cure your deafness. Should I be allowed to force you to have that operation? But if I cannot enforce hearing on you, then you should not be able to enforce deafness on others either.

Tim, London,

Robert Elliot sums the position up best - the law states that you should not be allowed to select an embryo that would grow into a deaf child, since this involves deliberately bringing about a disadvantaged life when it would have been possible to do otherwise (distinct from allowing a "deaf" embryo to be implanted when they are all "deaf", or a deaf couple having children knowing they have a 100% chance of conceiving a deaf child), but it doesn't necessarily follow that you MUST select a "hearing" embryo. The most ethical solution when presented with a mixed batch of embryos would be to implant randomly, all other things being equal.
Another important point that not everyone seems to catch is that this doesn't involve deliberately disabling a person - the choice is not between person A disabled or not disabled, but between person A (disabled) and person B (not disabled) - the disability has already occurred naturally at the point of conception.

James McQuaid, Stoke-on-Trent, England

Daniel's searing article exposes a hatred towards deafness. To the hearies, that is understandable: the loss of being able to hear within this clattering society is painful. What about those who have not got that 'loss', but make up for this in other ways? It is the attitudes and low expectations (as evidenced in the article and several comments) that grieves Deaf people, who want to lead lives as normal as they could be. As a Deaf parent of two hearing (and deaf-friendly) adults, my world as a hardworking citizen in this media-twisting saga seems to be under threat.

Penelope Beschizza, London, UK

'Eugenics' is such as vague term that both sides could be guilty of it. Mr Lichy is trying to 'enhance' his offspring and the government is limiting his reproductive freedom by dictating what sort of children should be born. In my view, just as nobody should be forced to not have any children, nobody should be forced not to have a particular child (provided they will live a life worth living). More wrong, I believe, is done by denying freedom than is done to the children (in this case at least).

Joshua, Brisbane, Australia

Muddled thinking? Only according to you. Your conscience is clear. Tomato and Paula's conscience are clear too. We all live by different values and this presumptuous article only highlight a clash of differing values but you're making an imposition over something you don't understand

Tony B, Derby, UK

Wow!!! This is nothing new with having Deaf baby/babies.

There are many reasons for having specific baby of your DREAM. Think about it people. What's the difference does it make for a couple who wanted to have a baby born with blue eyes, blonde hairs, boy or girl, remove deadly genetic diseases, etc you name it.

But having a Deaf baby is not a bad thing. For most of us, the Deaf population, we wanted to feel the connection like giving huge LOVE, better future, excellent leader, talent artist, teacher, scientist, anything POSITIVE with our SIGN LANGUAGE (we still can TALK but most of us are not comfortable using it, including LIPREADING thing - AK! Not realistic people.)

This is all about our RIGHTS and our choices however we feel that we have the right to be Happy, loving, caring Deaf parents without undue burden.

- O.S. "Being Deaf & Free Spirit" - photographer
SF, CA - USA

Orkid , San Francisco , California, USA

tomato? who chose that name? i can't believe it...at first i thought he may be japanese - Tamato etc, but seeing a picture of him he is obviously western. Now that is weird. I guess calling your child cheese tomato sandwich would be OK as well as making him deaf.

Len, Aberystwith, UK

I'd like to respond to Bee from Wolverhampton. Are you suggesting that Deaf people shouldn't have children?

I am a hearing child of Deaf Parents, conceived through IVF. I am NOT disabled in anyway. My speech was not delayed, in fact, people often commented on my aptitude of language from a very early age. My development was not hindered or stunted by my parents Deafness. The See Hear programme offered you one example of a hearing child from a Deaf family. Generalisations should not be made on this basis.

At 27 I live a rich and full life in both the deaf and hearing communities. I am very proud of my background and culture and thankful to my parents for bringing me into this world.

Rose, Ipswich, Suffolk

Tomato's view, from my experience, is very typical of the deaf community. They are an insular lot who go through life with chips on their shoulders. Why you would want your child to be part of such a community I do not know !

Alex, Nottingham,

First of i don't believe in IVF, i think it's wrong. However, has anyone thought about the problems a hearing child is going to have in a deaf family? There was a whole See Hear (programme for the deaf) episode about hearing children growing up in a deaf family. For example how they don't learn how to speak till they get to school. So technically either way you are going to have a 'disabled' child whether it's hearing or deaf.

Bee, Wolverhampton,

Lets take another perspective - deaf babies as young as three months of age are inplanted with cochlear impants (they are too young to make a fully informed choice) and forced to use spoken language and function as a hearing child, this is another instance that supports Alison from Wales stance in saying deaf people are being portrayed as second class citizens who do not fit into an acceptable model of normality.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating a language, culture and community, it makes us a richer and more tollerant society If Deaf people are proud to be deaf let them be so, we should congratulate them for overcoming a stigma that SOCIETY has imposed on them -and once again remember no-one has made the embryo deaf, except perhaps God and the government are dictating wether it is worthy of survival or not.

Lesley, Midlands, UK

To be willing to inflict a disability on a child as either a statement or a lifestyle choice indicates to me a deep, deep level of anger at the world. I listened to the interview on the Today show with mounting horror - not only at the perverse views of Mr Lichy, but also at a society that has allowed segregation through disability to become a form of profound alienation and separateness almost political in nature. In some ways, it mirrors the complete mess we have made through multiculturalism when dealing with issues of ethnicity and integration. The rest of us really are quite ignorant of the extent to which political correctness has allowed issues like this to form and fester into hardened and rather poisonous ideologies until we are confronted with something as up front and as shocking as that Today interview. It really was quite disturbing, and I'm not in the least surprised at the public backlash.

Sean Hunter, Glasgow, UK

Dear Mr Finkelstein...

This article is not news or debate... it is obstructive misrepresentation that prevents serious debate.

Please READ before you write. This is not a Deaf vs Hearing battle... it's a battle between thinking people and the unthinking ignorance that accepts what you're told by 'experts' who have taken as little time to understand Deaf people's realities as you have...

Can you not see the debate is not about Deaf people engineering-in deafness (they've never asked to be able to do that) but about challenging those who draw their authority from the unthinking acceptance that 'hearing' is the only valid way to be...

Open your eyes to the amazing possibilities that Deaf knowledge and realities offer in challenging our acceptance of what full and valid humanity is and might be... and engage with Deaf people in a REAL attempt to understand what they say rather than simply condemning them for something they haven't said, and that you don't understand...

Mike Gulliver, Cardiff, Wales

Life is hard enough even with all one's faculties, to take away one of the senses is immoral, how any parent can consider such a thing is criminal. I'me tired of hearing people with a handicap talking about 'celebrating' their blindness or whatever. I understand if one has never listened to Mozart or The Birds then one doesn't know what one is missing, never seen a sunrise .. so what? To deliberately bring people into the world who are lacking any of their senses puts an added strain on medical resources.

dunlochan, france,

Despite the mission statement of the Royal Assn. for Deaf People, deaf people are disabled, like the term or not. We are meant to have five senses and we need them all, life is harder for those missing one. It's our attitude towards the disabled that needs to change, and the avoidance of the use of a word is silly. (Prime example .. the use, or non-use, of the world 'old'; at ninety one is 'old' not 'elderly'.)
There's a lot of fuss about helping a terminal patients on their way; to deliberately maim, a child by choosing an embryo that is deaf, or otherwise handicapped, is criminal, cruel and downright selfish. How dare anyone say that another person should be so deprived. Perhaps without an NHS this whole business wouldn't even arise.

dunlochan, france,

"purposefully made deaf by their parents"

You mean "purposely", since you are using it in the sense of "intentionally". "Purposefully" has a different meaning: "He walked purposefully down the street", i.e., he walked with an air of purpose, with determination. The two words are often confused, but I'm still surprised to read this simple grammatical error in The Times.

Alys, Colchester, UK

To Karen Page: I have no doubt whatsoever that your children are lovely. But to suggest that they are not missing out on anything is daft: what about music? The sound of your voice? The sound of each other's laughter? Would you not give them that, if you could?

There's an easy solution to this dilemma anyway: let a child be born with hearing, and if they can't cope or feel alienated or really hate it, at the age of eighteen they can be made deaf. How high do you think the demand would be?

Lyn, Birmingham,

Now that parents have some control over the genetic makeup of their children, the children should be able to sue their parents for the abuse of that power.

I think a child deliberately selected for deafness would have a good case. What damages would a court award if a person was deafened in an industrial accident? How much if it were intentional by the very people supposed to look after the victim?

Norman, Anstruther, UK

"Choosing a deaf baby is criminal.... Don't laugh. There is probably someone out there who takes him seriously and thinks he's right.!!!"

S. Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire

"Deaf people are only ‘disabled' by the effects of discrimination and exclusion.” Actually, deaf people are only not disabled because they live in a modern society where the inability to hear an approaching predator is no longer a major cause of death.

Aside from that argument, this Mr Lichy wants to make it illegal for anyone to object to a child being handicapped (yes, Mr Lichy, loss of a sense is a handicap - ask anyone who loves music) at birth by deliberate action of a doctor. Where does that route end except in the science of eugenics. Once a parent can legally request any form of genetic engineering in order to affect the growth and development of a child, it becomes the norm to start tinkering in the womb. Whether by Hiltler's selctive breeding program or by genetic engineering, this is the Nazi dream made law and must be resisted at all costs.

KR, Stockport,

Congratulations to Mr Finkelstein's article, a can of worms must surely be opened now with lots of arguments for and against.

The whole saga of allowing deaf couples to ensure that their unborn baby has an hearing impairment is wrong.

To allow people to play god over an unborn child makes me shudder, will blind couples create blind children?

My wife and I are deaf ourselves and take great delight to be blessed with two beautiful children whom are hearing.

Let nature do its job as it always have done.

Chris, Yorkshire, England

whats all this nonsense about deaf people not being disabled?

If you have ears but they do not work then those ears are not able to do their job, they are disabled.

Sam, birmingham, west midlands

These two deaf parents cannot understand a world outside of their disability. They both seemed to have coped admirably and yet their physical impairment has now made them believe (understandably) that any child who can hear will not be part of their family unit living in harmony with them. They are frightened and in fear they are making a terrible choice. That is why the law must step in and prohibit them making this choice. They have lost the ablity to reason due to their impairment in this case. One must also question whether a hearing child may in fact be open to some abuse within this family due to the profound lack of parental understanding and NATURAL instinct given by nature that a parent naturally wants the best possible advantage for its child. They have lost this instinct and therefore are unfit to be parents.

laura, Oxford, UK

The culture of death proceeds unabated. They who cannot cry out are disposable. Saying this is not eugenics is pure sophistry.

David, Philadelphia, USA/PA

I find it bizarre that no one is jumping up and down about the government giving permission for scientists to mix human/animal embryos, but there's all this about a couple wanting a Deaf baby, that will be closer to them because of it.It's all about communication not disability. I have 2 Deaf children, they are no less perfect than hearing children, but people are impying that they are. They don't miss out on anything, and have plenty of opportunities, the same as everyone else. 1 of my sons has a BA in Theatre production. The other plays rugby for Luton under 11's. The best hooker they've had apparently!! If this is just alllowed to sail through with no one objecting, where will it stop? That's the question that you should be thinking about. It is known that scientist think they can find a Gay gene. What will they do with that information? Your views are made as a hearing person, as are mine, but the difference is I live with it, and it's not an issue. My children are Perfect !

Karen Page, Luton, England

I agree with Mr Finkelstein that the "deafness is not a disability" stance is fundamentally absurd, and it's worrying that in our efforts to be good we collude in such deception.

However, there's a reasonable amount of confusion in Mr Finkelstein's thinking, too. There is no choice to "make a child deaf", and hence no child abuse; the embryo in question is already (going to be) deaf. The decision is as to which embryo has the chance to become a child; each embryo will become a quite different child.

To suggest that it is *so* much better for a deaf embryo to be terminated than to allow it to become a child that allowing it to become a child is tantamount to child abuse really is offensive to every deaf person, since it says to them "it would be better if you had never existed".

The problem with IVF is that multiple embryos are created and it is human beings that must choose which one gets that chance to grow up, and deny that opportunity to the others.

Robert Elliot, Twickenham,

Tomato Lichy is showing one of the incipient signs of being an absolutely terrible parent: he refuses to accept that his child will be a person who is likely to be very different from himself.

My husband would quite like to have begotten an artist. What we seem to be raising is a computer geek, possibly even a future programmer. He's also funny, kind, and affectionate. That's the deal. You take what you get and honour the person who's been given to you to raise.

Nancy Wood, London,

It seems absurd to deliberately dis-able a child to suit a family's needs. What next? Will amputee parents insist that their children have limbs removed?

Will Wesley, Lancashire, uk

"then perversely ensuring that their child cannot hear. I am afraid that making such a choice is child abuse."

This is where Finkelstein goes way too far. As Alison points out, this is not a case of parents deliberately damaging a healthy foetus to ensure it is born deaf. The foetus is deaf already. All that is happening is that they are refusing to make a positive choice to reject a deaf foetus, because to them that equates to discrimniation against deaf people. Almost as though, in the classic hot-air balloon scenario, we were to chuck out the deaf person first, because they are naturally less worthy of life.

Like all these things, it comes down to when exactly you believe life begins, and at what point human rights kick in.

Edward Benson, London, UK

"People will be free not to select for hearing but they will not be allowed to select for deafness."

Encouragingly that seems the most rational position - so if you wish, your deaf embryos are included in the lottery to see which of them gets to grow up? You just aren't allowed to limit that lottery to deaf embryos? If we are going to have IVF, I suppose that seems the best conclusion.

Robert Elliot, Twickenham,

I also heard this interview and was so discomforted by Tomato's views that I turned the car radio off. How can it be right to deprive a child of one of man's fundamental senses even if you have managed to cope without it from birth? Mr.Finkelstein articulates this perfectly.

Jon Parrott, Edinburgh,

This is ridiculous...No one should make such decisions for an unborn child. This is sheer madness! I understand deaf people should be 'equal' and are probably better off in certain ways but to inflict this on unsuspecting souls is atrocious! If my parents ever did that, i would hate them for it.

Maybe its about being 'Indian' but according to me, parents are always trying to give their kids what they themselves never had and not take away their right to have something deliberately!

Then again, I think IVF should be banned altogether. But I do know am a little radical on that. I can change my mind. Not on this though, not on this.....

Pallavi, Delhi, India

If Mr Lichy believes what he says - that deafness is superior to being able to hear and it is we hearing people who are disabled - then the logic of his position is clear. If he is unlucky enough to have a hearing child then it should be legal for him to consent on his child's behalf to surgery making the child deaf. This is not, of course, legal, and shouldn't be. He should not be able to have limbs removed from his child just to suit his own political agenda either.

And, by the way, Alison from Wales, you have totally misunderstood the situation. Parliament is not saying that only hearing embryos should survive. People will be free not to select for hearing but they will not be allowed to select for deafness.

Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

I know the Spring is coming because I am woken at dawn by birdsong.

The ability to hear is so much more than just being able to communicate with other humans.

It must be difficult to treasure something you can never have, but wrong to want to deny it to others.

Richard Boyce, Haywards Heath, West Sussex

I believe that to choose to have a baby with a deformity, is wrong. If one is born with any deformity then it is unfortunate. If one as a deformity then it is possible to adjust ones life accordingly. But to choose to have a baby with similar problems is selfish to the extreme. If you are born blind, would you want to have a baby also born blind. To be so selfish in this manner is totally unjust

victor arram, westcliff,

To Alison, Wales, UK:

Technically speaking, the "policy statement" is that deaf embryos are second-class embryos (in comparison with non-deaf embryos). There is a clear distinction between an embryo and a citizen.

Daniel, Staines, UK

Thank you for a common-sense analysis of precisely where Tomato and his supporters go wrong.
The intent to afflict another is on their side and it is extraordinary that there are those who cannot see it.

Jonathan Wilton, Singapore,

There are some questions that are so dumb — or criminal — that all possible answers are dumb. Or, in this case, criminal.

If we swallow Mr. Finkelstein's camel — that it's OK to create many embryos so that we can select one that we like the look of to take home with us — then yes, of course, the exaggerated political correctness of the Deaf Society representative is indeed perverse.

There remains the small matter of the camel. Embryos are not 'potential people'; they are people with potential. And it is a crime to create them for our own purposes when we intend to kill most of them. Only such people as we, who have hardened ourselves to such obscenities since the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act, could ever think otherwise.

Meic Pearse, Houghton, NY 14744

After reading Mr Finkelstein's columns for several months now, I have come to the conclusion that if he decided to come here to America, I would be more than happy to pay for his ticket, even give him room and board. He might touch off a wave of honesty in American journalism that would snatch it from the mouths of political correctness. Well done, Daniel. Well done.

Mike, Indianapolis, US

Parliament wants to set a law that states that only hearing embryos are allowed to be selected, and secondly, those with deaf genes are never allowed to become donors. The government dictating reproductive liberty of individuals is a move towards eugenics. It is making a clear statement who is permitted to reproduce and who is permitted to live. From this, deaf people were forced to respond.

No-one is making an embryo deaf, the embryo is already deaf; the government is just making a statement that it is not allowed to survive. Through such actions, its a clear policy statement that deaf people are second class citizens.

Alison, Wales, UK