Mr Bono....

Tear down this wall.

I'm So Sorry That People In The Past Weren't As Morally Worthy As Myself.

One of the reason apologising for historic wrongs is usually a bad idea is that there is often a very strong subtext of self congratulation masquerading as regret, comparing the moral failings of others and contrasting it with one's own enlightened and modern sensibilities.

I say subtext but in Gordon Brown's clunking fist it just becomes text, as today's apology to Alan Turing who died over half a century ago:

I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.

How can you be sorry and proud at the same time? There is nothing for Gordon Brown to be sorry for, he isn't responsible for something that happened when he was a toddler. Equally he has nothing to be proud of, the treatment of Alan Turing was disgraceful and tragic but that applies to a lot of events in history why feel proud simply because we live in an era with slightly different moral codes than that which existed at other times?

Historic apologies are just an excuse for sanctimonious moral preening.

{via Plato}

Designing Disability.

A deaf couple who wanted to use IVF to ensure that they have a deaf baby are angry that the government is proposing to ban the knowing use of embryos with a genetic defect in IVF treatment. This isn't the first time that a deaf couple have deliberately tried to ensure that their child is also deaf. The reason why it is deaf couples trying to propagate their disability rather than couple's with another disability is because uniquely the deafness creates a linguistic minority and a subculture that goes with it.

The problem is that some deaf advocates take the view that because deafness is a cultural identifier it is therefore not really a disability. This leads to situations such as opposition to treating deaf children with cochlear implants because it shrinks the 'community' or doctors failing to offer easy genetic screening for deafness (ironic considering the first story I linked to) in foetuses because of pressure from deafness advocates.

I would guess that the initial reaction for most people to parents 'designing' their children for deafness is probably that it is abhorrent and close to child abuse, that was certainly my first reaction. Considering the matter in more depth certainly creates more sympathy towards the motivations of the parents but it doesn't change the conclusion. The absence of hearing impairs the quality of life of a child and increases the risks they face ( for example they can't hear fire alarms, oncoming traffic etc) and the benefits to the deaf community don't outweigh them.