Offering up her usual contention and pro-deaf viewpoint for financial gain it seems, the list of contacts and sponsors seems considerable, I know Ricky needs to earn a living but... questioning the deaf cure. (Again, she did it thrice before), is the latest regurgitation.
Obviously, and ignoring 'cultural concern' (since they AREN'T legally entitled to make any decisions on other people's children anyway), perspective needs to be included.
E.G. If you had an option to restore sight lost, or wear glasses, assist poor hearing with a hearing aid, or a CI, or to prevent a serious disability getting worse, of course, most parents would take that option, not least to ensure a better life for their child. Introducing discrimination and inclusion laws doesn't address the basic want of any parent to do the best they can for their child, they don't have children to just fill up deaf schools and clubs and forever defend the fact they cannot hear. 40% of deaf children get mental health issues, would a 'cure' there be opposed too? Whilst 'cures' don't really exist for deafness as yet (They will for most at some point), alleviation has increased our quality of life considerably.
There are few areas of the deaf community apart from their social one that helps, and therein lies a primary reason to oppose any cure, since the opponents of 'cures' suggest 'they' want to keep isolating deaf people, and 'attack their right to be deaf', they play on deaf fears, which are grossly uninformed and unfair.
Obviously, a cure option for some will become relative in the future, as genetics find a way to prevent most deafness induced via rogue genes, so a child is born without such an issue to address anyway. Die-hards know this, so they oppose identification of such genes too, again because they know a parent can then express a choice. The row is about WHAT choices they opt for with no cure in sight. We cannot nor want to tell deaf parents, what they must do with their children, equally, the same applies for others.
Medical advice to take supplements or a minor op on the womb to assist a struggling foetus, e.g. to prevent some disabilities are taken up by deaf mothers as a matter of course, and, justified to 'prevent' some issue in a child as yet not born, curious how they DON'T see addressing deafness as an issue, is it challenging disability and other disabled people? It looks hypocritical and belittling the issues of other disabled.
The 'battlegrounds' (Which mainly exist via these cultural die-hards), are mere skirmishes in the main, alleviations and technological advances these days mean settling for sign or silence or even a single deaf social life and community, is not an inevitability any more. We should be encouraging not limiting advances. It's the politics of Canute.
The pay off is wider acceptance, more inclusion, and more options open to deaf people. It's time what passes for a deaf community removed the naysayers and doom-mongers of the cultural variety preaching genocide and discrimination against 'hearing people' too. It's mostly that who are disenfranchised and/or those who can succeed OUTSIDE the community anyway, big fish in small puddles basically, preaching paranoia. They know access and alleviations for us all means they become redundant. These days there is an element of making a living doing it, that suggests bias is essential to making that living, as is the increased hype, poor awareness, and distortions of deaf need.
What they do not seem to understand is other areas of the world hold no such 'qualms' about cures, including the USA itself, and the UK (Who are amid world leaders on DNA and genetic research), along with Australia who developed CI's and India/Pakistan developing cheap or free hearing aids for their people, why would anyone want to oppose that? Areas like China etc who plough billions into getting rid of disabilities of all kinds, as do 98% of all our 'charities' support research they aren't there plugging more of the same. Those who want to preserve deafness have no point really. They can masquerade it as 'cultural preservation' all the like, but the bottom line is that deafness is a sensory LOSS and a disability, it is a 'Norm' only in as much as a cure hasn't yet arrived. When it does... and we need to prepare.
46 deaf genes exist they WILL be addressed at one point, but the reality is genetic deaf are a minority even within the deaf world itself. It's well below .2% of the whole. The rest can be down to illness/accident etc.. as the parents are hearing not deaf. Apart from exceptional accident issues, everything is addressable, once the will (And money), is there to do that. There are few if any parents on the planet who would NOT take a decision to help their child if they could. Or stand to be pilloried if they don't.
A child's future is decided by parents not, by outsiders, it's a legal right, and the demand to 'wait until a child can self choose..' is a blind, as many options and decisions have to be taken early on, else, it is too late after, (Which is why culturists, demand 'choice' later.) They know any real choice isn't on the table then, how cruel.