It gives me so much hope... I'm so happy to see such developments in modern medicine
Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
331–340 of 351 posts
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#332My Mom was born with less than half of her hearing in left ear and barely anything at all in right ear. She had surgery as an adult and it slightly improved, especially on the right side. Pretty sure this little girl and my Mom don't share the same disability at all but she saw these news today and texted me so excited because future kids won't have to endure the same. Brings tears to my eyes, I'm so grateful for mod…
The impact of medical advancements on individuals and families, the hope they bring for future generations...
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#333Medical science is about the only thing in modern life that consistently delivers hope. While all the other terrible things are going on, something like this comes along and I’m just extremely happy to be alive right now.
medical science is providing hope for existence
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#334Medical science is about the only thing in modern life that consistently delivers hope. While all the other terrible things are going on, something like this comes along and I’m just extremely happy to be alive right now.
Serious suggestion: try gardening. To plant a garden is to believe in tomorrow. - Audrey Hepburn
Gardening can indeed be a rewarding and therapeutic activity
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is why the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the US are so upsetting to me. Its sucking away the hope by putting so many of these technological miracles out of reach.
The high Healthcare costs in the US are caused mostly by high physician salaries though, and that's probably highly correlated with why they are able to make all these breakthroughs
Last I checked, physician pay represents a fairly small (single digit) fraction of healthcare expenditure. If I recall right, administrative overhead and insurance is significantly more of a contributor to pricing.
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he's implying that someone with a non-functioning body part getting a functioning donor (presumably from someone who just died and has no chance of ever needing or wanting theirs again) would not be controversial. To answer farther into your line of questioning, though, I'd personally consider replacement reproductive systems "fully functional" only if they allow having children with one's own DNA. If we were to…
The goal of all life is to make more life, is it? Not everyone wants kids. Is it my duty to be able to make kids? But what about my autism and mental illness? I thought that people didn't want people like me making kids. Or is it all about my usefulness to cishet guys? A woman is, after all, just a tool.
Remember, you asked if "there'd be no controversy." I'm just examining the controversy, not universal truth.
I didn't tell you that you need to want or have kids. I do believe your life will have been pointless if you don't, but you're free (and likely) to disagree with that. Personally, I think "eternal life" as promised by some religions can be analogized as reproduction. If you think you've identified another biological purpose of life, that's good for you.
I don't know why you'd bring sexism into this; it takes two, and both sides are just as valuable. Having biological kids with someone means your DNA's going to be stuck together as a new person, so you want it to be someone you care about. It almost sounds like you're transgender yourself, but most transgender people I've spoken with about the topic would be thrilled to be able to have kids, especially MtF folks on the topic of carrying. I've certainly heard some say they don't care about it (and they have to come to peace with that, regardless), but I haven't heard of anyone saying not being able to is part of their identity.
This right here is part of the problem. You identified that I don't agree with you on the current state of things and picked a fight, rather than agreeing on working towards a place we'd both be happier with, anyway. (Or are you saying you specifically don't want transgender people to be able to have kids? Do you think there'd be something wrong with it if they were able to?) This entire line of argument would be irrelevant if science got to that point. But political and medical will is stalled arguing about half-measures instead. I know science is slow, but I just hope there will come a day when people can make decisions about their bodies without loss of reproduction being a concern-- and not talking about it won't get us there faster.
Your questions about autism and mental illness falls under "eugenics," which is kind of one of the major discussion points of this entire thread.
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because in humans sight is the primary sense and hearing secondary. Deaf people face a lot of challenges, but not nearly as many as blind people (amd I say this as someone with -10 prescriptions, which is close to legal blindness without my glasses)
I think some of this is just a matter of adapting to the bodies we have (we've never had great vision), but my sister and I, who are slowly losing our sight, both agree that we'd rather go blind than go deaf. For us, it's about the ease with which oral communication connects to others, and a deep love of music. Both of us have an easier time recognizing voices than faces, and this was true even when we were younger a…
> Given that much of the point of the designation 'legally blind' is that the impairment is uncorrectable, this is a pretty unfortunate phrase imo, common as it is
Why is this unfortunate? The designation also very much refers to the severity of the impairment, not just whether it's correctable. Perhaps this depends on the country?
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#338Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the end goal of modern medicine though? Immortality? You can perhaps reduce suffering to nil, but you can't cheat death.
Wouldn't reducing suffering to nil be a worthy goal? Is there any reason we shouldn't pursue this to its end?
You can reduce physical suffering, but what about mental suffering? Would you want everybody to take a drug that will make them perpetually "high"?
Re: Deaf girl is cured in world first gene therapy trial
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some of this is just a matter of adapting to the bodies we have (we've never had great vision), but my sister and I, who are slowly losing our sight, both agree that we'd rather go blind than go deaf. For us, it's about the ease with which oral communication connects to others, and a deep love of music. Both of us have an easier time recognizing voices than faces, and this was true even when we were younger a…
> Given that much of the point of the designation 'legally blind' is that the impairment is uncorrectable, this is a pretty unfortunate phrase imo, common as it is Why is this unfortunate? The designation also very much refers to the severity of the impairment, not just whether it's correctable. Perhaps this depends on the country?
Because the experience of someone whose impaired vision is fully corrected gives little to no special insight into what it is like to be blind.
(If you spend years where the best vision you get is worse than, 20/200 or whatever, because you don't actually have access to adequate correction, that is actually relevant to discussions of blindness even if your vision is in principle correctable, sure.)
Blind people have to adapt their lives in ways that are just not reflected in taking off one's glasses for a moment or wearing a blindfold for a bit. And when you're as myopic as a -10, the times when you go without correction are typically momentary because not having correction is not optional for you.
At the same time, the anxiety (terror, even) of suddenly trying to navigate the world sightlessly, whether because you're a visually impaired person whose glasses have been lost or crushed or because you're a signted person wearing a blindfold for a day as an exercise, isn't really representative of everyday blind life, either.
'Legally blind without my glasses' is a phrase that at best invites inapt comparisons, and in other cases falsely suggests the authority of highly relevant firsthand experience.
It's not the biggest deal in the world. I wouldn't say it's offensive. But it's just not a very clueful thing to say when talking about blindness or talking to blind people.