If there were 'cures' to disabilities, should the 'cures' be mandatory?

If there were suddenly genetic, scientific, and/or medical "cures" for disabilities like deafness, blindness, or paralysis, do you think hypothetically that they should be made mandatory that parents give these cures to their kids if there were no side affects or adverse affects to taking the "cure," effectively eradicating these things from future generations.

  • I would absolutely support the idea of the 'cure' being mandatory
    53% (41)45% (26)49% (67)Vote
  • I would only support an optional 'cure'
    47% (37)55% (32)51% (69)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
18|25

Most Helpful Guy

  • I would support mandatory, because first of all most humans are born with it. And even if they are deaf they still have ears, it's just that something isn't working. And with all the trouble I have had with my eyes, I was born with cataracts which were removed at the age of 16, then I had a laser procedure done, I would totally make it mandatory for eyes.

    I also accept that it should be optional to the individual, because there needs to be the option. The thing is that not having these things like hearing sight or whatever naturally, it could be dangerous, and having it will help with safety, learning, and all sorts of things.

    If someone came out with a drug that said, correct you homosexuality, or anything like that, they should be ejected from the planet lol

    0|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Girl

  • Given that parents usually want what's best for the children, I don't think it has to be mandatory. If there are absolutely no adverse affects, most parents will demand it for their children.
    But we have to keep in mind that there are these people who think every child is born perfect just as God intended, so they won't demand it, because there's beauty in the disabilities of their children. For their children's sake, I think it should be mandatory.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 24

  • I think it should be offered as a choice, not really mandatory and can;t see why it should be. I've seen cancer treatments said to mandatory for children but have serious side effects, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, long term clinical trials would need to be conducted.

    0|2
    0|0
  • I'm against forced vaccinations and medical produces, I believe it must be a choice because were do you draw the line? first it's vaccinations next it's something else and before to long they'll putting stuff in you, you don't want but you can't stop it because it's mandatory.

    But at the same time it wouldn't need to be mandatory either, people don't want these sicknesses they are stricken with. So would come willingly.

    1|1
    0|0
    • You do know forced vaccinations are for the good of EVERYONE around you right?
      Now what do we have? Smallpox returns because a bunch of dumbass anti-vaccers refused to vaccinate their kids against it.

      But yea, disabilities are another story, that should be optional but my guesses are, well... If one can afford it, why wouldn't one take it?

    • @Cusco_Othriyas Actually they aren't and I am only referring to standard diseases not being mandatory obviously if you're dealing with something like smallpox of even worse something along the lines of the plague then yes a mandatory vaccination should be erected. But when it comes to normal stuff I am against forced vaccinations.

      And yeah it should be, optional not only because it shouldn't be forced but also because it wouldn't need to be anyone with disabilities would come willingly.

  • "I would absolutely support the idea of the 'cure' being mandatory" and it's sad that anyone chose B for a change.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I wouldn't support it being mandatory... But then I'd remove all the accommodations you get for having it. It would be your choice to be that way, but you wouldn't get other people to kiss your ass for it.

    Also all of those things aren't things you can cure to just eradicate like conventional diseases. You'd have to keep doing it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • That's not entirely true. There are a lot of genetic disorders that could end tomorrow if certain people known to have such disorders would not procreate with others with the same disorder or genetic markers. Also I hardly think providing someone with say a wheel chair ramp is kissing their ass, especially considering they had no choice in the matter to begin with.

    • The opinion owner's point is that if the wheelchair user was offered a cure and refused it, then they DID have a choice in the matter and that is when special accommodations should be pulled back.

  • unrealistic scenario

    that's like me telling you to cure your case of being left handed with your right hand.

    disabilities aren't life threatening, nor are they curable. it's simply the variance of human biology. they ideal 'solution' would be to breed out unwanted traits by selective pairing.

    1|0
    0|0
    • of course its unrealistic...(at least for now), this is a hypothetical, so we're supposing one could "cure" (notice the continued quotes) all disabilities. As some have pointed out, many a company insurance, medical, schools, extra parking spaces, etc. would no longer be needed which would be reason for many hypothetically of course, to suggest that it be mandatory. I'm playing the devils advocate here, but we already have genetic testing, and still many people ignore the results and continue to have children with preventable genetic disorders. Is that not splitting hairs.

    • Show All
    • As far as the other bit, I think that would prove to be an interesting legal case. One can argue that they don't have a problem, but for example can a blind person transport themselves via car? They need assistance, drivers, help getting into certain places. That costs money, human time. Can they see a car about to hit them without a seeing eye dog? One could argue these things are detrimental to living a full life. (Again, I don't actually believe that, but playing devils advocate here).

    • a goal would need to be established before either could prove detrimental. people w/ a faulty sense of sight become hyper sensitive in the other 4 to compensate. echo location, pressure changes, etc.

      if you could restore a fetus to normality after a disability is detected or predicted then you're getting somewhere. but you can't take away a life one is accustomed to in swap of another unless convicted of a crime. much like veil raised in a cage barely big enough to move in are not really suffering if they're unaware of a life otherwise.

  • It should be optional, but the existence of a cure (assuming it's affordable) would allow special services and legal allowances to be removed. In other words, you don't have to do it, but you get no special treatment if you opted into something preventable.

    If it is made mandatory, that's extremely close to state-sponsored eugenics which will not end well for anyone interested in human rights.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well, who in their right mind wouldn't want the cure?

    I am reminded of a freaky story about deaf students glorifying "Deaf Culture", which just shocked the hell out of me.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think that would be a great idea! But if it's mandatory, does that mean the state would pay for it?

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. I see too many stories of well-meaning doctors and parents trying to 'cure' people who are Deaf.

    This is NOT the same as vaccinations, as someone vaccinated will potentially affect other people too.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not only for kids but for adults. If the health system didn't have to look after these people, that would be a huge weight lifted from it and it would give doctors and hospitals more time to help real people.

    0|0
    0|0
    • REAL PEOPLE? Who are you? Reverend Stryker? It is not their choice to be born like this, and so been vaccinated shouldn't be either?
      1 - If you think they are a "weight to be lifted" by society, than you're assuming they should pay for it, and no everyone can afford cure WHICH ARE MANDATORY.
      2 - If you are guessing they should be taken care by the healthcare system, make cures that are mandatory WOULD BE A HUGE COST TO SPEND for the country.

    • @Giacomanzo hahahahaha! was waiting for someone to react to that.

      But to take your points seriously, I was actually going under the assumption that these handicapped beings are receiving welfare benefits and disability concessions for their health care. So in that case, it would be a huge weight lifted if they only had to be paid for one more time

  • Wouldn't it be a horrendous cruelty to deliberately keep someone blind, deaf, or paralyzed? Isn't that actually akin to blind or maiming the person yourself?

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yea why would you want to be disabled? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemies.

    0|1
    0|0
  • i think it should be mandatory.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I answered no. I mean, if one wanted to regenerate, why would they just not do that? I agree with raio81597's point about there being a price to cures too.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It should be up to the patient weather they want the cure, not the government.

    0|0
    0|0
  • what disabilities are we talking about cause some disorders you can't cure for instance if a person has ADHD you can't cure it cause their born with it in their gene's

    0|0
    0|0
    • Well considering this is merely a hypothetical, let's assume you could cure just about anything including mental disorders.

    • it can't be it's a defect

    • that would be like trying to tell a horse to drink the water

  • What if turned out it did something horrific three generations down the line?

    0|0
    0|0
    • That's the risk we all take now with anything new that we take. Even vaccines which have prevented billions of disease and disabilities, still in some case, have negative effects on certain people. It's along the lines of your hand sanitizer being listed as only killing 99.9% of germs... it's that unknown and uncontrollable 0.1 percent that can have major consequences.

    • You're preaching to the choir

  • If there were no risks,
    Fuck yes

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes it should, and it should be free, healthcare should be free

    0|0
    0|0
  • If it's risk free, it should be mandatory and affordable.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yea I think so...

    0|0
    0|0
  • For adults perhaps not. For children should their parents wishes be overruled? In some cases.

    I suspect deafness is the one you would get the most in community pushback on.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Have you noticed how by a big margin more girls than guys think it should be mandatory. Men are the lesser evil of the two genders.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The cure should be mandatory and if the parents refuse, they should be executed.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 17

  • I don't think they would need to be mandatory. If I could live a life cures of my disabilities I would get it as soon as possible. People don't WANT to be disabled.

    0|0
    0|0
  • There is a cure for deafness, or certain cases of it. However, it only works properly with children.

    They have this surgery that fixes whatever wires were crossed in the brain, and have earpieces that allow people to hear. However, it's only effective on people with sufficient neuroplasticity to retrain their brains to be able to hear again. In older people, it's too difficult to unlearn the process of lip reading etc. It's possible, but it doesn't happen often.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Assuming there were no risks (which wouldn't happen) I think it should be mandatory just like getting your vaccinations when your a baby should be mandatory unless a doctor says otherwise

    1|0
    0|0
  • The government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what we put in our bodies, whether it's food, drink, medicine, anything. The government isn't raising a parent's child so they shouldn't be allowed to tell a parent how to treat their ailments. Plus, there are several religions and cultures in the United States that are against modern medicine. It would be an invasion on their Constitutional Rights.

    1|0
    0|0
  • yes it should.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it shouldn't be mandatory, but it's an option for those who can take it if they want it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm pretty sure most parents would want their child to get the best possible medical attention. Unfortunately it's often more complicated than that.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, they should not be mandatory but if a cure is available then it should be offered free and if a person declines, no further disability assistance should be available to them.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Most, but not all disabilities. There's a disability called synthesthesia, and honestly it's too cool to cure. It basically makes certain senses cross

    0|0
    0|0
  • Providing if this is utopia they live in

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't think you should be forced in to anything but if you do this early in children's lives it should not be a problem

    0|0
    0|0
  • So if the cure was only avaliable for a child or someone who cannot make an informed choice through ilness then yes, if its for an adult who can make that choice then no

    0|0
    0|0
  • I've taken deaf culture classes and this is a huge controversy in the Deaf Community. Some deaf people see it as who they are and they don't view themselves as disabled. Other deaf people would welcome the idea. It really depends.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Many people wouldn't be able to afford it and the peoe making it need money to make more and get their pay-check

    0|0
    0|0
  • If there was a cure why wouldn't you want to take it.

    1|0
    0|0
    • the reason I put cure in quotes, is because to say something needs to be cured, generally implies that something is wrong with you. I have a deaf friend with deaf parents who both feel as though there is nothing wrong with them. They function like everyone else, they have jobs, they have degrees, they've had kids, they pay bills like everyone else, the only difference is their deafness. So to them, why would you need a cure if you're normal.

    • I know where your coming from on that issue.
      My mother is stone deaf, she lip reads & speaks normal although loud at times.
      She was born hearing then went deaf in her late teens to early 30s.
      I asked her once what would you do if you woke tomorrow & could hear again.
      Her response was the noise would drive her crazy.

    • She's right. There are deaf adults who've gotten cochlear implants that allow them to hear to some degree and many report taking them off at times because they've been used to a silent world for so long that to suddenly be bombarded by 1,000's of sounds all day is a pain, especially as many of the sounds are completely unfamiliar.

  • if is about young children and improvement of their lives their lives who wouldn't want to cure them? But there is something wrong in the idea that any goverment would have a say in these sort of matters which mean to be personal desisions at least for the adults. Medically talking even if all were cured it wouldn't eradicate disabilities for future generations

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course, especially for me talk illness. Its called a defect or illness because it's not something that should be. I mean I honestly see this happening the future especially with gmo babies

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...