Riassunto: L’impianto cocleare è una neuroprotesi che consente un recupero parziale dell’udito nella persona sorda. Nonostante la sua generale efficacia nel contrastare alcuni dei problemi legati alla sordità, il suo utilizzo è stato fortemente osteggiato da quella parte della comunità sorda che vede nella sordità una forma di identità culturale e non una patologia. Questo articolo inquadra in una prospettiva neuroetica le preoccupazioni della comunità sorda – difficilmente comprensibili agli udenti – esaminando le analogie fra il rifiuto dell’IC e il (...) disagio che si osserva nella popolazione generale relativamente al Potenziamento Cognitivo. Nel PCog, individui sani insoddisfatti delle proprie prestazioni, o comunque desiderosi di migliorarle, ricorrono ad interventi artificiali per potenziare le proprie funzioni cognitive. L’analisi evidenzia come, nel rifiutare l’IC, la comunità sorda possa voler tutelare un insieme di valori non così diverso da quello che la comunità generale richiama spesso nelle sue preoccupazioni rispetto alla diffusione dei PCog. Parole chiave : Impianto cocleare; Potenziamento cognitivo; Sordità; Cultura sorda The cochlear implant as cognitive enhancement? A neuroethical perspective on some issues raised by the deaf community: The cochlear implant is a neuroprosthesis that allows for partial recovery of auditory function in individuals who are deaf. Despite its general efficacy, its use has been strongly opposed by a part of the deaf community that perceives deafness as a form of cultural identity, rather than a pathology. This article considers the concerns of the deaf community – which are often difficult for hearing people to understand – from a neuroethics perspective, proposing that such opposition to CI is analogous to the general population’s unease with regard to Cognitive Enhancement. CE allows healthy individuals who are unsatisfied with – or would like to improve – their performance to use artificial interventions that enhance cognitive functions. The analysis reveals that, when opposing CIs, the deaf community may be protecting a set of values similar to those that the general community often evokes when voicing concerns about CE diffusion. Keywords: Cochlear Implant; Cognitive Enhancement; Deafness; Deaf Culture. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the question of whether it is morally permissible to use reproductive technologies to select children with congenital deafness. I review the arguments that have been presented to support the claims that the lack of hearing is not overall bad, that disability is caused by social discrimination rather than impairment, that the community of deaf people gives its members plenty of opportunities to lead a happy life, and that procreative decisions need not improve the world. I argue (...) that although the claims are, to a certain extent, reasonable, they fail to establish the conclusion that selecting for deafness is morally permissible. I further argue that the decision to select a deaf child is morally wrong because it results in imposed and needless dependency, that the happiness of a deaf child is conditioned by their confinement to a relatively small community, and that the deaf parents who reject their child’s potential biculturalism are motivated by questionably self-regarding reasons. (shrink)

In this paper, I analyze the ethical implications of genetic enhancement within the specific framework of the “child’s right to an open future” argument (CROF). Whilst there is a broad ethical consensus that genetic modifications for eradicating diseases or disabilities are in line with – or do not violate – CROF, there is huge disagreement about how to ethically understand genetic enhancement. Here, I analyze this disagreement and I provide a revised formulation of the argument in the specific field of (...) genetic enhancement. First, I argue that CROF is not in contrast with every kind of enhancement. I subsequently discuss whether CROF requires some moral obligations to enhance progeny. My argument is that parents do not have the moral obligation to open as many options as possible for their children. Rather, they should provide them with a reasonable range of opportunities. Finally, I contend that the moral obligations required by CROF are directly dependent on what Allen Buchanan calls the ‘dominant cooperative framework’ in a given society. I conclude by claiming that, at present, parents are not morally obliged to genetically enhance their children since a non-enhanced person already might have access to a reasonable range of opportunities. However, the moral obligation to enhance progeny might arise if a structural modification of the dominant cooperative framework occurs. (shrink)