> What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear?

I would be happy if they had such an opportunity.

The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?

I think you changed the question and escalated the severity of the proposal so it became easier to knock down as a straw man.

Originally this was about the desirability and capability of enabling deaf people to hear writ large. But now you are framing it as full scale eradication carried out in a way that bypasses consent.

I'm not, please read the whole discussion.

The root of this thread referenced the cochlear implant which produces best results when implanted at a very young age (staring from 9 months) obviously without consent of the patient.

Other author replied that:

> The weird thing that we should not strive to fix human defects when they are truly defects is astounding.

All my comments are essentially stating the disagreement (or rather lack of agreement) with this point of view.

It declares being deaf as a "true defect" that we should "strive to fix". In the context of the gene therapy now available, I understand this means that a deaf-born children should be "fixed" to remove this "defect". This vision is not crazy, but it doesn't strike me as universally true either.

I read it multiple times and the unresponsiveness of this comment serves to further confirm my assessment, that you were unique in introducing the notion of full-scale eradication without qualification into this conversation. The participant you quoted noted a preferability, but you engaged in an original creative act in equating this to eradication.

> The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?

Sure, because it's reversible. If they don't like hearing they can always become deaf again.