Some in the Deaf community feel that even without side effects like that, that Deaf children should not receive them. That Deafness is not a disability, just a difference, and that "curing" it would be killing a culture much as raising Native American children in schools that banned their languages and culture did.
"Should we do the procedure at all" comes before "are the side effects of a specific implementation of the procedure worth it".
Its not the choice of the deaf community. Its the choice of the individual and parents. And there are plenty of people who get deaf later in life that may want the treatment so research should continue.
Clearly it should be the choice of the individual (or parents) to receive treatment or not. Why is this even a debate. With any elective treatment, there isn't going to be 100% adoption.
It's not entirely about choice. It's about attitudes of medical professionals. Imagine you have a deaf child, have no experience with Deaf culture, and a professional convinces you to give your child a CI. Yeah, obviously it's the parents' choice. But what are they compelled to choose.
No, it should not be the choice of the parents - the parents should not be able to force an unethical treatment onto their child.
If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people, rather than telling us to undergo treatment that we don't want to make us more like them?
Some parents feed their kids growth hormone just so they don't end up being too short. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being short, but we do this for all sorts of things where we know people are at a disadvantage with. We give kids braces, vaccines, etc. How are any of those different? Assuming, it was a healthy and vetted treatment, how would it be different?
What makes a treatment unethical? Parents should be able to treat things that they view as disabilities to their best judgement. That is their responsibility as parents. I'm not comfortable with saying that parents need to be limited in such a way.
At the same time, when we see people that do not vaccine their children that also makes me angry. Perhaps it is a fuzzy line and we need to recognise that this is the case without making too many blanket statements.
> If this becomes a thing, why would society accept autistic people
Society has no requirement to accept autistic people. Some people will be willing to work with them just as they always have and some people might not. That's their choice, just like it is the choice of an autistic person (or maybe their parents! I'm not sure) whether or not to seek treatment. If you feel that being excluded sometimes is a fundamental pressure to seek treatment, I have bad news for you: You will never get along with everyone.
No, it is not the responsibility of parents to force things on their children. Children are not property to be owned and controlled by their parents against the children's will. That we've wound up believing this is honestly embarrassing.
The reason we make parents responsible for their children until a certain age is because we as a collective have judged them incapable of doing so for themselves. I don't know how long it has been for you, but for me it has not been so long that I do not remember being incapable of making big life decisions.
"Should we do the procedure at all" comes before "are the side effects of a specific implementation of the procedure worth it".