Joyce Kuo, Class of 2023
When communication between sound signals and the auditory nerve in the ear becomes impaired, cochlear implants are useful in overcoming the damaged route and help to deliver signals to the brain (Savulescu). In contrast to hearing aids, cochlear implants are not purposed to amplify sound; they are instead primarily designated for auditory restoration. Between 1990 and 2000, the Food and Drug Administration adjusted the acceptable age for cochlear implantation from twelve years, to two years, and finally to twelve months. This widened jump can be attributed to the higher effectiveness of the cochlear implant at a younger age due to more time for hearing and speech to fully develop. However, this correlation does not imply causation, as research and testing in this field is mildly limited due to scarce funding. In addition, cochlear implantation is a unique experience for each individual and can be largely unpredictable.
From a medical motive, cochlear implants are necessary to “fix” deafness, as deafness is seen as an undesirable handicap that does not align with the norm (“The Silenced Voice”). On the opposing side, from a cultural standpoint, deafness deserves respect for its unique method of communication. It provides a source of diversity that should never be pitied. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of cochlear implants are often overlooked. In fact, federal legislation is in support of cochlear implants.
When parents opt for their children to receive a cochlear implant, they are in concordance with the ideology that deaf people do not belong in the dominant community. Deaf people certainly may not view themselves as broken or at a disadvantage. However, parents prefer to provide their children with the option of being able to communicate verbally with the hearing community and not simply through signing with other members of the Deaf community. Parents may acknowledge that there is a deaf community and hearing community, but they might contend that a cochlear implant allows an individual to be a part of both. Cochlear implants are also the glorified option, as parents may be selfish in desiring to communicate verbally with their children. Similar to parents motivated by their own expectations, doctors may suggest cochlear implants because the medical community is less supportive of sign language and more cure-oriented (“The Silenced Voice”).
Despite encouragement toward pediatric cochlear implants, parents may not see deafness as neglecting their child’s well-being. Refusing to treat deafness does not devalue an individual, as a child can succeed without hearing. If every hearing-impaired individual received a cochlear implant, then the deaf culture would be unable to persist, and children would be forced to take part in the dominant community without ever knowing what the deaf community could mean to them. Furthermore, the cochlear implant procedure inevitably forces a child to undergo burdening speech and hearing therapy, as getting an implant indicates that a child necessitated a cure, and this can affect their sense of identity, self-sufficiency, and self-worth. These three values can be offered by the Deaf community. This is especially understandable for parents who know deaf people and are aware that their identity is not based solely on deafness.
Overall, deafness cannot be categorized as a disability, as children do not require specialized medical care for deafness. Only when children are subject to surgical implantations do they begin meeting with speech therapists and lacking a sense of belonging (Grodin). In essence, people who are deaf are not at a disadvantage in integrating themselves into society. It is society that must integrate deaf people into its normalistic culture.
References
From a medical motive, cochlear implants are necessary to “fix” deafness, as deafness is seen as an undesirable handicap that does not align with the norm (“The Silenced Voice”). On the opposing side, from a cultural standpoint, deafness deserves respect for its unique method of communication. It provides a source of diversity that should never be pitied. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of cochlear implants are often overlooked. In fact, federal legislation is in support of cochlear implants.
When parents opt for their children to receive a cochlear implant, they are in concordance with the ideology that deaf people do not belong in the dominant community. Deaf people certainly may not view themselves as broken or at a disadvantage. However, parents prefer to provide their children with the option of being able to communicate verbally with the hearing community and not simply through signing with other members of the Deaf community. Parents may acknowledge that there is a deaf community and hearing community, but they might contend that a cochlear implant allows an individual to be a part of both. Cochlear implants are also the glorified option, as parents may be selfish in desiring to communicate verbally with their children. Similar to parents motivated by their own expectations, doctors may suggest cochlear implants because the medical community is less supportive of sign language and more cure-oriented (“The Silenced Voice”).
Despite encouragement toward pediatric cochlear implants, parents may not see deafness as neglecting their child’s well-being. Refusing to treat deafness does not devalue an individual, as a child can succeed without hearing. If every hearing-impaired individual received a cochlear implant, then the deaf culture would be unable to persist, and children would be forced to take part in the dominant community without ever knowing what the deaf community could mean to them. Furthermore, the cochlear implant procedure inevitably forces a child to undergo burdening speech and hearing therapy, as getting an implant indicates that a child necessitated a cure, and this can affect their sense of identity, self-sufficiency, and self-worth. These three values can be offered by the Deaf community. This is especially understandable for parents who know deaf people and are aware that their identity is not based solely on deafness.
Overall, deafness cannot be categorized as a disability, as children do not require specialized medical care for deafness. Only when children are subject to surgical implantations do they begin meeting with speech therapists and lacking a sense of belonging (Grodin). In essence, people who are deaf are not at a disadvantage in integrating themselves into society. It is society that must integrate deaf people into its normalistic culture.
References
- Grodin, Michael A., and Harlan L. Lane. “Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 Sept. 1997, muse.jhu.edu/article/18557.
- Savulescu, Julian. “Refusing Cochlear Implants: Is It Child Neglect?” Practical Ethics, 13 July 2009, blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/07/refusing-cochlear-implants-is-it-child-neglect/.
- “The Silenced Voice: Examining the Evolving Debate on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.” Business Ethics, 14 Nov. 2017, business-ethics.com/2014/09/30/1852-the-silenced-voice-examining-the-evolving-debate-on-pediatric-cochlear-implantation/.
Proudly powered by Weebly