Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,158
- Reaction score
- 7
Paul Rendine: Cochlear implant controversy | delmarvanow.com | The Daily Times
The conflict concerning cochlear implants is centered on the definition of disability, especially as it is viewed by the deaf and other communities. If deafness is defined as a disability, in the eyes of many, it is something to be altered and repaired. According to the medical view, deafness is a disability. On the other hand, another view suggests if deafness is a cultural identity, it should be allowed to thrive and given the emphasis on diversity in today's society, should be readily accepted and supported. This opinion is based on the cultural view of deafness.
Although the controversy seems simple, it is based on the complicated and often unstated implications of the meaning of deafness.
Those who support the use of cochlear implants believe the decision to get a cochlear implant should be no harder than deciding to buy glasses to correct a vision problem. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Oto-laryngology-Head and Neck Surgery recognize cochlear implantation as a standard treatment for profound deafness for children. The main concern of the cochlear implant supporters is their contention that the deaf child should have access to the mainstream -- or "normal" --hearing world.
Those who oppose the use of cochlear implants do so for several reasons. The ask questions such as, "What is normal?" and "Do the quality and quantity of the benefits outweigh the risks involved?" Parents, confronting a new diagnosis of deafness, react with a wide spectrum of emotions including denial, guilt, the need to blame someone and the need to find a miracle. Doctors and parents tend to see the child as missing something and view deafness as a disability that must be "fixed" to make the child "normal" or whole again. This attitude, suggest many, can have serious social and emotional implications. A deaf couple may be unlikely to want a cochlear implant for their child, because they may not view their deafness as a disability. They see deafness as a subculture that should be allowed to thrive. Deaf parents are often happy if their child is born into this subculture they have so long enjoyed. In sum, those who oppose cochlear implantation support deafness as being an acceptable alternative to hearing.
Opponents are also concerned with the quantity and quality of the benefits received in relation to the risks. The surgery itself incurs the normal risks of any surgery with the use of general anesthesia. Additional complications can include meningitis due to inner ear fluid leaks or other complications which can result in medical treatment, surgery and/or removal of the device. One consistent complication of the surgery is the complete loss of all residual natural hearing in the implanted ear. As a result of the implant, certain precautions must be taken to avoid damaging the device. For example, a child with an implant is not able to receive an MRI because the implant contains a magnet. Electrostatic discharge is also of concern, as it will erase the program mapped in the speech processor. To avoid this, implanted children cannot play in pits of plastic balls, slide down plastic slides or play with balloons.
A second issue suggested by many in the deaf culture and often overlooked by doctors and parents is the social and emotional implications of the implant. This is mainly due to focus on the word "normal." Understandably, parents want a child who is like themselves. No parents dream of having a child they cannot communicate with. Upon learning of their child's diagnosis of deafness, most parents are confused and upset, willing to do anything to help their child. Therefore, doctors and parents are tempted to view the child's deafness as a condition that, again, needs to be "fixed" to make the child "normal" again.
The debate over the use of cochlear implants may never be solved. The medical professionals feel that by healing or repairing the problem, they have found the answer for a deaf child. On the other side, the deaf community feels as if their culture -- and the culture of the deaf child -- is being exterminated through ignorance. They also suggest that to truly see the solution, society must learn acceptance and understanding of differences. They contend that children should be proud of who they are, not ashamed of what they were born with.
Unfortunately, the futures of deaf children are being decided every day by people other than the children themselves -- by well-meaning medical professionals and loving parents on the one hand and the cultural family the children may one day discover in the deaf community on the other.
Only a clear understanding of the underlying values on each side of this controversy will enable everyone to work together for what is truly in the best interest of each child.And this certainly includes the use of cochlear implants.
Whatever decision is made, we think it safe to suggest such a decision should be made with full openness and understanding by all parties involved.While ending these articles for 2009, we would also most certainly like to wish all of our readers a very happy and prosperous New Year in 2010.
Paul Rendine is chairman of the Disability Advocates of Delmarva Inc. group. E-mail him at quoteman3@aol.com.
The conflict concerning cochlear implants is centered on the definition of disability, especially as it is viewed by the deaf and other communities. If deafness is defined as a disability, in the eyes of many, it is something to be altered and repaired. According to the medical view, deafness is a disability. On the other hand, another view suggests if deafness is a cultural identity, it should be allowed to thrive and given the emphasis on diversity in today's society, should be readily accepted and supported. This opinion is based on the cultural view of deafness.
Although the controversy seems simple, it is based on the complicated and often unstated implications of the meaning of deafness.
Those who support the use of cochlear implants believe the decision to get a cochlear implant should be no harder than deciding to buy glasses to correct a vision problem. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Oto-laryngology-Head and Neck Surgery recognize cochlear implantation as a standard treatment for profound deafness for children. The main concern of the cochlear implant supporters is their contention that the deaf child should have access to the mainstream -- or "normal" --hearing world.
Those who oppose the use of cochlear implants do so for several reasons. The ask questions such as, "What is normal?" and "Do the quality and quantity of the benefits outweigh the risks involved?" Parents, confronting a new diagnosis of deafness, react with a wide spectrum of emotions including denial, guilt, the need to blame someone and the need to find a miracle. Doctors and parents tend to see the child as missing something and view deafness as a disability that must be "fixed" to make the child "normal" or whole again. This attitude, suggest many, can have serious social and emotional implications. A deaf couple may be unlikely to want a cochlear implant for their child, because they may not view their deafness as a disability. They see deafness as a subculture that should be allowed to thrive. Deaf parents are often happy if their child is born into this subculture they have so long enjoyed. In sum, those who oppose cochlear implantation support deafness as being an acceptable alternative to hearing.
Opponents are also concerned with the quantity and quality of the benefits received in relation to the risks. The surgery itself incurs the normal risks of any surgery with the use of general anesthesia. Additional complications can include meningitis due to inner ear fluid leaks or other complications which can result in medical treatment, surgery and/or removal of the device. One consistent complication of the surgery is the complete loss of all residual natural hearing in the implanted ear. As a result of the implant, certain precautions must be taken to avoid damaging the device. For example, a child with an implant is not able to receive an MRI because the implant contains a magnet. Electrostatic discharge is also of concern, as it will erase the program mapped in the speech processor. To avoid this, implanted children cannot play in pits of plastic balls, slide down plastic slides or play with balloons.
A second issue suggested by many in the deaf culture and often overlooked by doctors and parents is the social and emotional implications of the implant. This is mainly due to focus on the word "normal." Understandably, parents want a child who is like themselves. No parents dream of having a child they cannot communicate with. Upon learning of their child's diagnosis of deafness, most parents are confused and upset, willing to do anything to help their child. Therefore, doctors and parents are tempted to view the child's deafness as a condition that, again, needs to be "fixed" to make the child "normal" again.
The debate over the use of cochlear implants may never be solved. The medical professionals feel that by healing or repairing the problem, they have found the answer for a deaf child. On the other side, the deaf community feels as if their culture -- and the culture of the deaf child -- is being exterminated through ignorance. They also suggest that to truly see the solution, society must learn acceptance and understanding of differences. They contend that children should be proud of who they are, not ashamed of what they were born with.
Unfortunately, the futures of deaf children are being decided every day by people other than the children themselves -- by well-meaning medical professionals and loving parents on the one hand and the cultural family the children may one day discover in the deaf community on the other.
Only a clear understanding of the underlying values on each side of this controversy will enable everyone to work together for what is truly in the best interest of each child.And this certainly includes the use of cochlear implants.
Whatever decision is made, we think it safe to suggest such a decision should be made with full openness and understanding by all parties involved.While ending these articles for 2009, we would also most certainly like to wish all of our readers a very happy and prosperous New Year in 2010.
Paul Rendine is chairman of the Disability Advocates of Delmarva Inc. group. E-mail him at quoteman3@aol.com.