Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Some in the Deaf community not listening to reason - Soap Box
We've all pondered the hypothetical question of which we would prefer to lose, our sight or our hearing. I always choose to be blind. Music is too vital to my existence for me to simply discard it for something as absurd as sight. Recent developments have me second-guessing my usual answer, however. Science has once again bore forward into the future and somehow cured deafness. Well not exactly, but close.
I speak of cochlear implants, a scientific breakthrough in which doctors surgically implant an electronic receiver system in the ear of someone with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The implant produces useful sounds to the person, but does not "cure" deafness. It's not hearing as it was meant to be, but it's darn close.
Despite being in the early stages of development, the procedure promises to alleviate at least some of the burden put on those who cannot hear. Doctors have already implanted nearly 100,000 people worldwide with the device - 15,000 of them children.
Like all scientific discoveries, however, there are those who protest. The controversy stems from the fact that doctors are implanting children with the device and not allowing them the choice to defer the procedure. By doing this, doctors have been accused of infringing upon the survival of the Deaf community.
It is true the Deaf community has battled through adversity over the years to achieve equality; and that is an accomplishment that no one can deny. But this is a medical issue - not a race or culture one.
Hearing loss is a defect. There, I said it. I threw political correctness to the wind. Ears were meant to be more than pieces of skin hanging off the side of our heads that never stop growing and produce ugly, coarse hairs as we get older. We were meant to receive sound, and our ears are the tools to do so.
Any deaf person's unwillingness to undergo the procedure is understandable. It's a somewhat risky procedure that can produce results ranging from all ends of the spectrum. According to the FDA, test subjects perceived "different types of sounds, such as footsteps, slamming of doors, sounds of engines, ringing of the telephone, barking of dogs, whistling of the tea kettle, rustling of leaves and the sound of a light switch being switched on and off." On the other hand, some subjects were unaffected, seeing no improvement.
But the question of whether this device is at risk of destroying a culture is absurd. This isn't genocide; it's helping kids hear well. If the Deaf community wants to complain, it should complain about the long list of possible side effects that put the kids in danger: meningitis, cerebrospinal fluid leakage and taste disturbances to name a few. Or they could complain about how, in a world with rechargeable Xbox 360 controllers, scientists are still making hearing aids that use those little tiny batteries that I still get confused with dimes.
If kids want to take out the devices when they are older, they can; or they can just wait for those stupid batteries to die. It is not logical to make a child miss out on years of sound for a culture based on a what society has deemed a handicap - I think deaf people still get the parking spots. Don't see them complaining about that!
The Deaf community advocates need to think back to the '70s, before ASL and the insistence that deafness is not a handicap. If you had asked a person, "Should doctors help deaf children by implanting them with a device that greatly strengthens their chances of being able to hear more effectively?" what do you think they would say?
I'm all ears.
We've all pondered the hypothetical question of which we would prefer to lose, our sight or our hearing. I always choose to be blind. Music is too vital to my existence for me to simply discard it for something as absurd as sight. Recent developments have me second-guessing my usual answer, however. Science has once again bore forward into the future and somehow cured deafness. Well not exactly, but close.
I speak of cochlear implants, a scientific breakthrough in which doctors surgically implant an electronic receiver system in the ear of someone with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The implant produces useful sounds to the person, but does not "cure" deafness. It's not hearing as it was meant to be, but it's darn close.
Despite being in the early stages of development, the procedure promises to alleviate at least some of the burden put on those who cannot hear. Doctors have already implanted nearly 100,000 people worldwide with the device - 15,000 of them children.
Like all scientific discoveries, however, there are those who protest. The controversy stems from the fact that doctors are implanting children with the device and not allowing them the choice to defer the procedure. By doing this, doctors have been accused of infringing upon the survival of the Deaf community.
It is true the Deaf community has battled through adversity over the years to achieve equality; and that is an accomplishment that no one can deny. But this is a medical issue - not a race or culture one.
Hearing loss is a defect. There, I said it. I threw political correctness to the wind. Ears were meant to be more than pieces of skin hanging off the side of our heads that never stop growing and produce ugly, coarse hairs as we get older. We were meant to receive sound, and our ears are the tools to do so.
Any deaf person's unwillingness to undergo the procedure is understandable. It's a somewhat risky procedure that can produce results ranging from all ends of the spectrum. According to the FDA, test subjects perceived "different types of sounds, such as footsteps, slamming of doors, sounds of engines, ringing of the telephone, barking of dogs, whistling of the tea kettle, rustling of leaves and the sound of a light switch being switched on and off." On the other hand, some subjects were unaffected, seeing no improvement.
But the question of whether this device is at risk of destroying a culture is absurd. This isn't genocide; it's helping kids hear well. If the Deaf community wants to complain, it should complain about the long list of possible side effects that put the kids in danger: meningitis, cerebrospinal fluid leakage and taste disturbances to name a few. Or they could complain about how, in a world with rechargeable Xbox 360 controllers, scientists are still making hearing aids that use those little tiny batteries that I still get confused with dimes.
If kids want to take out the devices when they are older, they can; or they can just wait for those stupid batteries to die. It is not logical to make a child miss out on years of sound for a culture based on a what society has deemed a handicap - I think deaf people still get the parking spots. Don't see them complaining about that!
The Deaf community advocates need to think back to the '70s, before ASL and the insistence that deafness is not a handicap. If you had asked a person, "Should doctors help deaf children by implanting them with a device that greatly strengthens their chances of being able to hear more effectively?" what do you think they would say?
I'm all ears.