|
||
Political Correctness on TV Sometimes Goes Too Far: Is it Really Better to Be Deaf?
I was at a Hallmark Hall of Fame reception the other night, where they presented Sweet Nothing in My Ear starring Jeff Daniels and Marlee Matlin. The story concerned the trials of a "mixed" marriage -- Daniels could hear and Matlin could not -- in which the main conflict was whether their deaf child should receive a cochlear implant.
I was baffled by the struggle, which struck me as a no-brainer. True, I can hear, but I don't feel I am prejudiced when I say that it is not better to be deaf as some of the characters in this film appear to say. I can understand where there might be fear as to whether the implant will build up the boy's hope or whether he will easily adapt to the hearing world with speech patterns that might not appear up to par without loads of practice.
I can also understand, as in the case of a recent Cold Case episode, the portrayal of resentful family members or friends who might be concerned that once the boy could hear he might look down on those in his circle. It doesn't excuse their bias, but from a human nature standpoint it's an imaginable possibility.
That said, and although there was an attempt to balance the two sides, I cannot for the life of me see how any reasoned person would not want to improve, dare I say fix, a young boy's life. As science has greatly improved the surgical techniques, which are apparently not available to all deaf candidates, when a subject is determined to benefit greatly from such an implant there is no way that anyone will convince me that the absence of sound will better that person's life.
Deafness is a handicap. It does not mean that a deaf person cannot have a constructive, meaningful and successful life. Deafness is not as limiting as, let's say, blindness or paralysis, in that the person is more easily able to function and get around without much assistance, in particular those who can use sign language, lip read and actually talk -- as does Matlin in real life.
And I certainly would urge everyone -- not just the deaf community -- to instill a positive self in those who cannot hear and promote a life fulfillment that encourages people to overcome their limitations by circumventing methods which strengthen the abilities they have, whether physical, creative or intellectual. In so doing, I would also use educational and communication means to tear down stereotypes so that discrimination is not pervasive.
But to bury one's head in the sand like an ostrich, to resent those who are eligible for implants and to deny the possibilities of a fuller, yes fuller, life to utilize all of our senses is extraordinary. The Daniels character said he wanted his son to experience all that nature intended, such as hearing music or to be able to be warned verbally if he were in danger. The Matlin character responded defensively that "nature" had made him deaf, as if this were a sign that deafness is normal, which it is not.
If someone were paralyzed, whether by birth or due to polio, such as Franklin Roosevelt, we should provide support and help him to achieve what he might, and, as in the case of Roosevelt, that was quite a lot. However, if a new surgical technique might rid the paralysis or at the least help greatly -- even if the aftermath was imperfect, such as the person could get out of his wheelchair but might walk with a limp -- is there much question which road would be chosen?
If someone were blind and a cure for glaucoma was discovered, would his blind friends say, "Don't do it," as in it's better to be the way we are?
And yet because the deaf community is not as "helpless" as the aforementioned types and have formed cultural alliances and other bonds to get them through their lives in a meaningful fashion there appears to be a backlash against those who are able to benefit from the scientific advances. A sort of "deaf is better," which is as ridiculous as those in our society who try to put folks in the deaf community down.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My daughter is studying ASL with the intent of becoming an interpreter. I had the same discussion with her. I couldn't understand how anyone could argue against getting a CI. However, its not as clear cut as you might think. With a CI you are implanting a fairly large bit of electronics directly into someone's head. CI's are new technology. They fail often and there are lots of potential side effects. Not to mention that its permanent and they haven't been around that long so there may be all kinds of unknown side effects when someone has to live with them for 60+ years. Also not to mention the US agency (FDA) that should be overlooking this stuff has been totally emaciated by the Bush administration so the corporations that produce these things are effectively working without any independent oversight. So its not nearly as clear cut as you might think. There are a lot of good reasons to be cautious and not rush into getting one.
When i say being deaf can be a blessing, it's not a ridiculous statement. My husband is deaf. Had he not been deaf, we would never have met, he would not know the people he's known in his life, would not have been touched by and been able to touch lives in the ways he has. Sometimes we have struggles in our lives that allow us to build character...it is our experiences in life that shape us into the unique individuals we are. A scared parent, may never hear that perspective that a "disability" can be a blessing.
A CI will not "fix" a deaf person, will not restore a person to "normal." My point is that no one is "normal" and too often audiologists tell hearing parents (who have no former experience with deafness) not to sign, to force children to talk.
Of course, we want our children to "fit in" with the world enough to have their lives be easier, we don't want them made fun of or struggling. Of course language acquisition is an issue, and English reading levels of children coming out of some deaf schools is not on par with their hearing counterparts. This is an issue to be addressed. But all too often, hearing parents are so busy trying to make their child "fit" into their world that they UNINTENTIONALLY force one point of view on their child. In not learning sign language, the only truly accessible language for a deaf child can be damaging.
Research deaf adults' relationships (or lack thereof) with their parents. It's hard enough to develop clear communication with any child...factor in forcing a child to communicate in a language that is difficult for them...it's as if you adopted a spanish-speaking child and refused to learn to speak spanish- well, a poor analogy - a deaf child can't hear english. I encourage parents to see their child as a whole, research and don't blindly accept what doctors tell them without checking with people who have lived with their child's "disability."
Controversial subject, indeed. I can see why Michael would see it this way. If you have lived your life like Marlee, you'd see it the way she did and vice versa.
I wrote a blog about this and elaborated a bit on elective disability. And how it could affect us in the future because of the fact that there are corrective measures out there that could affect deaf/hard of hearing people. Affect us how? In many ways, such as things we take for granted like the ADA.
Something to think about.... http://candy.blogono.com/2008/04/19/elective-disability-and-loss-of-ada-protection-a-tale-of-sweet-nothings-in-my-ear/#comments
I am deaf and have deaf family and raised in deaf school. When I read this, I got disapoint as many other messages. It is because movie media is behind on present news. Since those years that cochlear implant was invented, there were so many failures. We saw and met many children and people who had them and it failed. What suffered the most was the knowledge of hearing parents and what the doctors told them. They told them to focus only on using the implant and having speech therapy. Some of those children grew up to be adult and suffered until they met deaf people and appreciate their lives in the deaf community.
Deaf without cochlear implant and proud of themselves have strong feel that their children should not get cochlear implant but in last 5-10 years, there is more deaf children of deaf family getting cochlear implant. We the community want the success for our deaf children. Many deaf children graduated with low reading and writing level. Now, they say cochlear implant will help. It isnt true. What is the problem? The problem is that many deaf children either with or without cochlear implants dont have 100 percent access to language. Many of us start learning sign language or english later in our lives. It caused delay in our learning and language. Hearing children, they have language from first day they born and hear voices. Deaf children needs to start see sign language and start to read english. With both sign language and read/hear english, those children have more success and higher in reading and writing.
It isnt about deaf community against it because it will fade us. It is about the suffering we dont want to see them going through. Many of them wasnt success. The companies use only the success to potrait the success of cochlear implants. Now, it had improve some. There is more success with cochlear implants but they are still prevent or being unknown in using other communicate (ASL) and being bilingual and able to use both language when needed. We deaf are welcoming those who have cochlear implant and support them. I have several friends who are and I love who they are and cochlear implant isnt issue. It is suffer that is the issue and we fought for that.
Now we are fighting for using of both speaking and sign language because it shows more success in the child. AG Bell and doctors only encourage AVT (Auditory Verbal Therapy) and not to use sign language. They are isolated. With sign language, it helps when it needed. Families should support bilingual which will bring their children in more success.
WE ARE NOW FIGHTING TO GIVE CHILDREN BILINGUAL AS POSSIBLE. THE CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANT SHOULD LEARN SIGN LANGAUGE AS THEY GOING THROUGH AVT. BILIGUAL WILL GIVE THE CHILD SUCCESS.
See Michael Russnow's Profile
HuffPost's Pick
The following response is from momofcikids, which I am posting because it replied to a deleted segment of the above post (originally submitted in three parts due to the space limitations for comments). I have been routinely joining such segments, (as in the above instance and in a few below), so I would suggest that if you are replying to a multiple part comment which has not yet been merged, please reply to the segment that appears to be part one. Else, your comment may wind up disappearing.
Here is momofcikids' response to babyr's post:
"Kids who easily speak and hear with cochlear implants are not isolated. Mine sure aren't. They have no more reason to be required to learn sign language than they would to be required Chinese. In fact, I would prefer that they choose a spoken language for a second language, because there is a lot more likelihood that it would serve them well in professional life. A quick review of recent studies regarding oral education of various sorts shows that it is far more successful than incorporating visual stimuli, which causes rewiring of the auditory pathways in irrevocable ways. Once these are taken over, they are not easily relinquished. So, as children, they need to have all the auditory information to learn to use their new hearing. Hooray to organizations which support families who have taken this step to help their children learn to hear, and shame on those who can't see past their own experiences and want the bests for future generations. Cochlear implants DO work well, particularly if the child is implanted young and adequately cared for (by audiologists and their parents)."
momofcikids: what exactly is meant by "visual stimuli"? Please post a list of studies you are referring to.
I question the assumption that auditory pathways must be preserved at all cost. To use a metaphor, suppose you're watching TV and getting spotty reception on one channel but crystal clear reception on another equally good channel. Most of your family and friends are able to watch the first channel and they enjoy it. Good for them, nothing wrong with that. Now, you could spend hours and hours trying to cull information from that first channel and buy increasingly fancy equipment to squeeze every iota of information out of that weak signal.
Or, you could switch over to the other equally content-rich channel. Instead of a high-stress, energy-sapping, frustrating experience trying to watch the bad channel, you'd enjoy a low-stress experience where you're free to efficiently and fully benefit from the content of the good TV channel.
The brain's plasticity is incredible. If we would all just let go of our preconceived notions of the "right" way to experience life, differently-abled people, including your kids, would be so much better off.
I think the real shame here is that both sides go to such extremes. The CI side discourages anyone with a CI from learning ASL or being any part of deaf culture. The deaf culture side views CI's as evil and as a challenge to their legitimacy as human being. These fears are very well founded unfortunately. Until recently deaf people were considered to be mentally retarded (see the kid in the movie "There Will be Blood" for an example). Also, remember that CI's are supported by large corporations and doctors who stand to make money and careers with little regard to alternatives like ASL. Mr. Russnow, I think refering to the deaf culture side as "political correctness" only makes matters worse and plays right into the fears that deaf people have about hearing culture. I agree that CI's have great potential but they are one of part of a solution and they do fail and involve significant risk and expense. I think you do the deaf community a dis-service by portraying their resistance as purely irrational.
Lost in this debate is the fact that ASL is a proven means of language acquisition. For any kids. All three of my kids (one deaf) use ASL. Their language skills are through the roof. I'm scratching my head over the irony that hearing babies are encouraged to use ASL while deaf babies who need it the most are kept in the dark.
The Deaf community has a wide range of people with different opinions. Most of us make informed decisions. We're not storming the CI factory with torches and pitchforks.
Being the deaf parent of a deaf son, I struggled with the CI issue. I had to make a tough decision. Watching "Sweet Nothing" will be hard. I welcome you to read my story at http://www.deaf-culture-online.com/cochlear-implant.html.
It's unfortunate that white middle class America looks at people who are different and assume "They can't possibly be happy unless they're exactly like me." While the CI can help some, it's not a prerequisite for success.
My wife and I, both deaf, have masters degrees. Two of my friends, also deaf, are a director of IT services and a director of a disaster preparedness program. There are plenty others. All are doing great, raising wonderful families. We don't look at hearing people and say "Gosh, I wanna be just like them!" We're fine.
There's more but space doesn't permit. Thank you though, for bringing this up.
This is a great point. I saw a wonderful video a while back about hearing parents teaching their babies ASL. It was promoting a point of view but even considering that the results were amazing. Infants who were unable to verbalize were able to communicate via signing at a much earlier age and as a result cried much less frequently and overall did better on general measures of intelligence and learning to speak. Its a shame that the people who promote CI's see it as an either/or and dogmatically discourage anyone with a CI from learning/using ASL.
It is always hard to understand one's perspective when you have not walked in their shoes. Jmosen makes an excellent point that you can't always understand someone else's perspective until you have experienced it. I know that the deaf community is often misunderstood (not supporting CIs because it's a threat to the Deaf community? Please!). I know that I've had many people tell me that my life would be so much easier if I could hear. What they don't know is that I grew up with hearing aids (my hearing with hearing aids was so good that I didn't qualify for a cochlear implant), and could speak and hear well enough to talk on the phone, be mainstreamed without an interpreter in classes, and be hired to take orders at a Burger King, even through the drive-thru, within a noisy environment. However, today, I only use my voice with my family (who I see once or twice per year), and I threw out my hearing aids. Why?? Because it's easier.
(to be continued...)
I am deaf. And I have a cochlear implant. Which I no longer use. Why? Because it was not helpful. There are many, many "cochlear implant failures" out there. People don't understand this, because the media has yet to even comprehend, much less spotlight, the dark side of CIs.
Out of the "CI failures", I am one of the fortunate few. My parents did not pin all their hopes on the cochlear implant and deny me other adaptations I needed for my development. What did the trick for me? Visual access to a full language - or more specifically, American Sign Language. I have signed since I was a toddler. Both of my parents learned to sign. Thanks to my visually rich environment and access to a full language, I did very well academically and now have a successful career and a fulfilling life. My spouse and I are expecting our first child, and we have a full social calendar. I wouldn't trade my life for anything.
Parents are often told that if their child gets a CI, no ASL or exposure to deaf adult role models should be allowed. As a result, many "CI failures" today struggle with subpar reading levels, profound isolation, and a greatly impaired ability to function in the world around them. A preventable form of mental retardation, really.
The CI is being hyped as a "no-brainer" and a cure-all. The reality is, it does not work for all people. And even those who are being touted as CI success stories still would benefit tremendously from being able to break away from the prejudice that the "hearing" way of doing things is the only right way to do things.
My best friend was a CI poster child, with her successes trumpeted far and wide by the media and medical institutions. Yet she suffered from severe isolation, low self esteem, and huge knowledge gaps until she found her way into a signing community that saw her gaps and took steps to fill them in. She is a much happier person today. And, yes, she still wears her CI. The difference is, she learned it was okay to do things differently, to do them how they best benefit HER.
A person with a CI is still not, and never will be, "normal". The "normal" ways of doing things in life are not all going to work for a person who does not have full hearing. The sooner they can learn to accept that and get on with living life the way that is best for THEM, CI or not, the happier they will be.
Why should the Deaf community matter to a hearing parent? Its language and culture have many built-in adaptations that are critical for a deaf child to reach their fullest potential as a WHOLE person. These adaptations are something that hearing parents are unable to pass on to their deaf child, because they simply do not know what it is like to experience this world as a deaf person. Hence the Deaf community needs to be around to help fill in these gaps for these deaf children's well-being, CIs or not.
See Michael Russnow's Profile
HuffPost's Pick
Alannie, I appreciate your comments and don't doubt your personal experience. However, the many comments in support of my premise expressed by others who are either deaf or parents of those who are, would indicate that your viewpoints (admittedly shared by some of the other commenters to my piece) by no means eviscerate what I've been saying.
And what have I been saying? Only that dramatizations that portray deaf people completely dismissing these new technologies that have clearly worked well for many, many people make them look like they're in the Middle Ages or possibly spiteful because they're not cochlear implant candidates and cannot personally benefit, and thus don't want to be left behind.
The Deaf Community and its social interactions came about so that those who could not hear might find value in their lives. That they, apart from a lack of hearing, might be physically perfect in every way. They might also be smart and talented and should be able to thrive in spite of their handicap.
This is all well and good, but it's delusional to dismiss the fact that hearing would probably be better. To state, as some here have, that deafness is a "blessing from God," is -- I'm sorry to be blunt -- patently absurd. On the other hand, one has to make the best with the hand he or she is dealt, and the support system your community offers counsels people not to dwell on what they cannot do and to instead use their other gifts to live fulfilling and prosperous lives. I applaud that.
However, as technology improves, as it has in medicine, surgical techniques, air travel, television, cell phones and apparently also with cochlear implants (which are lots better than the old hearing aids), do you really believe the Deaf Community should ignore the possibilities the future holds, by instead circling their wagons and proclaiming such "intrusions" as the death of a culture?
We are not talking about a culture of nations or even ethnicity here. We are talking about a culture born out of necessity, which hopefully will be consigned to a museum when and if deafness is eradicated. And someday, I pray it will be.
Michael, the point you are making is based on the media's grossly overblown exaggeration of deaf people's "anti-CI" views. As I indicated earlier, I am close with people who have and use CIs. This is true for many in the Deaf community. We are not out to attack CIs or hearing people. We are just trying to look out for the future of deaf children.
The point I am trying to make is that the Deaf community's concerns about how the CI issue is portrayed by the medical profession and the media are being dismissed. We are very concerned that the CI is being held up as the holy grail at the expense of other adaptations that are still very much needed for a deaf child's well being.
A CI is not the same thing as natural hearing. It is a very imperfect tool that requires tremendous investment from the recipient and those around the recipient. Even the most successful recipients still must address other issues having to do with being part of a minority group - after all, they are still deaf.
It's frustrating that we who have actually been there and experienced this for ourselves are being dismissed as "delusional", "spiteful", or "circling the wagons", instead of being listened to as FIRSTHAND witnesses to the damage that can happen when a deaf child is not given all the proper adaptations needed to reach his/her full potential.
Something to think about: the FDA did not approve cochlear implants for babies 18 months or older until 1998. That means that the first baby recipients of the cochlear implants are only 10-11 years old today.
I know many who were raised without sign language, and if you had asked them at age 11 whether they were happy with how they were being raised, most of them would have said yes. But ask these same people again at age 25, 30, 40, and the vast majority will have changed their answer. That's because at age 11 they did not know there was anything better out there. Only later in life did they realize they'd suffered gaps and had to play catch-up.
I predict the same will happen with many of today's "CI babies", as long as the opinions of those who have gone before them are being dismissed as irrelevant.
Michael,
Are you try to tell us that you actually pray deafness can be eradicated?
Yet, you stated to JMOSEN:
'I wish no discriminatory prejudice directed at those with varying degrees of limitations.'
So, Michael, what do you want? Acceptance of limitations or eradication of us?
We are all humans and the most natural thing about us is to breathe the air and enjoy life around us!
Hello, Michael,
First, thank you for taking time to review this television program. I feel, however, that it's ridiculous to base, as you do with your article, the perception of a culture and a people on what amount to two television programs - programs not written by Deaf people, I might add. Basically you're giving your readers third-hand material.
Secondly, I'd like to respond to some of these straw men. To start: I don't think it's impossible that there could exist a society in which Deaf people are valued for their abilities and differences. I believe the argument you are making is a slippery slope. There are people who would say being straight is better, being white is better, being taller is better. Since these are usually straight, white, tall people, I take their statements with a grain of salt :)
I reject your statements about Deaf culture. Deaf culture is not a "culture born of necessity," any more than any other culture (what would you say about African American culture, I wonder, or the gay community?) It is not a culture which involves only Deaf people, and it is not only American. It is a plurality of cultures which have developed over thousands of years. Hundreds of signed languages exist worldwide. These cultures and languages have developed thanks to technology. Some of them have developed independently of people who can hear. Some of them have developed WITH people who can hear. This is why we utilize Deaf, capital letter - in my view, it's similar to gay people using Queer. It opens up the umbrella to include everyone. Which brings me to my next point.
Deaf people are not anti-cochlear implant, any more than we are anti-hearing aid or anti-hearing people. There is a vocal minority which does not like cochlear implant corporations, and this dislike extends to the implant. This dislike - in some cases, even hate - stems from the history of the interaction between Deaf people, deaf children, and corporations. I have hopes this relationship will improve, but due to the fact that the people running these corporations are not Deaf people, the "necessity" for the Deaf community, if I can borrow your phrase, is even higher. Let me give you an example. In the early years of cochlear implantation, corporations often forced Deaf people or their families to sign contracts stating that they would not use ASL or another signed language. Many families ignored these provisions because there was no practical way to get accurate feedback on the success or failure of the device if the only way to talk about it was a way (speaking) which took two or three years of hard study to acquire - and, if the device was not successful (it often is not as successful as you seem to hint, although many say it is far better than hearing aids) this communication wouldn't take place at all, and without exposure to language, the Deaf child did indeed become a burden on society - and on the community. Deaf people often take care of their own.
That we are not clearer about it has more to do with the language deficiencies I've spoken about than we'd like to admit - but it's a double whammy, since people with language deficiencies are the result of such abuses. Do you really think we should depend on the generosity and kindness of people who run corporations? Or does a community become, as I state, even more vital in such a situation? Rather than dramatize this difficult truth, television tends to take facile messages - come on, you KNOW that - and utilize them for polarizing pseudodrama.
It'd be a bitch to go into this history. It's easier to say "Deaf people hate implants." This was a problem with the movie "Sound and Fury" also.
Another straw man - this is not a cure. Even implant companies specify on websites than implant recipients are going to still be Deaf. Which leads me to:
Yet another straw man: technology is universally useful. A Deaf person with both an implant and knowledge of the Deaf community is universally independent. When the technology fails or the batteries run out or there's a power outage, they can still function as a normal person. Without this "backup" we're essentially nonpeople - you'd be shocked how people still treat Deaf people, even today. (Unfortunately, this knowledge makes me want to stay away from people who can hear, not talk to them more. Once you see someone being a jerk, you don't tend to want to be friendly.) I'm an American and perhaps far more independent than I have a right to be, but I still see this as important. And it's a truth that's ignored by lots of audiologists, teachers and technicians, and it contributes to the uneasy feeling about implantation, and to that very angry minority.
I'd also like to reinforce what Alannie says below: this is an experimental technology, and its first users are only 10 years old. We do not know its long-term effects and costs yet, which bothers me - I hope there won't be any more effect than a pacemaker, but then how many babies get pacemakers?
I would have happily accepted this article of yours if you had pointed out its reductionist tendencies and criticized the show. Instead, it seems you accepted a television program at face value, and turned your criticism at the community without bothering to see if such was a accurate portrayal. I don't consider this show politically correct. I hope such an attitude can be eradicated. And someday, I pray, it will be.
Michael
You are so right it hurts.
I received a cochlear implant two years ago I can only say that my life has been vastly improved. I am better able to function in every situation. I'm a better lawyer, I can do so many things I could not, and I can still enjoy the deaf community to the extent I am not an outcast for "betraying" the Deaf Community.
As for those hysterical posts about "life threatening" surgery, its OUTPATIENT. As for ridicule of other children - give me a break, so hearing children don't make fun of the deaf kids in general? Or those that wear glasses or... We have to protect deaf children from hearing so they won't be ridiculed - how ridiculous.
Should people not get heart stents? Should those with cataracts not get new lenses? Should people not wear glasses? Should paraplegics not use wheelchairs? Even braille is falling into disuse by the blind as they go to audio tapes and machines that can read the printed page out loud. I cannot believe they'd give up the braille culture....
If the Deaf Community wants to stay deaf because of the special culture that developed BEFORE other options existed, great. The Amish do the same thing. They still drive buggies. Super. But don't stand in the way of those who want to drive cars.
I'd have to agree with faithful. This isn't a political correct issue. Getting an "implant" is not like getting contact lenses. It's an irreversible 50k operation to the brain. And for how well it works just look at the hearing aide industry and the complaints about that. Probably, it's easiest for people who suddenly lose their hearing, like Rush Limbaugh, but in most cases people don't lose all their hearing so it's really a debatable choice. Hollywood is a place where people, and not just actors, get plastic surgery and have toxic substances injected in their skin to cover up simple aging. So of course they can't deal with deafness but that's their problem. They're certainly not doing deaf people any good with or without these movies. There's an obvious bigotry in assuming you know enough to tell someone else about their health issues when you aren't even a doctor. Why don't you just mind your own business?
You gotta be kidding me. You think that it's more important for Rush than kids who are born deaf? I have to say that it's the opposite-- no one needs to know the language of their educators and peers more than little kids.
The operation cost my kids over 100 grand the last couple of times. No matter. It would be worth ten times that much due to the cost savings to society over their lifetime. This is no way a cosmetic surgery, since deafness is a serious problem and costs the government lots. Just look into how much money is spent in SSDI for deaf individuals. My kids will need no IEPs, no interpreters, no check from the govt.
This is not brain surgery. It never touches the brain. It is a device implanted into a small well in the bone of the skull, and an electrode runs into the cochlea. It's considered outpatient in adults (walk home the same day!) and in kids, they can spend the night. They recover fast. It is superior to hearing aids; it allows for clear hearing in the entire range of the speech frequencies... with no feedback.
Hollywood has nothing to do with this. Deafness is a serious issue for education in our country... just look closely at the results of state testing at the deaf schools at each state. Kids with CIs can be mainstreamed and have normal test scores... whereas the scores at local deaf schools are usually horribly poor.
Mom of CI kids -
Thanks for your comments, but I worked as a social worker and currently work as a teacher, and I have to say getting a cochlear implant is no guarantee a child won't need an IEP, an interpreter, or SSDI - I could show you examples of all three.
And no, it does not touch the brain, but a tiny mistake can leave the brain open to various infections. I supported one client through their cochlear implant surgery and watched their head swell to twice its normal size with an infection.
As for Deaf schools - low scores have more to do with lower standards for teachers of Deaf people. Things are different nowadays. One positive thing about "No Child Left Behind" is that it's eradicated the useless "Deaf/Hard of Hearing" teaching license which allows teachers to teach in content areas where they are unqualified.
Michael,
That is NOTHING to do with the political correctness. "Sweet Nothing In My Ear" telemovie with Marlee Maltin and Jeff Daniels is basically about the inner struggle of one family deal with cultural and linguistic and technology involved with invasive surgery on deaf child.
What about the pre-programmed deaf baby inside the womb of deaf mother? Many deaf babies often have been pre-programmed within the fetal development to be adaptable as a functionable being without hearing ability.
There are many scienftic researchs prove the natural brain-wiring developments among many deaf babies inside the womb. So the deaf babies could be adaptable to the outside environment dealing with the everyday life as deaf being.
Let's suppose that many men want their male foreskin restored since they have been circumised at birth. Men have to get the doctor to carve up skin patch to restore the male foreskin on circumised men. Those men want to feel the full ###### with the restoration of 1,000 to 4,000 nerves within the head of male gential.
Who want to restore male foreskin to circumised male gentials anyway? The looks of restorted male foreskin would be real uinpleasant and questionable. That will not restore 1,000 to 4,000 nerves loss within the restorted male foreskin gential!
When I was in college, I took a class in exceptional child psychology. During one unit, we were asked if we had a choice, would we rather lose our hearing or our sight. Most people chose hearing, thinking it was the less drastic choice. Our professor said that actually losing your hearing is much more isolating than losing your sight, in terms of social interaction and connection to the world (granted this was in the 80's so I know things have changed, but most hearing people don't sign, so the ability of the deaf to communicate with the hearing is still limited). We were shocked as students to hear this. After college I worked with deaf children with psychological conditions, and met many deaf adults. I think, perhaps because deafness has traditionally been more isolating, the Deaf community has formed its own language (American Sign is not signed English) and culture. That is threatened by cochlear implants.
I can't judge the value of the culture, I am not deaf, but I did notice that amongst themselves, deaf people have very lively conversations, with much more facial expression and emotion than us hearing folk normally use. I can understand the reluctance to lose what you've always known. But I agree with the author of the post, for children especially, there should be no question but to use the implants. Think of music and birdsong, as well as being able to communicate with all.
The prof said the class's choice was "wrong" and you just accepted that?
That's very hard to understand.
Maybe I was a trusting soul back then. But I think its true. If you consider the fact that we're even having this discussion, that there is a Deaf community that has cohesiveness as a unit when there is no equivalent 'Blind" community, you have to ask why. And I think the answer is that they have formed a subculture based at least in part on the difficulty they have relating to those who aren't deaf.
Personally, I'd prefer to lose hearing rather than sight. Hearing people think Deaf people never talk to hearing folks, but that's kind of a misconception. When I was in college, my best friend was a medical student; the professor announced to the class that Deaf people could not think, because they could not hear.
Having just had a discussion on poetics with yours truly, and convinced of my ability to think, she dropped the class. And by the way - not everyone likes music, and my father complains about birdsong - for every "positive" thing you hear, I can counter with a negative. I'm not saying being able to hear is bad - far from it. I'm saying it's subjective, and that some people would rather paint than play guitar.
First of all, it is the Deaf community, not the deaf community. The Deaf community is a group of people who do not believe that they were born with a disability. They believe they have a different and legitimate form of communicating which the hearing world does not appreciate. There are many deeply divisive issues regarding cochlear implants, among them, the belief that those who are born deaf are "perfect" and that tinkering with God's work (i.e., artificially inducing hearing) is wrong. Why can't we just appreciate and respect the differences that make us unique? Who are you to judge?
See Michael Russnow's Profile
This previously deleted response was from wildflowermaven:
"Don't you think God had a hand in guiding the scientists who developed the cochlear implants? Perhaps being deaf is a blessing, but God is now enabling us to have a choice, to give the next generation a more full experience of the world. Much as those who receive heart transplants, artificial limbs, and cornea transplants are able to live, walk, and see better or again."
See Michael Russnow's Profile
And this response by coachbronco was to the above post by wildflowermaven. I apologize for this and the loss of his earlier posts. And if Faithful is still reading and can redo the posts submitted, we'd all appreciate it:
"I have pondered that thought, my friend. There is a quote in the Bible once said "Education is your life." And I did my job to find out whether the operation thing is worth to risk my well-being health.
Unfortunately for me, I have to call it off...due to the fact, my mother (she is hearing) got this "freak" accident where the doctor dropped a knife toward to her brain. It swelled up. My mother had to rush to other emergency room for a specific type of operation for this type of case. Fortunately, she survived alright, but have had a trouble with eye movements slightly. As of today, my mother is doing okay. The freak incident occurred ten years ago in 1998.
This very incident has impacted my decision not to go for CI operation. Like I said before (in previous comment from above), I prefer to swallow "amazing-power" pill to heal my hearing over the risky operation on any given days. In case if you didn't know, there are lots of deaf people have said same thing to me out there.
Tough decision, isn't it? I love best of two worlds--- hearing and deaf worlds. Who said that I cannot have both worlds in me, you know? Smile!"
As the parent of two daughters with bilateral cochlear implants, I am thrilled to see this issue handled in such a straightforward, rational manner. My girls were born profoundly deaf, yet today at ages 21 and 13 they hear and speak beautifully and have succeeded in mainstream schools throughout. They hear so well that they both can use the phone with ease.
Parents who choose to have their children receive cochlear implants need to know that it's not an automatic fix, that they will need to put in the time and effort early on towards helping their children learn to make sense out of the sounds they receive from their implants. To me and to my daughters, though, it is all well worth it.
Michael, you hit the nail EXACTLY on the head. As a mother of two children with cochlear implants, you would not believe the things that adults in the Deaf Culture have said to me: your children will grow up to hate you, you have created a monster, ect. They do not believe that the CIs actually work; it matters not that my children can hear whispers, be read chapter books without ever looking at my face, never need the captioning on the TV, talk on the phone, answer questions of anyone they meet, and need no educational modifications. The reality is that there is a segment of the Deaf Culture that never wanted CIs to work, and it makes them angry that our children are happy, hearing, well-adjusted kids. Thanks for highlighting this issue. It's important to note that 98% of deaf kids are born to hearing parents, and so they know that a CI is a real no-brainer. The same people who gnash their teeth over our kids' implants also fight tooth and nail to protect all of their disability rights.. which means that they know that deafness really IS a disability. Life is easier hearing, and that's a fact.
Life is also easier as a White straight male. But I digress. I don't fight tooth and nail to protect my "disability rights," and there's a huge part of the Deaf population which takes pride in not taking advantage of those "rights."
But I accept that you have met contrarian jerks in the Deaf community. There are jerks in the Christian community which picket the funerals of servicemen in America. I do not reject all of Christianity because of the actions of a few. I hope you do not do the same.
It is cruel to impose a disability on a child by refusing medical treatment. We are talking about children here. Deafness does limit the opportunities you have in life. It limits you socially, educationally and in employment.
Some people may thrive despite their disablities yet imagine knowing that you have been disabled unnessessarily. We would'nt keep people confined to wheelchairs if there was a cure for their paralysis, and it would be a crime to do so.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
