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.

Comments

[JMOSEN]

My perspective is one that does not often get an airing here or in similar forums.

This article reflects the sad fact that disability issues, and indeed people with disabilities, are under-reported and under-represented in all forms of media. I would be interested to know, how many regular contributors to Huffington Post are Deaf, blind, or use a wheelchair?

The fact is that people who are Deaf have their own language, and they consider themselves to have their own culture. As someone who is not Deaf, I personally find it difficult to disagree with Michael's fundamental point that it is better to hear than not, particularly when we're talking about children who have not had an opportunity to learn how to function without the sense of hearing.

However, I am open to the possibility that I am simply imposing my own prejudices on a community I don't know enough about. My ambivalence stems from comments Michael makes in his article about a characteristic I do know something about. I am totally blind, and have been since birth.

I have been blind all my life and am now 39 years old. Were the lights suddenly to be switched on, I'd have no way of interpreting all the visual data I was receiving. I would, therefore, truly be handicapped. I would require years of rehabilitation. In short, I would have to give up my six figure salary, learn to read all over again in a different form, basically start over with my life. No thank you!

What we're dealing with here is the author's fear of blindness. People close their eyes and conclude that if they couldn't see, they couldn't function. This is a natural way to feel, since sight is a very dominant sense when you have it. But to claim that blind people can't function without a lot of assistance is just plain wrong.

I'm blind, happy about it, and proud of it.

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

HuffPost's Pick

Jmosen, I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure you sensed from my post that I wish no discriminatory prejudice directed at those with varying degrees of limitations. I understand that one can be trained to function well and lead a successful life in most fields. Indeed, I sincerely and without condescension applaud those who are able to do so, because it clearly takes that much more effort to compensate for what one cannot do when the playing field is peopled by those who have abilities you do not and are otherwise equal to you in the vital areas regarding talent, education and mental ability.

Also, I cannot argue your point as to whether a radical "cure" would be best for you. I will say you might find that others in your situation might not agree.

However, I can say that in the case of children, especially very young ones (they say the cochlear implant is most successful before a child learns to speak), it is inordinately unfair to presume that deaf parents or the deaf community should be able to impose its will based on what they've become used to. And to presume their life is actually better.

The child in question is an innocent and the fact remains that many, many deaf or hard of hearing people have chosen to get the implant with great success. In the same sense that we don't let those with religious beliefs deny medical treatment to children, I think it would be very unfair to deprive children from getting a better start in life -- especially before they're too old to have become comfortable with the rather insular life experienced by so many in the deaf community. A community, the sort of which I believe, that is not experienced in the same manner by those in your situation.

[JackJason]

HuffPost's Pick

Mr Russnow,

Here's an invitation to come and hang with me and perhaps I'll introduce you to Marlee Matlin. Oh, sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Marlee's sign language interpreter and have been for the last 22 years and also run her production company. Most importantly my parents are Deaf.

As my mother often said to know is understand. Clearly, there are thousands of Deaf people and their families out there that if given the chance to read your comments would say you don't know about what you speak - because you've not had the chance to be with, discuss, and live with Deaf people. I bet that if you met some Deaf people, specifically Marlee, you'd consider the impact your comments have; specifically, on deaf people who have spent a lifetime being discriminated against as a result of comments such as the one you made. I'm not saying your comments are offensive. On the contrary. I just believe you're not enlightened in the rich culture of the Deaf Community. I speak this as a hearing person who's been there and who lives in both worlds..

So come on by sometime and I'll introduce you to Marlee. Perhaps she'll dance a Mambo for you, show off her Oscar, Golden Globe, and introduce you to her four kids and husband, all of whom she is very proud of. How is that for living a life that's "insular"?

Sincerely,
Jack Jason
Solo One Productions

[Lon]

I agree with you about the cochlear implant issue. But I don't understand your criticism of political correctness on TV going too far. This seems to be a real debate going on in the deaf community. It would seem to be more politically correct to refuse to have stories about such issues because one didn't want people to see views that one disagree with.

You seem to be confusing showing something with endorsing it.

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

HuffPost's Pick

As a professional TV/Film writer, I fully understand how stories are shaped with points of view. While the Hallmark TV film in question did show both sides of the issues, it's my contention -- admittedly biased -- that to even present a point of view that portrays the anti-cochlear implant side in a reasonable manner is faulty.

There was a hearing woman in the film, a teacher at the deaf school, who seemed to feel the implant would harm the deaf community (not to mention perhaps her future earnings). Articles I've since read indicate that much of the downside to such implants is mostly to the deaf culture -- not to the recipient -- because, with more implants, there will be fewer people signing, etc.

This is not an acceptable excuse to deny someone a chance to enjoy life to the fullest, and I reiterate that I believe the ability to hear is better than not hearing.

Thus, in an attempt to be "fair," the media is for my taste being a little too balanced when the life at stake in many of these instances is an innocent young victim who should have the best life experiences available to him. Irrespective to what in the future will hopefully be a diminishing deaf community.

I mean, wouldn't it be great if pretty soon all deafness might be eradicated? In the interim, we must be more concerned about those with such opportunities rather than pandering to what appears to be selfish envy or misplaced fears of those who unfortunately and tragically can't take advantage of this wonderful opportunity.

[josephrainmound]

I don't think the media did any research. I think they just intentionally picked and prodded at a polarizing issue and you're analyzing a third-hand 45-minute reproduction of a decades-long situation.