Daniel M. Kaplan MD and Moshe Puterman MD
http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar10feb-10.pdf
Cochlear implants have become increasingly used for prelingually deaf children in order to provide them with hearing to learn to listen and speak. The implant is inserted into the cochlea and electrodes stimulate the cochlear nerve, bypassing the damaged hair cells of the ear, and allowing an auditory single to be passed to the brain. Implants for children were approved in the late 1980s. Since that time they have become more of a standard of care for parents electing for their children to learn to listen and speak.
Early studies have shown deaf children are able to develop typical speech and language skills allowing them greater opportunities in education, social development and overall improvement in quality of life. The study itself was rather small in scale, although it showed impressive improvement over a time span of ten years following implantation. Long-term and large scale studies need to be implemented to determine the full effectiveness and possible concerns for use of an invasive medical procedure that can be quite costly. Overall, short term studies have been promising but due to rapid changes in technology, programming or mapping strategies, and educational opportunities much research is still needed.
This should include looking at the cost effectiveness of the medical procedure against the cost educating the child and his ability to function in society throughout life.
My mother is a speech pathologist and as I result I have encountered several people who use cochlear implants. Some have what appears to me to be typical speech and language while others have had some struggles. I do think that ongoing research and development of the implants as well as better training will continue to improve the deaf person's ability use his listening skills to develop speech and language.
http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar10feb-10.pdf
Cochlear implants have become increasingly used for prelingually deaf children in order to provide them with hearing to learn to listen and speak. The implant is inserted into the cochlea and electrodes stimulate the cochlear nerve, bypassing the damaged hair cells of the ear, and allowing an auditory single to be passed to the brain. Implants for children were approved in the late 1980s. Since that time they have become more of a standard of care for parents electing for their children to learn to listen and speak.
Early studies have shown deaf children are able to develop typical speech and language skills allowing them greater opportunities in education, social development and overall improvement in quality of life. The study itself was rather small in scale, although it showed impressive improvement over a time span of ten years following implantation. Long-term and large scale studies need to be implemented to determine the full effectiveness and possible concerns for use of an invasive medical procedure that can be quite costly. Overall, short term studies have been promising but due to rapid changes in technology, programming or mapping strategies, and educational opportunities much research is still needed.
This should include looking at the cost effectiveness of the medical procedure against the cost educating the child and his ability to function in society throughout life.
My mother is a speech pathologist and as I result I have encountered several people who use cochlear implants. Some have what appears to me to be typical speech and language while others have had some struggles. I do think that ongoing research and development of the implants as well as better training will continue to improve the deaf person's ability use his listening skills to develop speech and language.
I feel like there’s a definite controversy over cochlear implants. It’s my experience that most hearing people have the perception that something needs to be fixed if you’re deaf because many hearing people feel that a life without the ability to hear is unbearable and that it limits your ability to function normally in society. Whereas from the perspective of the majority of the deaf community nothing’s wrong. Nothing needs to be fixed. The deaf community, like any other culture, naturally wants to retain their ties to their common language, which is American Sign Language not speaking English. So it’s difficult to accept something like cochlear implants that questions someone’s entire culture especially with the risks and disadvantages that are associated with it. It’s possible that more damage to the ear could occur. Also, the efficiency level of the device is not certain. Implants could be very effective, partially effective or not effective at all. It was already mentioned, but the cost of the implants are not affordable to everybody and only some of the costs are covered by health insurance. What if you need bi-implants? I will concede that as technology continues to improve and develop that anything is possible. Researchers might discover a biological solution and make this procedure obsolete. However, right now there are still ethical issues regarding cochlear implants, but hopefully the two perspectives can be better reconciled eventually.
ReplyDeleteI think that cochlear implants are a good alternative to ASL. Some people want to be able to hear sounds of water or music a dog bark etc. I think that it is a good resolve for those of us who have been able to hear and have become deaf. It must be remembered that cochlear implants change the way we hear. I have to agree with Gloria that some people of the deaf community are content with their way of communication. I believe that the implant should be offered and covered by insurance. It can give more independence in a classroom, I.E not needing an interpreter. I think more research needs to be done to make the procedure less expensive.
ReplyDeleteI think the intention behind cochlear implants is very good. I completely agree where Gloria is coming from when she says that some individuals in the deaf community are content with their means of communication but I cant help point out the benefits of the cochlear implants. Just because someone gains the capability of hearing does not mean that they must communicate via language. The cochlear implant has an external component as well as an internal component. The external component is able to be removed whenever the individual pleases. So picture this... when a deaf person is at the beach they can put on their "ears" to listen to the waves but when they are in the middle of a roaring cafeteria they can take their ears off. A deaf individual can have the possibility of experiencing the joys of hearing and avoid the negative components of it as well. I know a little boy who has cochlear implants who loves to put his "ears" (thats what his mother calls them) so that he can hear his mothers voice but pulls them off immediately when his bird starts squawking. I completely understand how this topic can be controversial but I think its necessary to look at the benefits from it.
ReplyDeleteI have attached an adorable video of a deaf boy hearing his mothers voice for the first time. In the video you can also see how he can take of the transmitter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB3HQ80xIkc
I will admit, being an individual that can hear without aide, my initial response to the controversy over whether or not cochlear implants were wanted by the deaf community was- "why would they not"? Although I see the point Gloria makes when stating that cochlear implants present the opportunity to completely change the culture of the deaf community, I believe that whether or not the change of culture is good/bad will be perceived in different manners amongst various individuals. Having a cochlear implant is not a requirement for every deaf person, rather it is a decision made by the deaf individual or their parents/guardians. If there are advancements in technology that are bettering the use of these implants and giving the opportunity for those cannot hear to finally hear sound efficiently, I feel as though nobody as a right to take away that opportunity for those deaf people who would want it. The controversy is apparent but I don't feel as if it is fair to allow the majority of the community to speak for the whole. It should be an decision made on an individual basis.
ReplyDelete