Earlier in this semester, we discussed hearing, and how the ear works. We touched briefly on cochlear implants, but
did not go into much detail about them.
Put simply, the cochlear implant translates the external sound into
signals that can be sent to the internal part of the device. This link explains a bit better how they
work:
http://cochlearimplants.med.miami.edu/implants/04_How%20do%20Cochlear%20Implants%20Work.asp
They essentially allow those with hearing deficiencies to hear, and
therefore participate in spoken language.
What we did not discuss, however, is the debate that this technology
sparked when it was relatively new. This
debate has not fizzled out, and people that are close to the topic still have
strong opinions about it. The article
below shows a glimpse of what people debate over:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-10794.html
This topic is one of cultural significance.
Those that are deaf, and did not have the option for cochlear implants
when they were younger do not see themselves at a disadvantage in this
world. There is a strong community and
cultural feeling among those who are strongly hearing impaired or deaf. Some people argue that implanting a cochlear
implant in a young deaf child will rob them of being a part of the deaf
community. It teaches them that it means
there was something wrong with them instead of accepting themselves for who
that are with their differences. On the
other hand, doesn’t not being able to hear when a car is coming towards you, or
having hearing to help you in other dangerous situations put you in a difficult
position? I watched a documentary about
this debate that followed a family who was trying to decide whether or not to
allow their child to get a cochlear implant.
It is heart wrenching to see both sides of this conversation because I personally
see validity in both sides. Here is a
link to the trailer if you are interested in seeing a glimpse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXNrqKPsac0
What I struggle with is why there cannot be a compromise? Why can you not allow a child to have the
cochlear implant at a young age, so that they can still learn spoken language
(before the critical period of language acquisition passes by), but also teach
them sign language so that they can still interact with, and be a true part of
the deaf community? I understand that it
is not that clear-cut, and if this was my decision, I have no idea what I would
do, but I think that it is an important aspect of technology to take into
consideration. This same type of debate
could take place for other things that some may consider a disability, while
those experiencing the situation may not view themselves as disabled in any
way. What are your thoughts on this
debate? Who do you think is “right”? Is there a right and a wrong?
I also wish there could be a compromise, but it is really hard when the deaf community does not think there is a problem with being deaf. They don't see it as something that should be fixed so why bother putting the child through a surgery that isn't important to them. I think the idea of a child having the cochlear implant, yet still being taught to sign sounds fantastic. I just think that the deaf community still may not accept the person who gets the procedure as being deaf anymore. I grew up with a mom who is a speech pathologist who signs. While she thinks the idea of the cochlear implant is great, she still believes in the culture of the deaf community. Having been raised with that idea may skew my views though and may keep me from being completely objective. The cochlear implant doesn't suddenly make a child able to hear everything and cannot always make them able to process the sounds they do hear. If the implant suddenly made the child able to hear and process sounds at a typical level I think there would be a bigger push for the procedure.
ReplyDeleteI see where the conflict on this issue lies, but I see a straightforward solution. Why not let the child choose whether to receive a cochlear implant or not? I don’t know anybody who is deaf so I don’t have any perspective on the deaf community, but I just assume the person could make that decision on their own. If the issue is whether or not to have a child receive it, I think it would be best to present both sides of the issue in writing, and have him or her choose. If the child is so young he or she can’t understand the magnitude of the situation, give them some time, keep teaching them to sign, and present the information at a point in which they can make the informed decision on their own.
ReplyDeleteThis way, the child who is born deaf can either receive the implant and start to learn spoken language, or can remain deaf and part of that community. Let them make the decision themselves. If the implant is received and the individual still can’t process some sounds, they can still continue to sign and learn in this fashion. I suppose this is where the deaf community conflict arises but still don’t see why the individual can’t make the decision on his or her own.
Drew, I think that this is a good point as well, and it is something that is kind of covered in the documentary that I watched. In the documentary, the little girl wants the implant, but her parents are a bit torn. Her dad is pretty against it, and the mom ultimately does not think that it is such a good idea, so they do not go through with it. They figure Heather can decide for herself when she is older. The trouble is, by the time the daughter is old enough to fully understand the situation, she will be beyond the critical period for learning language, and would most likely not be able to reap the full benefits of the procedure. It's kind of an unfortunate catch 22. I also think that if it is possible, the child should choose for themselves, but it really is a big decision for a 5-6 year old to be making.
ReplyDeleteby the way, Heather is the name of the daughter in the movie, just as a clarification, I realized I threw a name in there randomly!
ReplyDelete