-----
Amy
January 21, 2014
January 21, 2014
Conflicts of Identity and Technology
Throughout the ages, people with
hearing loss were considered less than people. They were shunned to the darkest
of neighborhoods, and given the least favorable jobs. They had to scavenge for food, and were
forced to live in an insane asylum. They were feared due to suspicion, and
excluded for their lack of conversational skills. Up until the last two hundred
years, life for the deaf and hard of hearing was a constant struggle to
survive. Thankfully, there was hope on the horizon. Education improved and more
opportunities were available to the deaf. The cochlear implant was first
patented in 1985 and provided many deaf individuals with the ability to hear
again. (Carol Padden) It was a wonderful
discovery; it allowed the deaf to hear again. Despite this miraculous
discovery, many Deaf people found it difficult to accept the new technology as
beneficial to their culture, and perceived the device as an attack to their
individual worth.
Recently, I interviewed my hearing friends and family on their stand with implanting deaf children. The majority of my friends and family told me that they would implant children as quickly as possible while the child’s brain is still in the process of developing a spoken language. The majority also told me that they would send their child to a hearing school where no signed language is used; reasoning that when they become older the children would work and socialize in a hearing environment. While I agree that the deaf always will be a minority in a hearing world, I disagree with giving them an implant simply as a cure for deafness without embracing the child’s unique culture to which they belong. A cochlear implant is a device that is surgically implanted into the cochlea of the inner ear. The cost of the implant ranges from $45,000 to $100,000 dollars. In addition to the cost of the surgery, the child must undergo strenuous hearing and speech training sessions conducted by professionals. Doctor visits and regular checkups to monitor the implant and health of the child must be frequent as well. If the child’s health is not monitored, the individual could face infection of the inner lining of the brain or skin around the implant, and cranial nerve damage and even paralysis in extreme cases. (Food and Drug Administration) Even if the cochlear implant is successful for the child, the family must be willing to sacrifice time and money. The hearing groups that I interviewed were unaware of these serious complications that could result from a technological failure. It seems that they have only considered the benefits, but not the risks involved with this procedure.
My hearing friends and family are mistaken when they argue that the cochlear implant will give them a more fulfilling life. As much as we want to believe that the cochlear implant is a “cure” to deafness, it is not. Regardless of having a cochlear implant, the individual will always be considered disabled. Being able to recognize sound does not enable the person to magically become “normal”. You would still apply these same principles to the elderly who use hearing aids. When wearing the hearing aids they have the ability to recognize sound, but as soon as you take the hearing aids away, they are no longer able to hear. The cochlear implant is, for lack of better words, a glorified hearing aid. Success varies depending on the person, but the greatest success is found with those who have some residual hearing left or those who have had exposure to spoken language, not in children. (Carol J. Erting) Even at the best of times, the ability to recognize sound will be shaky. After associating with hearing and deaf family members and while actively seeking a career within the Deaf culture, I must concede that the opportunities available to those who can communicate orally are drastically higher than if one only knows sign language. I must maintain my position, however, that parents fully explore their options before considering a cochlear implant, and not use it as a one fix wonder.
In contrast, I interviewed some of my friends and family who are deaf or are deeply involved in the Deaf community about giving a deaf child a cochlear implant. Generally the Deaf community feels apprehensive about the recent popularity of the surgery. Mostly this apprehension is due to the fact that their culture has been formed for only a half century. During the Second World War, more jobs were available to the deaf. Between shifts they would congregate; relaxing, and being with their own kind, and using their own language. (Carol Padden) Since then, the feeling of belonging helped stabilize and maintain the culture that many hearing people are now taking an interest to. The Deaf culture also worries that in future generations their language, culture and traditions will fade. (O'Hannlon) In addition to their fears of a dissolving culture, they foster frustration against scientists and doctors who try to “fix” their condition. In recent genetic research sponsored by the Human Genome Project, scientists successfully identified the genetic strands found in congenital deafness. (Carol Padden) To many proud deaf, this discovery could lead to selective abortions. Being deaf, or so it seemed, was undesirable and could easily be fixed by manipulating the genetic makeup of an unborn child. The possible and unethical intrusion into a child’s life only increases the apprehension of a dissolving culture.
Recently, I interviewed my hearing friends and family on their stand with implanting deaf children. The majority of my friends and family told me that they would implant children as quickly as possible while the child’s brain is still in the process of developing a spoken language. The majority also told me that they would send their child to a hearing school where no signed language is used; reasoning that when they become older the children would work and socialize in a hearing environment. While I agree that the deaf always will be a minority in a hearing world, I disagree with giving them an implant simply as a cure for deafness without embracing the child’s unique culture to which they belong. A cochlear implant is a device that is surgically implanted into the cochlea of the inner ear. The cost of the implant ranges from $45,000 to $100,000 dollars. In addition to the cost of the surgery, the child must undergo strenuous hearing and speech training sessions conducted by professionals. Doctor visits and regular checkups to monitor the implant and health of the child must be frequent as well. If the child’s health is not monitored, the individual could face infection of the inner lining of the brain or skin around the implant, and cranial nerve damage and even paralysis in extreme cases. (Food and Drug Administration) Even if the cochlear implant is successful for the child, the family must be willing to sacrifice time and money. The hearing groups that I interviewed were unaware of these serious complications that could result from a technological failure. It seems that they have only considered the benefits, but not the risks involved with this procedure.
My hearing friends and family are mistaken when they argue that the cochlear implant will give them a more fulfilling life. As much as we want to believe that the cochlear implant is a “cure” to deafness, it is not. Regardless of having a cochlear implant, the individual will always be considered disabled. Being able to recognize sound does not enable the person to magically become “normal”. You would still apply these same principles to the elderly who use hearing aids. When wearing the hearing aids they have the ability to recognize sound, but as soon as you take the hearing aids away, they are no longer able to hear. The cochlear implant is, for lack of better words, a glorified hearing aid. Success varies depending on the person, but the greatest success is found with those who have some residual hearing left or those who have had exposure to spoken language, not in children. (Carol J. Erting) Even at the best of times, the ability to recognize sound will be shaky. After associating with hearing and deaf family members and while actively seeking a career within the Deaf culture, I must concede that the opportunities available to those who can communicate orally are drastically higher than if one only knows sign language. I must maintain my position, however, that parents fully explore their options before considering a cochlear implant, and not use it as a one fix wonder.
In contrast, I interviewed some of my friends and family who are deaf or are deeply involved in the Deaf community about giving a deaf child a cochlear implant. Generally the Deaf community feels apprehensive about the recent popularity of the surgery. Mostly this apprehension is due to the fact that their culture has been formed for only a half century. During the Second World War, more jobs were available to the deaf. Between shifts they would congregate; relaxing, and being with their own kind, and using their own language. (Carol Padden) Since then, the feeling of belonging helped stabilize and maintain the culture that many hearing people are now taking an interest to. The Deaf culture also worries that in future generations their language, culture and traditions will fade. (O'Hannlon) In addition to their fears of a dissolving culture, they foster frustration against scientists and doctors who try to “fix” their condition. In recent genetic research sponsored by the Human Genome Project, scientists successfully identified the genetic strands found in congenital deafness. (Carol Padden) To many proud deaf, this discovery could lead to selective abortions. Being deaf, or so it seemed, was undesirable and could easily be fixed by manipulating the genetic makeup of an unborn child. The possible and unethical intrusion into a child’s life only increases the apprehension of a dissolving culture.
Within the last few decades,
cochlear implants have become more accessible to those who want or need them.
The issue still stands; should we give a child an implant without allowing the
child to experience their own individual culture? On one hand, implanting a
child within the first years of life would help the child develop oral skills
that could benefit them for the rest of their life. On the other hand, the deaf
community fears that the culture that they worked so diligently to establish
may be threatened by the cochlear implant. The child should have their own say
in the matter. After all, they will be living with that decision for the rest
of their life.
Works Cited
Carol J. Erting, Robert C. Johnson, Dorothy L. Smith,
Bruce C. Snider. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International
Conference on Deaf Culture. Gallaudet University Press, 1994.
Carol Padden, Tom Humphries. Inside Deaf Culture.
First Harvard University Press, 2005.
Food and Drug Administration. Benefits and Risks of
Cochlear Implants. 8 September 2010. 17 January 2014.
National Association of the Deaf. Cochlear Implants.
October 2006. 17 January 2014.
O'Hannlon, Ryan. Pacific Standard. 16 January 2014.
17 January 2014.
