Support for the Cochlear Implant, and its opposite

Personally, I think hearing should have hearing children. They are ill prepared to raise deaf children. They view deaf children as tragic. More often than not, they succeed in raising handicapped hearing, not deaf. But to be fair, there are great success stories: from the parents who learn ASL, to the children who are mainstreamed and overcoming their handicap. (NOTE: I do not view deafness as a handicap, unless you try and use hearing.)

Personally, I think deaf should have deaf children. Deaf are uniquely prepared to raise deaf children. They view deaf children as special gifts. They can succeed in helping that child develop language skills. Not skills in English necessarily, but language skills of the mind.

I believe that many problems of the deaf could be reduced or eliminated if the deaf raised the deaf. They would have families to build upon, rather than the majority of deaf being first generation. Deaf families would allow the deaf to develop more naturally, and each succeeding generation could build on the success of the previous generations.

So I fully support the option of the cochlear implant. However, I fully support the opposite option: from hearing to deaf. Now this is a controversial option: Deaf by choice, not by chance.

Ideally, each child could choose whether to be deaf or hearing, but this is impossible, so it is up to the parents to decide. And when the children grow up, the choices the parents made will be judged. And when the children grow up, they will decide for their children. Would intentional deafening continue? There is no way to know until it is tried.

Now come the methods and the morals of intentional deafening. What do you think?

The greatest argument against intentional deafening is that it will limit the options of the child. However, I don’t see this argument as valid. It gives the child different options, not less valuable options.

Deaf by choice, not by chance
-Oculog

Intentional deafening? Of children?? Now that's a kind of sick idea isn't it? A lot of ppl are happy in themselves as hearing or deaf or Deaf, and that's good. But deliberately deafening kids to fit your weird model of an ideal society? That's something completely different.

I can see what PUDL meant by this post!

hohprof said:

Intentional deafening? Of children?? Now that's a kind of sick idea isn't it? A lot of ppl are happy in themselves as hearing or deaf or Deaf, and that's good. But deliberately deafening kids to fit your weird model of an ideal society? That's something completely different.

Click to expand...

I wouldnt say deafening kids, technically.. the DNA is already there in the sperm that happens to win out against other billions of sperm. If a parent stabbed a hearing kid's ears out with a pencil cos he wanted the kid to be deaf, NOW that is abuse and a different story!

Liza said:

I wouldnt say deafening kids, technically.. the DNA is already there in the sperm that happens to win out against other billions of sperm. If a parent stabbed a hearing kid's ears out with a pencil cos he wanted the kid to be deaf, NOW that is abuse and a different story!

Click to expand...

Liza - I agree with you completely. What PUDL talked about was intentional deafening which does indeed suggest some kind of surgical intervention. If what PUDL really meant was opting not to use some complicated bit of genetic engineering, that would be another matter - in fact I'd be quite happy about what would, in effect, be naturally deaf children. But the phrase used was "intentional" deafening, and I find that rather scary.

hohprof said:

Liza - I agree with you completely. What PUDL talked about was intentional deafening which does indeed suggest some kind of surgical intervention. If what PUDL really meant was opting not to use some complicated bit of genetic engineering, that would be another matter - in fact I'd be quite happy about what would, in effect, be naturally deaf children. But the phrase used was "intentional" deafening, and I find that rather scary.

Click to expand...

PUDL made a great point and concept. Same reaction was resulted from the idea parents putting CIs on their Deaf kids, so why not make hearing kids Deaf?

Well here's something to think about......Fluid in the ears(glue ear) is the most common cause of hearing loss in kids. Yet it can be cured by putting tubes in the ears. If a Deaf family had kids with fluid in the ears would they subject the kid to the surgery or could they be prosecuted for bad parenting?

A very interesting question. Since the children of deaf parents would - according to PUDL's precepts - presumably be brought up culturally Deaf, I don't see why the tubes would be necessary since hearing wouldn't be needed. I don't think it would be bad parenting to let the children become naturally deaf as a result - if that is what the family as a whole felt was right, and the individual child concerned.

To some extent I share worries about compelling babies to have CIs - the individual's wishes need to be paramount in that, not the vanity of parents, but it's a personal choice, a difficult one, and one which should be left entirely to the individuals concerned. Very simply, I don't see that there can be a blanket, generalised "right" or "wrong" about it.

What I'm still worrying about is deliberately making a hearing child deaf. I'm hard of hearing myself. It's OK, but I wouldn't have been happy to have been made partially deaf as a result of what relatives decided for me!

To some extent I share worries about compelling babies to have CIs - the individual's wishes need to be paramount in that, not the vanity of parents, but it's a personal choice, a difficult one, and one which should be left entirely to the individuals concerned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with implanting kids with auditory nereopathy or who don't get ANY benifit from hearing aids...like the kids who only get vibrations from hearing aids or who hear at 80 dcb or 70 dcb with aids but when we have very good hearing aid users being implanted....that's just really messed up! I read in Volta Voices that one of the ODA who writes a column for VV, is considering a CI to help make difficult listening sititions easier...I read that an adult got implanted b/c she couldn't talk on the phone (and? There are voice carry over phones, TYYs and other alternatives.) What next? Are they going to claim that the real words to Louie Louie and Smells Like Teen Spirit can be decipered by CIs?

deafdyke said:

but when we have very good hearing aid users being implanted....that's just really messed up!

Click to expand...

Yes - it's completely crazy and from what I gather actually using and living with a CI is just so much more hassle than normal HAs - never mind the fact that hearing has to be destroyed in order to do the implant (have I got that right?) and this is often hearing that is completely and easily aided with hearing aids. CI may have its uses but at the moment we seem to have a craze for it that is getting out of hand. CI to use the phone??? Now that's a new one on me...

CI may have its uses but at the moment we seem to have a craze for it that is getting out of hand.

Click to expand...

Yes I do agree with you there. The thing is, implantation is just so iffy and there are no guarentees that you'll be able to hear better then with hearing aids.
Only about a tiny percentage of deaf people are superstars with CIs....I think I read somewhere that only about 20% of implanted kids are superstars with CIs (can hear 100% with someone hyperenunicating what's said or can hear at "HOH" levels) Even the most ardent advocates of CIs admit that most implantees experiance a wide range of hearing, from improved awareness of enviormental noises to improvement in speech reading to access to most of the speech sounds and everything in between!!!! (just as with hearing aids!)

In this argument, you must start with the FACT that there is nothing wrong with being hearing or being deaf. A deaf child is of equal value as a hearing child. So why is there any controversy? Hearing or deaf, if the child is part of a healthy loving family that child is not being harmed.

CI implantation is mostly accepted, but why is intentional deafening rejected? This screams the idea that deaf are inferior. Deaf are not inferior.

Intentional deafening could take many forms. The easiest method would be sperm banks. Few deaf couples are both genetically deaf. Since you can not harm a child by creating its life, there is nothing morally wrong.

The next would be surgical. Fluid in the ears would probably be a good idea. Then when the child is an adult, if they want to live as hearing, they can have their ears drained. And unlike the CI, this would not require brain surgery.

The best option would be genetic engineering, but this is not possible yet. And the type and amount of deafness could be selected.

But why intentional deafening? Easy. To ensure that the deaf survive and do not become extinct. It will be a sad day when deaf only exist in history books. Martha’s Vineyard is a warning to all. Even if deaf are accepted, they can easily disappear.

The CI will not go away. The CI will only improve. And I welcome the improvement. The CI is imperfect. It requires invasive surgery. The CI requires rehabilitation. It is always there to remind the implanted.

But this will soon change. The CI, or something like it, will be perfected. A deaf child will be implanted near birth and will never know they have an implant. They will never know they are different than the other kids. Later in life they will learn that they were born deaf. But they will thank their parents because they didn’t want to be handicapped. They will never know of a life that could be possible without hearing, unless they look it up in a book. Because by then the deaf will have disappeared from the face of the Earth, except for some third world places without the advanced technology, but there will be a non profit organization that tries to do good, and this non profit will go around the world trying to wipe out the disability known as deafness.

This is the future for the deaf. When only the deaf are willing to have deaf children, the deaf will disappear unless they are willing to choose intentional deafening.

-Oculog

PUDL said:

This is the future for the deaf. When only the deaf are willing to have deaf children, the deaf will disappear unless they are willing to choose intentional deafening.

-Oculog

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I think it is a matter of fearing Deaf Culture will disappear more it is about actual deafness itself. You imply that Deaf Culture is dependent on having actual deafness, but what about the legacy the parents do pass on to their hearing children (coda)? cousins? wife-in-law? uncle? That sort of thing's gonna have an in/direct effect on a hearing person. As long as we choose to adopt some aspects that are said to define Deaf Culture, like ASL and other international sign languages - Deaf Culture is not gone even if deafness might vanish eventually with the help of technology or genes. I also think the ability to live with new changes in these times is very important in order for all of us to survive individually and as a whole. There are parts that some people has defined Deaf Culture with - they are very old fashioned and outdated - they could use a change. Just my thoughts on these matters.

I do not know why people come in here discussing what is best for a deaf child or deaf babies.

If anyone want CI good for them... But don't come in here lettering us about what is best or what is not best

CI is a very difficult debate to talk about and of course everyone is half and half feeling what is best....

There is a lot of research u have to do on CI before making a big step in ur life to change who u are into someone different....

Of Course Parents have to make the decision for that child cuz we have to know what is best. But still. I do not agree about having Babies being implanted why? cuz they are very tiny and not fully development. That scare me a lot....

There are other ways to bring up a deaf child in your life without getting CI.

Some people need it some people don't need CI.


That doesn't mean I am against CI. It just means it a very hard decisions to make a big step ...

I do not like the fact that CI people have to go around telling stories about CI and making people get it. But they don't know what Us people can hear what we cant hear? u know what I mean? every deaf people is different! Some can speak some cant some use asl some don't some have better English grammar skills some don't. there a lot of do and don't each deaf person has....

You do not know what the child is until he or she spoke their first words ... what can she or he hears how would he and she get along in the hearing world... There is a lot of thinking to do.. It is not an easy answer.

Thank you Liza! There are even Deaf people with perfect hearing but who use ASL as their primary or first language b/c of things like tracheostomies or apraxia or whatever.

and this non profit will go around the world trying to wipe out the disability known as deafness.

Click to expand...

FOA, the CI isn't a cure! The CI is simply a more technologically advanced "hearing aid"...and people have experianced varying degrees of "sucess" with it, just as with hearing aids! Also, just as with hearing aids...when a CI is off, then the person is STILL deaf!
I doubt that deafness will ever be wiped out.....the profit factor is too great...do you really think that corparate altrusim is so high that companies and corparations would relinquish their profits from hearing aids and CIs?

I believe within 20 years, there will exist a hearing replacement device that will be equal to the ear or even superior.

When a child gets this device as an infant, they will not require any rehabilitation. They will learn to use this device the same as any other child learns to use their ears. This will be a great day, because learning language will become natural rather than frustration and therapy. Parents will be able to be parents, rather than therapists. And children will not have their childhoods stolen away because they are trying to learn to hear, lip read, and voice.

If it is not in 20 years, how about 100. Because when that day happens, what will happen to the deaf, what will happen to signed languages? 90% of the deaf population comes from hearing homes. If that 90% does not have any problems with the hearing world, why would they seek out the deaf world.

Unless the deaf are willing to have the deaf, the deaf will one day disappear. And when the deaf disappear, signed languages will become a curiosity or a footnote in history. While children of deaf adults may learn a signed language, what of their children, or their children’s children. Without the deaf, a signed language is not needed and will stop being used and learned.

-Oculog

Years later, hearing will be improved with the use of nanotechnology. When that happens, there won't be any need for devices.

I believe within 20 years, there will exist a hearing replacement device that will be equal to the ear or even superior.

When a child gets this device as an infant, they will not require any rehabilitation

Click to expand...

Oculog, you're assuming the "best of all possible outcomes" Experiances with hearing aids and CIs have shown us that born and early deafened(went deaf before age one) kids experiance the least amount of sucess with those devices. I'm not saying that born and early deafened kids can't use hearing aids and CIs well....just that the number of really good users in the congentially and early deafened population is rather low. That could be b/c of a central auditory processing disorder...which is a disorder where the brain cannot process sound too well. Most of us who went deaf before age one, have never processed sound like hearing people do. Our brains don't know what sound is. We've heard like deaf or hoh people....but we've never heard like hearing people. Make sense? Ear malformations and coachlea damage aren't the only causes of hearing loss....there's also auditory nereopathy (although that population seems to really benifit from CI) and "pure"(no physical damage to the ear) central deafness where the ear hears but the brain cannot process sound.
A hearing device which is "supeior" to the ear? Um.....why would anyone develop such a device? Insurance wouldn't pay for it....why does a deaf kid need "super" hearing? Even hearing people don't know the real words to Louie Louie or Smells like Teen Spirit ( As Weird Al, says in Smells like Nirvana..."It's hard to bargle nargle zous with all these marbles in my mouth")
Most born and early deaf kids require extensive rehabilatation in order to hear, and even after THAT most of them STILL have significent language delays. There are some superstars who perform at VERY high levels with the CI, but there've always been oral superstars....even back in the '60's with primative hearing aids, there were superstars....I remember reading in Volta Voices that Heather Whitestone McCallum's mother was inspired to raise her daughter by the Acupedic (Auditory-Verbal) approach b/c of an Acupedic superstar who spoke seven languages! As we all know, most orally raised kids back then, had poor reading levels, and didn't really even have a mastery of their FIRST language. (if you don't believe me, look in back issues of Volta Voices...like those from the early seventies!)
I seriously doubt that there will ever be a cure for hearing loss, or something that will lessen the deaf community's dependance on devices....hearing aids, CIs and other hearing devices make far far far too much money for corparations to give up manufacturing them.
Oculog...you also didn't adress the fact that there are still hearing people with "other" disabilties (tracheostomies and apraxia who use ASL as their primary language. I doubt that ASL will disappear from the earth....I bet if you went back to seventy years ago, a lot of experts would have said that ASL was dying.....gee...gosh a rootie....it's now the 21nd century and deaf culture is alive and well! Research has shown that most oral-aural kids DO pick up ASL as a second language, and even a small percentage (about 20%) of auditory-verbal kids pick up ASL as a second language as well (and according to expert opinon most auditory-verbal kids are well adjusted to the hearing world, and don't need ASL, deaf culture and the deaf world!)

I hope you are right deafdyke, but I've just read too much science fiction. Technology will improve. The success rate will improve.

Because, medically there are several problems with the body that would cause deafness and HOH. The problem is with the ear, the nerves, or lack of brain cells.

We can replace the ear - the cochlear. We can regrow nerves in rats. And we can grow brain cells on the surface of silicon chips.

These areas of medicine are being researched by many people all over the world. Research into broken backs, Parkinson’s, and many others will all help with deafness. Because, once we can grow nerves and regenerate brain cells in humans, the success rate for hearing replacement will approach 100%

PS - The term "Super-hearing" is already in use. Super-hearing is the ability to hear better than normal in some noise conditions. Specifically, the term has been applied to the state of the art Cochlear implants from Advanced Bionics Corp. However, super hearing is a hit or miss type of thing, just like the cochlear implant.

-Oculog

but I've just read too much science fiction. Technology will improve. The success rate will improve.

Click to expand...

Well there is a reason why they call it science FICTION

Because, once we can grow nerves and regenerate brain cells in humans, the success rate for hearing replacement will approach 100%

Click to expand...

Oculog, that IS science-fiction to the extreme.....Also, just b/c it worked in the lab, it doesn't mean that it has good real-world applications. I know I've read that scientists have cured cancer in the lab (on lab animals) but it hasn't had too much effect in the real world. Theroy doesn't always work well in the real world!!!!
Besides, hearing loss isn't THAT big of a deal....compared to cancer, quaduplicia, Alizhiemr's lekeodystrophy and so on....
Also, with that theroy, you're assuming that hearing loss and other disabilties are "bad" or undesirable...how do you know that in a few years people won't see disabilty as OK or even desireable? Normalacy is a socialogical concept...what's "normal" in one society isn't normal in another society.
I am FINE with being disabled....I am PROUD to be deaf...Being able-bodied/nondisabled is OVERRATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!