Advances in Technology and a Return to Medicalization

[faire_jour]

If so, then why did many parents had to fight to get their child enrolled at the deaf schools? The requirements were for their child to fail in the mainstreaming environment before getting permission to enroll their children. I was told that by several parents who wanted their deaf child enrolled at the deaf schools.

Then those schools ignore the law. The law specifically says thatyou must consider the child's communication and the ability to directly communicate with peers and teachers.

Dept. of Ed.: Deaf Students Education Services; Policy Guidance

 

[DeafDoc1]

Jillio, I also see the pendulum swinging back to medicalization of deafness. And technology is responsible in a large part, I believe. When one applies to medical school, one writes a personal statement. Nearly 90% of those say that the applicant wants to go into medicine to "help people". We are taught in traditional medical schools that "helping" usually involved pills, surgery, or a form of therapy. A few specialties such as my own (rehabilitation) focus on function rather than disease. For most ENTs, though, the only tools they can offer are hearing aid referrals and CIs. And when your only tool is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. CI surgeries are successful in many cases, and lucrative for the surgeon (reality). It is easy to offer these, and much harder to swallow one's pride and say "I can't help" or "there's nothing wrong with you except you can't hear".

I believe there needs to be more education and exposure about Deaf culture and choices when the physicians are still in training. That is when we have the greatest opportunity to de-medicalize deafness.

Personally, when I lost my hearing, my ENT said he could implant a CI, but he had nothing else to offer. Just recently, I was at a social with a colleague who is an ENT and the first thing he said to me was, "what happened to your hearing and has anyone talked to you about a CI?".

IMHO as a Deaf physician and rebel.

 

[jillio]

Jillio, I also see the pendulum swinging back to medicalization of deafness. And technology is responsible in a large part, I believe. When one applies to medical school, one writes a personal statement. Nearly 90% of those say that the applicant wants to go into medicine to "help people". We are taught in traditional medical schools that "helping" usually involved pills, surgery, or a form of therapy. A few specialties such as my own (rehabilitation) focus on function rather than disease. For most ENTs, though, the only tools they can offer are hearing aid referrals and CIs. And when your only tool is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. CI surgeries are successful in many cases, and lucrative for the surgeon (reality). It is easy to offer these, and much harder to swallow one's pride and say "I can't help" or "there's nothing wrong with you except you can't hear".

I believe there needs to be more education and exposure about Deaf culture and choices when the physicians are still in training. That is when we have the greatest opportunity to de-medicalize deafness.

Personally, when I lost my hearing, my ENT said he could implant a CI, but he had nothing else to offer. Just recently, I was at a social with a colleague who is an ENT and the first thing he said to me was, "what happened to your hearing and has anyone talked to you about a CI?".

IMHO as a Deaf physician and rebel.

Glad to see you pop in on this one DeafDoc! I would love to see more cultural training and exposure during ENT rotations. (I personally gave my son's pediatrician a crash course!) Physicians are taught to pathologize everything, and if its pathological, it must be treated with agressive intervention. I, too rebel against that pathological viewpoint, to the degree that I incorporate it with some of the clients I have who are dx'ed with certain psychosis.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yea, it was like a big slap in my face a few years ago when one of my husband's coworker told me that all deaf people should improve themselves when I told her that I wasnt interested in gettting a CI.

No, I dont hate CIs..I hate the views that come with them.

I remember you posting about that well. I was like oi when I read it.

One hearing person on a different forum told me that if a deaf person refuses to speak even if they have good speech and refuse to get a CI, they should not get a sign language interpter or other accomdations.

 

[jillio]

I remember you posting about that well. I was like oi when I read it.

One hearing person on a different forum told me that if a deaf person refuses to speak even if they have good speech and refuse to get a CI, they should not get a sign language interpter or other accomdations.

I cannot believe someone would actually say that! The judgement people place never ceases to amaze me. They act as if the individual is to blame for their disability.

 

[AndyE9503]

I remember you posting about that well. I was like oi when I read it.

One hearing person on a different forum told me that if a deaf person refuses to speak even if they have good speech and refuse to get a CI, they should not get a sign language interpter or other accomdations.

I pity the person who says that to my face

 

[melissa]

That's astounding- it just makes no sense to me, why people would think like that. I'm reminded slightly of my school years- kids with a statement of special educational needs got 25% extra time in exams and could take them in a small, quiet room- other kids constantly said 'But why do you get extra time, you don't need to hear to write in an exam! It's not fair!'. I ended up apologising and saying, sorry, they're just the rules. Then someone would chirp in with 'reverse discrimination'.

 

[Rampratt]

Rebi; Right ON. What we are all talking about is communication. Those of us that speak and write English can communicate. I can not communicate in Chinese, my wife does. I can not communicate very well with sign language, many can. Technology is advancing every day and we take advantage of it. Not just for communication but for many other things. Had a blind friend many years ago that they fitted some kind of contraption on his back and he could see. Not as we do but he could make out objects. He was very gratefully for it I might add. I suspect that it has advanced now to a point that maybe he can even read? That is advancement. Like it or not, most people and animals communicate via sound. Just different sounds. In my opinion, the better one can communicate the better off they are. Those that can not communicate very well are handicapped in opportunities. Unfortunate but true.