Poll: Cochlear Implants are a...bad thing? (About Deafness and Wikipedia)

[Spector29]

Disclaimer: The only knowledge I have about these things are what I just read on Wikipedia, so I made this thread to ask questions about the criticisms therein so I can learn more about them. Yay run-ons.

Right, so, I'm hearing the word Cochlear Implant more and more, and I also vaguely remember a really boring girl give a really boring 10 minuate speech about these.

1st question; What are they? (I know they allow you to hear, though it's distorted and needs to be put in at a young age)

2nd question; WTF Wikipedia? (Taken verbatim from Wikipedia)

Much of the strongest objection to cochlear implants has come from the deaf community, which consists largely of pre-lingually deaf people whose first language is a signed language. For some in the Deaf community, cochlear implants are an affront to their culture, which as they view it, is a minority threatened by the hearing majority.

...What? Could someone please explain to me what the Deaf Culture is and why it's 'threatened'? Do I have a Diabetes culture I'm not aware of?

...Hence they are implanted before the recipients can decide for themselves, on the assumption that deafness is a disability.

Which is a pretty valid assumption to make, I'd think.

Deaf culture critics argue that the cochlear implant and the subsequent therapy often become the focus of the child's identity at the expense of a possible future deaf identity and ease of communication in sign language, and claim that measuring the child's success only by their mastery of hearing and speech will lead to a poor self-image as "disabled" (because the implants do not produce normal hearing) rather than having the healthy self-concept of a proudly deaf person.

If I chopped it off at identity, that would sound like the critics are jealous. They seem to be making some wild assumptions as well, implying that all hypothetically implanted children will have low self esteem, and non-implanted kids will have high ones.

'Will lead to a poor self-image' Quick show of hands, how many people knew regular people, particularly girls, who had low self-esteem in High school?

That's the part I don't get, why do they assume having some hearing is emotionally worse than having no hearing? Both mark you as disabled, but one would make you less disabled.

They are often isolated from other deaf children and from sign language (Spencer 2003).

Why. Why? I guess a more specific question is...No seriously, WHY?

Children do not always receive support in the educational system to fulfill their needs as they may require special education environments and Educational Assistants.

Ok, why is it the implant's fault for schools not equipped with basic special needs facilities? Special Ed teachers wouldn't have to work as differently as they would with a Deaf child, right?

...Cochlear implants have been one of the technological and social factors implicated in the decline of sign languages in the developed world.

That's unfortunate, but if something becomes redundant shouldn't it be phased out? Although that does create a problem for non-implants.

Some of the more extreme responses from Deaf activists have labeled the widespread implantation of children as "cultural genocide"

Alright, I'll ask again: How is deafness a culture? Also, nobody is killing Deaf people by getting the implant, at worst it's just switching them to a different culture.

...some schools now are successfully integrating cochlear implants with sign language in their educational programs. However, some opponents of sign language education argue that the most successfully implanted children are those who are encouraged to listen and speak rather than overemphasize their visual sense.

Which makes sense to me; it's trading adeptness in Sign Language for increased oral skills. In a hearing world, being about to speak well is key. I'm not saying they shouldn't teach it, I think all the schools everywhere should, but they shouldn't put emphasis on it at the expense of what would be an undoubtedly more used skill.

So yeah, somebody tell me why this is bad. There's a poll as well.

 

[Lucem712]

Well, (some) deaf/HOH people see ASL (and other language variants of SL) as their primary language and as such, it is a part of their being and a part of their lifestyle/culture.

Such people do not want their language (which is beautiful) to fall to the wayside because of this implant. Though, as of right now, it's not entirely functional in restoring hearing (though it's getting more advanced all the time.)

Though, take all of that with a grain of salt, I'm not HOH/Deaf, nor do I know anyone with such a conditions. Just an understanding (sort-of) from the outside of the community.

 

[Vault101]

I don't think you should deny somone the right to hear

 

[Able Seacat]

Many people in Deaf culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture] do not see deafness as a disability and so find the idea of needing it repaired offensive.

 

[Zaik]

Don't pay any attention to wikipedia on matters like this, since you can edit anything yourself, you can make any edit on any article in a format implying it's a real legitimate social issue(whether it is or not) and after the ensuing edit and revert war eventually it'll stay in.

Best part is, since Wikipedia has to remain "impartial", it's easy to imply your batshit insane group of x is a lot larger than it actually is.

I'm pretty sure any deaf person that doesn't think they're at a disadvantage because they're deaf is pretty much full retard. Trying to drag down children who actually have a chance at hearing to your level is just ridiculous.

 

[Yopaz]

I voted no by accident. To the point: I don't see why this is bad. There's the deaf culture that frowns upon this sure. However what they are frowning at is a way to let people who are deaf hear such things as a car getting close or a fire alarm going off. There are dangers in the inability to hear having a way to remove that danger seems like a good idea to me. Cultural attachment or detachment aside is there any negative thing about this?

The worst thing I can think about is that it needs to be improved in order to be perfect.

 

[Jandau]

"Please stop restoring a missing sense to children so our cultural identity which we created around our disability would stay alive."

Yeah, that's just selfish...

Seriously, I'm glad that there is a "Deaf culture", that people with a shared problem got together to help mitigate its effects. But what they are asking for is absurd! What is suddenly no more deaf children were being born (for whatever reason). Would they demand that a certain percentage of newborn babies have their sense of hearing removed at birth? Demanding that doctors stop fixing people is retarded...

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Surely destroying deaf culture is a good thing.
The entire culture relies on more deaf people to be part of it.
Therefore, if the culture is dwindling, there are less deaf people. Which is good.
Because being deaf is probably pretty shit.

1st question; What are they?

Basically, to my understanding, a cochlear implant is just a microphone that picks up sound and converts it into a signal to electrically stimulate nerves in the ear which send the information to the brain.
Normally, the nerves stimulated by tiny hairs in the cochlea. Deafness/hearing loss is caused by damage and subsequent loss of these hairs.

 

[I.N.producer]

Anything that helps someone regain a sense they lack with little to no downside is objectively a good thing. I get that the Deaf Culture has its pride, but being against cochlear implants because of deaf pride is a little absurd. "We should stay deaf so we can be proud of being deaf."

If the deaf culture exists (presumably) to help people who are deaf, shouldn't it be completely for something that helps the deaf?

 

[SckizoBoy]

I don't think you should deny somone the right to hear

I refer to...

Many people in Deaf culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture] do not see deafness as a disability and so find the idea of needing it repaired offensive.

This is quite true... it's not so much that they do not have the right to hear as the desire. And for a person who is born deaf, the idea of hearing and even worse, hearing the sound of their own voice is scary. as. fuck. The most they have is the vibration of their vocal cords but since they can't hear and only feel it, actually coming to terms with them being of use to them is very alien.

2nd question; WTF Wikipedia? (Taken verbatim from Wikipedia)

Much of the strongest objection to cochlear implants has come from the deaf community, which consists largely of pre-lingually deaf people whose first language is a signed language. For some in the Deaf community, cochlear implants are an affront to their culture, which as they view it, is a minority threatened by the hearing majority.

...What? Could someone please explain to me what the Deaf Culture is and why it's 'threatened'? Do I have a Diabetes culture I'm not aware of?

The bolded bit is the important part. The problem that pre-lingually deaf people have is that while they can lip-read, they cannot audio-lise (or w/e) the words. They literally just interpret base lip movements as they have no frame of reference for how words sound.

Thus, the system that they have of signing is their language and it works. Once you grant them hearing, it is a massive culture shock. You'll find that those who are most opposed to cochlear implants are those whose deafness is congenital so successive generations have been deaf.

 

[The Lunatic]

I remember a documentary about this.

The deaf culture is a very odd one, I recall in the show a deaf girl was dating a hearing guy, the parents were treating it like she was dating a demon.


Rather worrying.

 

[chadachada123]

It's equivalent, to me, to a culture or people that prohibits their members from receiving vaccines or prohibits their members from getting a prosthetic leg after a car accident.

In short: any deaf people that would complain about this are fucking insensitive (and fundamentally horrid).

Though, we'll only have more of these types of moral questions as time passes, once humanity gets the ability to create genes. Would you prevent your kid from receiving an ultraviolet-vision gene just to preserve his 'unaugmented' (but socially-stunted) 'culture'?

I would call you a terrible parent if you're preventing your child from an entire sensory experience based on some vague notion of 'culture.'

(However, the issue concerning the teaching of sign language for those that CAN'T hear is, indeed, a problem that should be solved by wider teaching of the language).

 

[Shadowstar38]

Im sorry but, it is completely unreasonable to object to an implant. Deafness is a disability. Humans are suppose to be able to hear. If you make someone feel bad for wanted to improve their life, you are just wrong for it.

I'm completely for these, given the person gets them willingly.

 

[chadachada123]

Many people in Deaf culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture] do not see deafness as a disability and so find the idea of needing it repaired offensive.

This is quite true... it's not so much that they do not have the right to hear as the desire. And for a person who is born deaf, the idea of hearing and even worse, hearing the sound of their own voice is scary. as. fuck. The most they have is the vibration of their vocal cords but since they can't hear and only feel it, actually coming to terms with them being of use to them is very alien.

I don't understand that at all. I would absolutely love to get an entirely new array of communication and perception. Even something small like seeing in a broader spectrum would be awesome as hell, not scary.

Finding out that some extra sense exists above the five senses would make me excited if I could experience it along with everyone else.

 

[Bobic]

Wow, it's Deus Ex: Human Revolution bought to life, only more ridiculous.

Many people in Deaf culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture] do not see deafness as a disability and so find the idea of needing it repaired offensive.

But it clearly is a disability. Hearing is an ability. Dis, as a prefix, means not, or the opposite of. As in, they don't have the ability to hear.

And the fact that they think they have the right to tell other people that they can't take steps toward being able to hear (which, I'd like to point out, is very useful) is absolutely ludicrous. I do hope that this is just a small minority that wikipedia's editors (or, possibly the 'deaf culture' themselves) decided to include in the pursuit of 'fairness'.

 

[Metaik]

Also noticed whilst reading this thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118409-Gloves-Translate-Sign-Language-to-Speech
Now everybody can be happy I guess?...

Preserving your language whilst also being able to communicate with those who cannot = win-win yeah?

But getting with the spirit of the thread, your body your choice. I don't think a community should pressure a person into making any particular choice that has only a minor affect on them yet, quite possible a huge one to the individual. Just think of all the fabulous music in the world they would be able to enjoy, hell, I know sometimes it's the only thing that gets me through the day.

 

[MammothBlade]

Many people in Deaf culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture] do not see deafness as a disability and so find the idea of needing it repaired offensive.

How do you argue with this? So, human technology can finally give deaf people hearing... and deaf culture is against it because it has a sense of pride in deafness and it will mean the obsoletion of that culture. In a way I can see their point - the whole manualism vs. oralism debate - but people could still uphold the traditions of sign language and silence. I'm sure that - with such neurodiversity - there are some people who would not like to hear. Maybe they should be allowed to become deaf as a lifestyle choice, and society should respect that. If at any point they don't like it, their hearing can be restored.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I don't understand that at all. I would absolutely love to get an entirely new array of communication and perception. Even something small like seeing in a broader spectrum would be awesome as hell, not scary.

Finding out that some extra sense exists above the five senses would make me excited if I could experience it along with everyone else.

But take it from their perspective...

They know virtually everyone else around them can hear, but they've managed to adapt to the world in their own way and they get by without any real problems, just don't try to phone them. I'm not saying that it's a scary experience for all of them, I'm sure there are those who are excited at the prospect.

Oddly enough, I'm drawn back to an episode of Scrubs where a deaf father is against his son having a cochlear implant ostensibly on the grounds he doesn't need it. However, the problem lies within the insular nature of the individual who is distinctly aware of his/her... deficiencies when compared to peers, so having someone who is of like nature around is a comfort. Selfish as it seems, the inability for most people to sign (though it's hardly their fault) is the reason for this.

Call it a type of 'foreigner clustering' but instead of a spoken language, it's a signed one.

But it clearly is a disability. Hearing is an ability. Dis, as a prefix, means not, or the opposite of. As in, they don't have the ability to hear.

True, but they've shown everyone they can get on fine despite the disability. It's partially out of pride, partially out of solidarity and partially out of a lack of desire to be humiliated because of the fear that they will be unable to speak.

Think about it... have you spoken to a deaf person before? Their diction is terrible (again, no fault of their own) and for many deaf people, it's embarrassing for others to hear their voice so they prefer to sign. And it's like trying to teach and youngster to speak, takes years.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

So...instead of considering a 'non-necessity' just because they've adapted to use without it...

...Why not consider it an extra edge above the average person? If they consider themselves just as adapted as us normies and not-disabled, why wouldn't they be happy with getting something that makes them stronger?

I point back to my vision-question. I can't imagine color-blind people being opposed to getting new colors to see AND a better chance at fitting in.

Barring this, why the FUCK are they trying to speak for the average deaf person, let alone EVERY deaf person? Were I a deaf person, I would permanently resent my parents if they forced me to stay deaf for life when I could alternately be somewhat normal (while still presumably learning sign language to speak to deaf people, making me twice as adapted as them).