Cochlear Implants

[Myweponsg00d]

Allow me to re-state what I am talking about. Theres two different ways that people view disabilities. I actually have worked in the office of Disability Resources and Services at my uni for two years, so I have some advanced sensitivity in dealing with disabled persons. Theres the legal sense of the word, and the personal sense of the word.

 

For example, a person can be clearly labeled "disabled" or not, by law. But, he or she may or may not see their condition as something that disables them.

 

I wouldnt argue that deafness is a disability in the legal sense. But I would say that very few deaf people see their deafness as an illness that needs to be remedied. I have also met blind people who said that their blindness is part of who they are now and they couldn't imagine life any other way.

 

Allow me to give the thread another point to think about: acessibility versus "fixing" a person. When we build wheelchair ramps, we are making the normal world acessible to different people. You don't have to go up stairs to be a part of society, you can use the ramp.

 

But, when it comes to deafness, doing something like implanting small children with a cochlear (or screaming at them and forcing them to lip read) is NOT making the world acessible to them. It is trying to force them to be normal, to "fix" their problem. It would be like taking a person in a wheelchair and building a set of inefficient, hard-to-use, clumsy robotic legs. That way, the person could walk around, and use stairs sort of like a normal person.

 

With all disabilities, we change our world to accomodate the needs of the disabled person. Except for deafness, that is. For some reason we think that spoken communication is the only way of life. It isn't. Signed language is just as good, if not better. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of things like Closed Caption TV (which btw CC is still not available in movie theaters) but honestly we have made HUGE progress in wheelchair accessibility and very little progress in deaf acessibility

[Nadril]

Now you're just playing around the word.

 

All I asked was what your definition or idea of a disability is. It's great if people learn to live with it and feel they don't need it "fixed" but I'm more of interested in the former question.

[Giordano]

We could just simplify this and not associate the word disability with derogatory.

[Myweponsg00d]

Now you're just playing around the word.

 

All I asked was what your definition or idea of a disability is. It's great if people learn to live with it and feel they don't need it "fixed" but I'm more of interested in the former question.

 

My definition for disability would be "A condition that a person has that he or she feels interferes with the life that they want to live."

 

I think that someone who gets his hand blown off can be called disabled if he lets it disable him. But I think a blind/deaf/paralyzed person can choose to live their life as not seeing their condition as a disability.

 

You can't say that deaf people are disabled because they have to use captions instead of listening to a movie. There is nothing better or worse about listening to audio or reading text. It isnt better, just different.

 

Should a Deaf person call you disabled for not being able to understand ASL poems/plays/musicals? Hearing is not better than deafness. Walking is not better than using a wheelchair. You can embrace your life and enjoy any situation you are put in. Everything we percieve as "good" is only "good" because we have learned to percieve it that way.

[Iamdan]

Oh cool, my definition for a disability is a show of former women dressed in penguin suits doing gymnastics on an airplane.

 

You can't just invent your own meanings, yours makes no more sense than the one in the dictionary.

[Giordano]

Adding on to the disability definition discussion here...there HAS to be set standards in society to describe disabilities. The "default" human being has 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, and can hear, see, smell, and feel. Anything else then we loose the meaning of disability and ignore almost all medical negativities. You don't have cancer, so YOU'RE the one with bad luck!

[Myweponsg00d]

Mine is formed from regular interaction and befriending of "disabled" people over the past 3 years of learning ASL and working at the disability office. Many of them take offense to the idea of being called a "disabled person". They will say "Yes, I have a condition" or "Yes I HAVE a disability, but I am NOT a disabled person". They do not want to be defined as being inferior.

 

How many "disabled" people do you know?

 

Adding on to the disability definition discussion here...there HAS to be set standards in society to describe disabilities. The "default" human being has 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, and can hear, see, smell, and feel. Anything else then we loose the meaning of disability and ignore almost all medical negativities. You don't have cancer, so YOU'RE the one with bad luck!

 

Which is why I said that there is an acceptable legal sense of defining a condition as a disability so that we can provide people appropriate legal rights if need be.

 

And again, the goal is to provide for people. The main topic of the thread has been lost. We are talking about putting an irreversible implant in a person who is too young to decide if they want it. Cochlear implantation is not accomodation for a disability. It is trying to FIX a person and make them be socially "normal"

[Giordano]

Again, why the hell does being disabled mean being inferior? I have something you don't and I'm not going to think less of you because of it.

 

It's almost like putting this upon yourself. I'm Hispanic, but I don't want you to call me that because I don't want to be inferior to you so call me a human. If I just shut my mouth nobody would think less of anybody.

[Nero]

*snip*

I'm impressed WITH the amount of research YOU'VE put into this topic and I can SEE that it's very IMPORTANT to you (or at LEAST seems to be), but I would LIKE to POINT you towards a nifty FEATURE that most forums and message BOARDS have called italics AND bold. They can serve to EMPHASIZE words without making you LOOK like a total IDIOT.

 

[b]Insert text here[/b]

[i]Insert text here[/i]

 

Hope that HELPS.

 

edit: Am I going crazy or does the 'insert' part look like it's purple to anyone else?

 

Aha!

 

Damn I'm good.

[i_love_burritos]

Nah, it's purple.

[Alg]

And again, the goal is to provide for people. The main topic of the thread has been lost. We are talking about putting an irreversible implant in a person who is too young to decide if they want it. Cochlear implantation is not accomodation for a disability. It is trying to FIX a person and make them be socially "normal"

Both are cases of change being required to fit with society though, and the question then becomes "who should adapt?" Society as a whole as accommodation would do, or the one suffering from the condition, as fixing it would do.

[Seraphi]

Is deafness not a flaw? If I were deaf, I know I'd want it, since it would interfere quite badly in life.

 

"Deaf Culture"? Something about that just sounds really silly to me.

[Myweponsg00d]

No, deafness is not always a flaw to those who have it...Their quality of life is not any worse than yours.

 

This topic is just really starting to frustrate me. I mean have any of you even spent time with the blind, paralyzed, deaf...etc..?

 

Saying that "disabled" is the proper term to use because its the classic way to describe them is like saying you should refuse to use the term African American. Or even the N word. I mean all racial slurrs were once a socially correct word to use...It is the same thing with people who have disabilities.

 

Many people of certain ethnicities might not have a problem if you call them black, oriental, N word, S word...But many people prefer the more proper terms. The same thing applies to Deaf. Some will say they have a condition that disables them, but some will take offense if you call them a disabled person.

 

I'm sorry, its just how it is. You can't really argue with this, people. I have the experience in dealing with these sometimes sensitive issues and you can't really argue with someone who says they are offended by being called disabled. You can't tell him he is wrong to be offended. If you want to put an end to your ignorance then I encourage you to spend some time with people with disabilities or read a book on Deaf culture or something of that nature.

 

Or go to a site like alldeaf.com and read some threads about Deaf concerns.

[obfuscator]

Now you're just playing around the word.

 

All I asked was what your definition or idea of a disability is. It's great if people learn to live with it and feel they don't need it "fixed" but I'm more of interested in the former question.

 

My definition for disability would be "A condition that a person has that he or she feels interferes with the life that they want to live."

 

I think that someone who gets his hand blown off can be called disabled if he lets it disable him. But I think a blind/deaf/paralyzed person can choose to live their life as not seeing their condition as a disability.

 

You can't say that deaf people are disabled because they have to use captions instead of listening to a movie. There is nothing better or worse about listening to audio or reading text. It isnt better, just different.

 

Should a Deaf person call you disabled for not being able to understand ASL poems/plays/musicals? Hearing is not better than deafness. Walking is not better than using a wheelchair. You can embrace your life and enjoy any situation you are put in. Everything we percieve as "good" is only "good" because we have learned to percieve it that way.

 

Oh ok, so you watch all your movies on mute with subtitles then?

[Seraphi]

But it is a flaw with the body. It is something failing to provide a function which will help them in life. If something is failing to fulfill it's role (The ear, not the person), then I would count it as "Flawed".

 

As for the whole "Should it be given to those who cannot decide" topic, I think if they grew up with it, they would be thankful that it was done. I mean, it's not like people WANT to be deaf, is it?

[tortilliachp]

No, deafness is not always a flaw to those who have it...Their quality of life is not any worse than yours.

 

This topic is just really starting to frustrate me. I mean have any of you even spent time with the blind, paralyzed, deaf...etc..?

 

Saying that "disabled" is the proper term to use because its the classic way to describe them is like saying you should refuse to use the term African American. Or even the N word. I mean all racial slurrs were once a socially correct word to use...It is the same thing with people who have disabilities.

 

Many people of certain ethnicities might not have a problem if you call them black, oriental, N word, S word...But many people prefer the more proper terms. The same thing applies to Deaf. Some will say they have a condition that disables them, but some will take offense if you call them a disabled person.

 

I'm sorry, its just how it is. You can't really argue with this, people. I have the experience in dealing with these sometimes sensitive issues and you can't really argue with someone who says they are offended by being called disabled. You can't tell him he is wrong to be offended. If you want to put an end to your ignorance then I encourage you to spend some time with people with disabilities or read a book on Deaf culture or something of that nature.

 

Or go to a site like alldeaf.com and read some threads about Deaf concerns.

 

you're forgetting one important thing, posted before on this topic, but that you consequently seem to have overlooked or ignored:

 

marginalizing or normalizing those with disabilities is a disservice to them, and to the loved ones giving them the extra care they need.

 

I have a grandmother with Alzheimers, severe Alzheimers. She thinks she's fine (just as a deaf person might) but my grandfather is the one left to take care of her, ensure she knows where she is, knows where she's going, remembers to eat, etc. She's otherwise very fit and healthy, which is a problem to my grandfather, due to his disability: she simply walks too fast for him to keep up, and she doesn't realize she needs help. therefore, when she 250m down the line forgets where she's going and turns left, instead of right and then continues, he's the one at a disadvantage.

 

I'm not saying it's the exact thing with deaf people, but it's similar: you can't tell them they have a disability, they won't recognize it. At least that's the truth for the 4 deaf people i've met regularly.

 

example 1: I had a deaf kid in my class at school for a couple of years. He didn't, and wouldn't recognize our needs for him to be quiet when in class. He simply said "you don't need it to be quiet" mind you, we were 14+ years at the time, not children.

 

example 2: cleaning lady at a friend's house when we were children. She was vacuuming, chord snagged a table, table moves grinding the floor making loud noise, lamp falls and breaks. Employer says, kindly: "we don't have eyes in the back of our heads, you need to look around more when you can't hear stuff (or words to that effect)" her response: " I didn't feel the vibrations of the table moving because of the vacuum cleaner, just as you wouldn't have heard the noise over the vacuum cleaner" I both heard and felt both.

 

 

I'm sorry, your version of things is not "just how it is" Disabled people, deaf people included are a burden to society. yeah, it sucks to have people say that, but it is the truth. legally, realistically, economically, but oh so much more importantly for the people around them. This burden is not large, but it exists. Happily, society does, and should take care of all of those with disabilities, so their (special) needs are also met.

 

Now i would never dream of telling a deaf person this, just as i would never tell my grandmother she's a burden for my grandfather (although she is). that has to do with respect. consequently, if asked, i wouldn't lie either, i would put it mildly but truthfully.

 

Of course, linking us to Deaf culture websites will show that it's "not a disability" as wikipedia puts it : " Culturally Deaf people tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability" i.e. not recognizing the slight burden they are to their surroundings. just look at KODA's, and the special care they're given.

[Myweponsg00d]

Oh ok, so you watch all your movies on mute with subtitles then?

 

I don't watch my movies with subtitles, because for me the movie is more enjoyable with audio. But this is FOR ME. Movies are not more enjoyable for everyone simply because they have audio. It is absolutely rude for you to think that you enjoy movies more than a deaf person just because you can hear them.

 

You are not imagining yourself as a deaf person. You are imagining yourself as a hearing person who no longer hears. To a person who is deaf, he is not necessarily "missing" hearing. He knows a world where hearing does not exist. He does not necessarily percieve himself as lacking anything. You only see sound as important because you have learned to depend on it, and thus see it as vital. A person living in a world without sound can exist perfectly fine without it.

 

But it is a flaw with the body. It is something failing to provide a function which will help them in life. If something is failing to fulfill it's role (The ear, not the person), then I would count it as "Flawed".

 

As for the whole "Should it be given to those who cannot decide" topic, I think if they grew up with it, they would be thankful that it was done. I mean, it's not like people WANT to be deaf, is it?

 

What if I told you that your body was flawed because you are not tall enough? Or strong enough? Or fast enough? What if I told you that blue eyes and blond hair are the most perfect form of the human body and therefore everyone else is "flawed"? There is no reason that hearing is an absolute good and deafness is an absolute evil.

 

And YES, many people do want to be deaf. Many deaf people have told me they would refuse hearing abilities if they were offered it. (But many did say that they would want to hear, and many others would say they would like to be able to try it out if they didnt have to make it permanent) The point is that being able to hear is not an absolute good that everybody needs in order to enjoy their life to the max.

 

There is no reason to implant a young child. An adult who gets the implant will have the same ability to learn it as a young child. But, if you implant a young child, there is a chance they will not be able to learn it properly and will not develop language during the golden window of opportunity for language aquisation. If you have a deaf child you need to teach him sign language because it will come extremely naturally and allow him full cognitive development.

[obfuscator]

Oh ok, so you watch all your movies on mute with subtitles then?

 

I don't watch my movies with subtitles, because for me the movie is more enjoyable with audio. But this is FOR ME. Movies are not more enjoyable for everyone simply because they have audio. It is absolutely rude for you to think that you enjoy movies more than a deaf person just because you can hear them.

 

You are not imagining yourself as a deaf person. You are imagining yourself as a hearing person who no longer hears. To a person who is deaf, he is not necessarily "missing" hearing. He knows a world where hearing does not exist. He does not necessarily percieve himself as lacking anything. You only see sound as important because you have learned to depend on it, and thus see it as vital. A person living in a world without sound can exist perfectly fine without it.

 

I qualify that, for good reason, the world with hearing is a better one than without.

 

If there really was no disadvantage to it, why don't you do it?

 

Movies are made for sounds - a deaf person misses out on conversation, emotion, and most importantly music.

 

It may be true that "if you don't know what you're missing you can't miss it". This doesn't go one inch towards making the missing a good thing.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

I qualify that, for good reason, the world with hearing is a better one than without.

 

If there really was no disadvantage to it, why don't you do it?

 

Movies are made for sounds - a deaf person misses out on conversation, emotion, and most importantly music.

 

It may be true that "if you don't know what you're missing you can't miss it". This doesn't go one inch towards making the missing a good thing.

 

And you are missing out on ASL videos, poems, etc. Therefore you are disabled because you are signing-impaired.

 

Also, deaf people are missing out on a world of sound, but you are missing out on a world of silence. A deaf person cannot appreciate sound, and you cannot appreciate the lack of sound.

 

You are missing out on plenty of good things about being deaf because you dont know what you are missing.

 

"If there really was no disadvantage to it, why don't you do it?" Theres no disadvantage to learning the piano, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to eating a vegan diet vs a meat diet, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to being a buddhist, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to having a blue car, why dont you paint your car? I am allowed to like different things, and people can like a world without sound.

[anonymous1234]

 

What if I told you that your body was flawed because you are not tall enough? Or strong enough? Or fast enough? What if I told you that blue eyes and blond hair are the most perfect form of the human body and therefore everyone else is "flawed"? There is no reason that hearing is an absolute good and deafness is an absolute evil.

 

 

I'd agree with you on the tallness, strength, and speed, but I'd ask why you'd think eye ad hair color would affect anything.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

What if I told you that your body was flawed because you are not tall enough? Or strong enough? Or fast enough? What if I told you that blue eyes and blond hair are the most perfect form of the human body and therefore everyone else is "flawed"? There is no reason that hearing is an absolute good and deafness is an absolute evil.

 

 

I'd agree with you on the tallness, strength, and speed, but I'd ask why you'd think eye ad hair color would affect anything.

 

Well, what if we lived in a world where most people had blue eyes, and having blue eyes was designated as a "normal" part of life. Only blue eyed people could enjoy life and all us brown-eyed people were outcast into the lower class.

 

Its not really any different than hearing. We have just developed in such a way that hearing is seen as an "important" part of life. Its no more important than eye color, car color, hand size, religion, race, choice of occupation, etc. Its just a different way of living.

[obfuscator]

 

And you are missing out on ASL videos, poems, etc. Therefore you are disabled because you are signing-impaired.

 

Also, deaf people are missing out on a world of sound, but you are missing out on a world of silence. A deaf person cannot appreciate sound, and you cannot appreciate the lack of sound.

 

You are missing out on plenty of good things about being deaf because you dont know what you are missing.

 

"If there really was no disadvantage to it, why don't you do it?" Theres no disadvantage to learning the piano, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to eating a vegan diet vs a meat diet, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to being a buddhist, why dont you do it? Theres no disadvantage to having a blue car, why dont you paint your car? I am allowed to like different things, and people can like a world without sound.

 

:wall:

 

I'm missing out on ASL videos, poems, etc, because I haven't learned sign language. I could if I wanted to, but I don't. A lack of education can be seen as an impairment, yes, but it's impossible to know everything.

 

I can appreciate the lack of sound all I want, and I do. I just plug my ears.

 

I do learn the piano, actually.

Being a vegan has significant disadvantages to being a meat eater. The time it takes to make sure you get the correct nutrients is ridiculous, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to make it worth my while.

I'm not a Buddhist because I don't want to be. It doesn't appeal to me.

 

The point you are attempting to make is that a movie without sound is equal in every way, shape and form to one with it.

 

Let me tell you, you are a lucky guy! Deaf people, they are forced to live in a world without sound. I'm sure some of them like it but you.....you sir have a choice! You can do either! Yet you still choose sound, and I somehow think that's telling.

 

If I could paint my car blue for free, I would, because there is no disadvantage to it.

 

Yet, you can watch movies muted with subtitles, supposedly because there is no disadvantage, but you don't.

[RSBDavid]

I think we are trying to play God too much. maybe people weren't meant to live 60 years or more after a certain point in time. maybe cancer isn't supposed to be cured.

 

I have deaf and blind family members and they seem to get along without medical treatments.

[Seraphi]

But it is a flaw with the body. It is something failing to provide a function which will help them in life. If something is failing to fulfill it's role (The ear, not the person), then I would count it as "Flawed".

 

As for the whole "Should it be given to those who cannot decide" topic, I think if they grew up with it, they would be thankful that it was done. I mean, it's not like people WANT to be deaf, is it?

 

What if I told you that your body was flawed because you are not tall enough? Or strong enough? Or fast enough? What if I told you that blue eyes and blond hair are the most perfect form of the human body and therefore everyone else is "flawed"? There is no reason that hearing is an absolute good and deafness is an absolute evil.

 

And YES, many people do want to be deaf. Many deaf people have told me they would refuse hearing abilities if they were offered it. (But many did say that they would want to hear, and many others would say they would like to be able to try it out if they didnt have to make it permanent) The point is that being able to hear is not an absolute good that everybody needs in order to enjoy their life to the max.

 

There is no reason to implant a young child. An adult who gets the implant will have the same ability to learn it as a young child. But, if you implant a young child, there is a chance they will not be able to learn it properly and will not develop language during the golden window of opportunity for language aquisation. If you have a deaf child you need to teach him sign language because it will come extremely naturally and allow him full cognitive development.

I'm sorry, but I can't see your point here. My height does not restrict me, and neither does my level of strength and dexterity (But those can be improved if needed. Likewise, if somebody is deaf, you can improve it by having the surgery, which kind of negates the point). My eyes, regardless of what colour they are, provide me with sight, and if I was bald it would have little to no impact on my life at all. (Also, Godwin's law.)

 

Not being able to hear, however, makes a far larger difference to lifestyle than all of those. I never said deafness was an absolute evil, and I'll be the first to say that people can still have a high quality of life despite having some kind of physical disability, but regardless of anything else, said disability is not how the human body is supposed to work.

 

I can't imagine, nor have ever heard of any person wanting to become deaf. The people who refused this specific treatment but still want to hear, well, that is a completely different issue. It just shows that they do not like being deaf (Or would prefer if their hearing worked properly), although there could be any number of reasons they do not want surgery (Fear of hospitals, spiritualism, etc)

 

The third point, as I see it, is the most important one. It is true that it could affect language development and the ability to learn to speak, read and write, and that should definitely be taken into account.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

I'm not a Buddhist because I don't want to be. It doesn't appeal to me.

 

Let me tell you, you are a lucky guy! Deaf people, they are forced to live in a world without sound. I'm sure some of them like it but you.....you sir have a choice! You can do either! Yet you still choose sound, and I somehow think that's telling.

 

 

Yet, you can watch movies muted with subtitles, supposedly because there is no disadvantage, but you don't.

 

Buddhism doesnt appeal to you? But what is the disadvantage? Clearly everything that you choose not to do, or everything you dont like, must have a disadvantage.

 

There are plenty of Deaf people who want to be deaf, have the cochlear available, have hearing aids available, and choose deafness. Somehow I think thats telling! Oh crap, we have two "telling" situations now. Looks like its just a matter of choice. NEITHER IS BETTER

 

I dont watch movies muted with subtitles because I dont want to. It doesnt appeal to me. That is not direct proof that for every individual on this earth, they must watch movies with sound in order to enjoy it. Not everyone enjoys sound more, just like you dont enjoy Buddhism more.