I think an analogy would be if two dwarfs had a child with a similar condition, and they refused to subject their child to limb lengthening surgery. It’s an apt analogy because there is a “little people” subculture, and dwarfism, like deafness, isn’t deadly. But I don’t think limb lengthening has to be done at an early age. This seems to be the big sticking point with the cochlear implants.
But let’s say that limb lengthening HAD to be done before the age of 5. Would it be right to deny the parents the right to choose?
Being the parent of a disabled child, I have watched this unfold with some interest. I think that parents that prevent their deaf child from having this surgery should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Deafness is a handicap. Many struggles nurture cultures. Unfortunately, it is because of the shared hardships. To wish this on your own child is obscene.
I got it, kambuckta. You missed the fact that the comment of yorus was, well, it was just stupid. You didn’t say sole means of communication. You asked a silly question. You got called on it and now you’re upset. Too bad.
In my opinion, cochler hair cell regeneration is probably the most likely route to a cure for deafness. Research has shown that some animals, such as certain species of birds are able to do this naturally.
Some scientists have worked for a long time to achieve cochlear hair cell regeneration in mammals. There has been a recent breakthrough in this area, where cochlear hair cell regeneration was successfully accomplished in guinea pigs. This is a major milestone, which might help lead the way to a similar process in humans. We are years away from seeing anything like that, though.
Some questions do come to mind when I consider the topic of cochlear hair cell regeneration in humans. If a successful method is found, what will the sound quality be like for the person? There is a big difference between hearing and understanding, and I’ll be curious to see if sufficient speech understanding is restored in addition to auditory sensitivity, so that the person will no longer need hearing aids.
A big question is whether or not a person who has received a cochlear implant would be able to take advantadge of such therapy for the implanted ear. Some additional structures besides the cochlear hair cells are often damaged (if not destroyed) during the process of implantation, and I have my doubts as to whether or not such regeneration would be successful in an implanted ear. The other ear, however, which normally does not have a cochlear implant, should not pose such problems. In the end, the only way of knowing the answer for sure to this question is to actually try it with someone who has a cochlear implant.
Which particular comment of mine was stupid, Monty?
Oh, and here is the bit I wrote in my first post to this thread:
. Please note the conditional, ‘IF’. How does this NOT mean ‘sole means of communication’? If you have been able to read something else into it, then I’m intrigued!!
And I didn’t ask any questions in that post either, so I’m not sure what your allusion to ‘silly question’ actually refers to.
Could you enlighten me a little here, because I’m a bit confused about what the hell you are talking about. Thanks ever so much.
I’m a bit confused here. My understanding was that if the brain had not developed the “software” to decode input, aural, visual, whatever, then a repair of the mechanisms of sight or sound wouldn’t be useful.
I would also echo kudos to Atreyu for insight and expertise. This is exactly what I treasure the SDMB for, it beats the crap out of Mensa meetings.
That said, it must remain a difficult choice, to some degree, but children have amazing potential for adaptation and acceptance. Of course, there are bound to be assholes who have strict requirements for belonging in “deaf culture” but fuck 'em! It is entirely common for children to bridge disparate cultures, hence “pigdin” languages. Any man who would deliberately restrict his childs horizons that way is a poor parent indeed.
I’m not sure I was clear, Monty. I didn’t suggest that a deaf child should be taken from his parents and put into foster care, God no. Nor did I suggest that a hearing child should be taken from deaf parents.
But from a practical standpoint, a hearing child will be greatly influenced by the world of sound in a way that deaf parents can neither perceive nor control, and to teach the child language they would need the participation of speaking persons whom they trust implicitly to raise their child in the way they (the parents) see fit. In essense, it puts a middleman between the parents and children.
The same thing might happen with the hearing parents of a deaf child; they may not wish to turn their child over to an ASL-only daycare because they wish to retain the ability and privilege of being parents.
If you like, the analogy would be for the family of atheists to have their child send to parochial school, or the Catholic family sending their children to secular public school.
Given this, I can sympathize with the parents being afraid of losing control of their child. I’m not convinced I’d call it “culture.” As I said, it sounds like a smoke screen for the real issue, which is fear and loss of control of one’s own parenthood.
And despite all that, I’m conflicted whether or not the parents should be compelled to give their child access to something which could save the child’s hearing.
A cochlear implant != hearing aid. They are two completely different things.
I wouldn’t deny a child a hearing aid, but I would NOT have a cochlear implant put in if my child was deaf. I’ve heard far too many negative reviews of them.
As for deaf parents with hearing children, did you know that Lon Chaney’s parents were deaf? And that’s how he was able to be such a successful silent film actor-because he knew how to convey with body language, rather than speech. (I’ll look it up, but I’m pretty sure that’s not an urban legend).
Let’s say I was deaf, and I had a hearing child. I would want my child to learn to sign, naturally, but I would also want him or her to learn spoken language as well. Why LIMIT one’s options? Hell, I’d want my child to learn as many languages as he or she desired!
Oh, and I’m pretty sure handy isn’t allowed to dispense medical advice on the boards-I would think that would pertain to cochlear implants. Especially considering that he gave a ton of misinformation the last time.
I have a commonality of experience with morbidly obese people. I’d hardly call it a culture.
I’m still hoping that someone can offer a concrete example of something other than language that will demonstrate something resembling culture. I understand lots of people feel it exists, but aside from the offer of an entire book on the subject (my interest is not quite that great, I have a stack of about 75 books beckoning to me already), not much has been put forth.
But I do appreciate the thoughtful and informative contributions so far.
And permit me to reiterate: the bullshitness of the culture as I declared it in my op is pretty much all about using it as a justification to keep a child tied to the deaf world when it does not have to be so, beyond that I have no beef.
Cochlear implants are not a cut-and-dried issue, and even parents who arn’t deaf and could care less about Deaf Culture decide against them for a variety of medically sound reasons. They are an imperfect technology.
But, of course cultures can be based on around disabilities. Almost every mental disorder has a culture surrounding it. As a manic-depressive, I feel a certain kinship with certain writers, artists, and friends who share this disability. There is a way that people with mood disorders interact around each other that is very specific and exclusive. I also know that while it is a horrible thing to be afflicted with, it has it’s own beauty and because my mental disorder does seem like an important and worthwhile part of who I am, even though it makes my life tougher. If I knew I was going to have a child with a mood disorder, it would really be a tough call. Of course I would want them to have a long healthy life. But it would be hard to want them to not have something that is so fundamental to myself, and in a way to them.
I’m sorry, but that is an insane POV. Why would you wish to inflict a crippling mental disorder on a child, just to you’ll have something in common?
Hey, I’m gay and happy to be gay, but I would never wish my child to be gay (if I ever had one) because I would want that child never to have to face the years of misery and self-loathing I went through because of my sexuality.
Deafness is not merely “different”; it is a subtraction from wholeness. People who are deaf may compensate wonderfully and lead full, rich lives, but they do so despite, not because of, their handicap.
Well, to be fair, gobear, if you had, say, a son-and he turned out to be gay-he probably wouldn’t go through as much, because he would be taught from your experience as a gay man, so he wouldn’t see it as something bad or shameful.
Of course, there is a lot of trouble from the outside world, so I can see what you’re saying.
I have obsessive-compulsive disorder-and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
Besides, even if a child is hearing, he or she can grow up and be exposed to both worlds. Perhaps it’s like the days of immigration-when people would come here to the US and then stick to their old country ways-refuse to speak English, and forbid their child from doing so.
I believe my mental disorder is more of a problem with my kind of mind not meshing well with this kind of society, and less of a “problem” with the mind itself. Yeah, it still sucks. But I don’t consider it a flaw as much as a tragic miscommunication between myself and the rest of the world.
And it provides, sometimes, for increadably sublime beauty. There is a proven connection between manic-depression and artistic genius. There is a certain kind of fire in this disorder.
So is the right solution to drug my kid up so that they can accept and work well within the world around them? Should I deprive them of that fire for the sake of their happiness? Is happiness the most important thing, or is genius?
I don’t have the answer to these questions. And this isn’t a debate on the treatment of mental disorders. Right now my plan is just not to have kids. But if I did, I can’t tell you what I would do besides love them.
I have to agree with stoid, based on my expose to and experience with “deaf culture”. Being deaf is equivocally called a “difference” (when members are attempting to prove to themselves or others that they are not disabled) and a “disability” (when members are demanding concessions from government or business to accomodate their deafness – usually by the replacement of audible annunciators with visual ones, or the inclusion of TTY/TTD devices to accomodate the inability to produce or understand speech in any language). I see “deaf culture” as an organized attempt at self-denial: specifically, denying that the individual is disabled.
What also disturbs me are the number of cases I’ve read about in which deaf parents had a hearing child and gave the child grief for associating with hearing individuals. Some such parents have even gone so far as to attempt to discourage their child from developing speech. I also find the “deaf culture” attitude toward those deafened post-linguistically and those who choose to try to participate in the “hearing” world abhorrent. Deaf culture is a separatist cultural subgroup and as such is just as objectionable separatist racial subgroups.
Finally, “deaf culture” is not universal; if you are an American deaf person you will be a fish out of water if you go to Europe. Each national culture has its own, independent “deaf” subculture (if it has one at all) and there is minimal commonality between these subcultures. Sign languages are not portable; American Sign Language is not used by deaf “speakers” in most European countries.
The main argument in support of “deaf culture” are isolated communities like the one on Martha’s Vineyard, where a substantial portion of the community is deaf. However, this community is not exclusivist in the way that standardized “deaf culture” is; hearing and deaf members of the community cohabit and coparticipate with one another. This is totally unlike the isolationism and separatism of the main “deaf culture” in the United States that it should not be called an example of “deaf culture” – even though it is the closest thing we have to a “deaf culture” in the United States.
I’m a woman and I’m happy to be female, but I would never wish my child to be a woman because chances are they would grow up to be a strong woman. Strong women have it hard. Why would I want my child to have it hard?
I’m black and I love being black, but I would never wish for my child to be black because it’s tough struggling against bigotry, self-hatred, and alienation. Who would willingly put someone into that kind of life? I’m going to marry the whitest white man in the world so that my child doesn’t have to bear the curse of looking black.
I want my children to be 100% “normal” so that their lives will have no struggles or hardships. We should all strive for normal children who are totally different from our quirky abnormal selves. It doesn’t matter if we like who we are. It doesn’t matter if we’ve managed to not only cope with ourselves, but to view ourselves as beautiful and undamaged. No. We should view our quirks as “crippling” and “curses” and save our children from them, at all costs. To do otherwise is selfish and abusive.
</sarcasm>
I don’t understand why deaf parents would have a problem with their children learning to speak. The cochlear implant is one thing. But speaking is a skill that undoubtedly makes living a lot easier. Bilingual people help to spread culture, not break it down.
If you are comparing instituonalized anti-gay prejudice with being a “strong woman”, I suggest you educate yourself
Well while there is certainly racial prejudcie around, it’s significantly muted. The current genration is increasingly muitiracial; in your grandchildren’s time bigots will be put in museums.
But let’s go back 150 years and say you are a slave in 1853 Alabama. Would you want your child to be born in slavery so you two can share “slave culture” or would you want your child to be born free?
You think being deaf is merely a quirk? It’s a HANDICAP! People who are deaf lack an important faculty and are disqualified from some careers and miss out on a significant spectrum of daily life because of it.
I’m not equating the two, just like I would hope you wouldn’t equate being gay with being handicapped or diseased. You’re not doing that, are you?
Isn’t homophobia becoming less and less popular nowadays? Isn’t the current generation more progessive when it comes to different sexualities than the one before? Won’t our grandchildren one day ask why we were so backwards when it comes to alternative sexuality?
I think racism and homophobia will eventually be things of the past.
[quote]
But let’s go back 150 years and say you are a slave in 1853 Alabama. Would you want your child to be born in slavery so you two can share “slave culture” or would you want your child to be born free?[/quiote]
Of course I would want my children to be born free. That’s a crazy-ass question. The more relevant question would be if I would want my children born black. The answer would be yes since there is nothing fundamentally wrong with being black and it’s a beautiful thing. Racism will not cure itself if I stop having children who are black. And I would hopefully raise my children with the guts and the spirituality they would need to survive. I would wish for my children to be strong, not to “not be black”. My blackness is something I’m not ashamed to pass along, just like your gayness or someone’s deafness shouldn’t be for ya’ll.
[quote]
You think being deaf is merely a quirk? It’s a HANDICAP! [/quote
Listen. I’m not a deaf activist. I have no bone in this fight. However, how would you feel if someone said your homosexuality was a HANDICAP. That your unwillingness to have sex with women is CRIPPLING since you cannot NORMALLY reproduce. That your gayness is not just a quirk, but it’s a major CONDITION. You’re DEVIANT. You’re ABNORMAL. You would get defensive, right? You wouldn’t want to listen to anyone like that. I know that’s how I would feel, especially if I felt like my deafness wasn’t a disability, just a different way of life. I know it would make me hold onto the subculture that doesn’t make me feel like I’m a freak. And I would be wary of a world that would try to turn my children against me like that.
I’m not equating the two, just like I would hope you wouldn’t equate being gay with being handicapped or diseased. You’re not doing that, are you?
Of course I would want my children to be born free. That’s a crazy-ass question. The more relevant question would be if I would want my children born black. The answer would be yes since there is nothing fundamentally wrong with being black and it’s a beautiful thing. Racism will not cure itself if I stop having children who are black. And I would hopefully raise my children with the guts and the spirituality they would need to survive. I would wish for my children to be strong, not to “not be black”. My blackness is something I’m not ashamed to pass along, just like your gayness or someone’s deafness shouldn’t be for ya’ll.
Listen. I’m not a deaf activist. I have no bone in this fight. However, how would you feel if someone said your homosexuality was a HANDICAP. That your unwillingness to have sex with women is CRIPPLING since you cannot NORMALLY reproduce. That your gayness is not just a quirk, but it’s a major CONDITION. You’re DEVIANT. You’re ABNORMAL. You would get defensive, right? You wouldn’t want to listen to anyone like that. I know that’s how I would feel, especially if I felt like my deafness wasn’t a disability, just a different way of life. I know it would make me hold onto the subculture that doesn’t make me feel like I’m a freak. And I would be wary of a world that would try to turn my children against me like that.
