I’m currently in an American Sign Language class where our teacher, a member of the Deaf community who keeps us up-to-date on issues that face that community.
Anyways, the other day, he was telling (signing) to us about a new law or a bill of some sort that would require every baby born to be tested for a hearing loss, and if a hearing loss was found, the baby would immediately be put on a waiting list to receive a cochlear implant–regardless of the parent’s wishes. Obviously, this is a very controversial issue within both the Deaf and Hearing communities.
He also said that a main proponent of the bill/law has been an audist named “Oz” with a last name that began with a W, I think–I didn’t catch it, or who this Oz is.
Now I can’t find anything on this at all anywhere. Does anything like this exist or is my teacher just passing along rumors and gossip?
It doesn’t sound very probable to me. People have a legal right to refuse any medical treatment, even a life-saving one, and parents have the right to do so on behalf of their children. If Jehovah’s Witnesses can refuse blood transfusions for their children, then deaf parents can refuse cochlear implants under the same laws.
Besides, from what I’ve heard, there are some serious and legitimate arguments against cochlear implants, and they wouldn’t be appropriate for every child with hearing loss in any case. The burden of proof is on your teacher- he’s the one who needs to provide some evidence before passing on these stories.
Just based on my own judgement, I’d say your teacher got suckered by a rumor, and shame on him for passing it on without providing proof.
After googling for a while and utterly failing to come up with anything, I’m beginning to wonder if this might be kin to urban legend. Something like this would have been all over some of the deaf newsletters and blogs that I keep track of, and none of them have mentioned this either.
Perhaps this rumor was inspired by a recent case in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which resulted in a judge ruling that a deaf child could not be given a cochlear implant against the mother’s wishes. While I disagreed with the mother’s rationale for declining the option of a cochlear implant for her child (she felt they were dangerous), I agreed that it was her absolute prerogative as the child’s parent to make that decision.
I would ask this person to specifically identify the state where this law is being proposed. As an audiologist, I would be appalled at such a law being passed, and if it is indeed in serious proposal somewhere, I’d like to know so I can bring it to the attention of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Assocation and the American Academy of Audiology.
If this person is unable to come up with specific information, then I would take this entire story with several large grains of salt.
At the place where I work (which has a cochlear implant program), a child’s candidacy for a cochlear implant drops to nil if the parents or legal guardians are not interested. One of the key aspects of candidacy is a family that is willing and motivated to undertake the oral rehabilitation process that would follow implantation, and if the family is against the idea of cochlear implants, then that would make the whole procedure rather unnecessary.
Personally, I would be very surprised if this law was actually being proposed somewhere, and utterly astonished if it ever passed. If it does, I would unalterably oppose it.
[sub]Full disclosure: I’m an audiologist, and I also have a cochlear implant.[/sub]
It sounds like a distorted embroidering of the Newborn Hearing Screening Law adopted by 40ish US states last year. It’s about mandatory screening of newborns for hearing loss - the reasoning being that early intervention, rather than typically at three years old or so, significantly improves their prospects in development of language skills (whether that happens to be via speaking/hearing or signing).
Aside from the freedom to refuse medical treatment, not all forms of hearing loss can be corrected by a cochlear implant, some can be corrected by less invasive means, there are risks to cochlear implants, and you have to consider who would pay for such a thing.
Sounds to me like a “they’re going to take our children away!” rumor started in a community. Not that the fear is entirely unfounded - I’m sure Deaf parents have lost custody of children in the past for stupid and pointless reasons. - but I just don’t see this happening.
FisherQueen
Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t have the freedom to refuse blood transfusions for their children. At least in Texas, the child is made a ward of the state for the duration of the transfusion. A parent cannot refuse life saving medical intervention for a minor under their care unless IIRC the medical authorities agree (discontinuing chemo for terminally ill kids, for instance). Cochlear implants are not a matter of life and death, though, so this doesn’t apply.
Cochlear implants are technically elective surgery. This would be like mandating plastic surgery for infants with cleft lip or requiring circumcision. This is still firmly within the jurisdiction of the parents.
I would think that this is a strange reading of a state law somewhere. I couldn’t find anything Googling either. I betcha it is something like the kids get stuck on a list automatically in order to be in line for the surgery. The parents still have the right to refuse it, though.
It would be ludicrous and unconstitutional as described. The implants are very useful, but not life-saving. The technology gets better every year as I understand it. There are risks to the surgery, etc.
I’ve never heard of any facility automatically adding a child to a list of possible cochlear implant candidates on the basis of a test, particularly an infant hearing screening. For the cochlear implant programs that I’m directly familiar with, the only list is that of candidates who has either directly expressed an interest in cochlear implants, or whose parents have expressed an interest in it. If appropriate, the option of a cochlear implant will be mentioned to the family, along with a full discussion of the potential risks, drawbacks, and benefits, but the parents still retain the right to decline or pursue the option. If the family says no, then that really is the end of the discussion, at least from my point of view.
“Anyways, the other day, he was telling (signing) to us …”
He doesn’t use an interpreter? The deaf teachers in my area use interpreters that way things don’t get confused & in this case it sounds like there might be some confusion. Maybe you could ask the teacher for some clarification?
handy,
I would imagine it would be the same thing as an any foreign language class - I recall that my school’s French IV classes were held entirely in French - French was spoken from the minute class started until the minute it ended.
Mrs. Kunilou trained as a teacher of the hearing impaired, and retains close ties with her school and with others in the community. She hasn’t heard anything about it.
And, as noted, cochlear implants are not suitable for every case of deafness.
I ran a search in Westlaw. There are 7 bills pending in the US with the word “cochlear” in them…none require implants in deaf children (or anyone else, for that matter).
handy, no, no interpreter is used. This is a fairly high-level ASL class. However, he did write most of what he was signing on the whiteboard, and I spoke to some other students after class who had the same interpretation of what he signed.
Yesterday some of the students asked him about it and he couldn’t provide any further information on it. So, in this case I’d be inclined to think he just got taken in by an urban legend or a rumor, or he misinterpreted a new law (such as the one raygirvan mentioned) somehow.
“handy, no, no interpreter is used. This is a fairly high-level ASL class. However, he did write most of what he was signing on the whiteboard, and I spoke to some other students after class who had the same interpretation of what he signed.”
Yes, the same thing happened in a class here. The teacher wrote that on the board too. He is Deaf. This is weird, must be going around in the Deaf circles or something? I think we debated this one time in GD.