Cochlear Implants - Research Paper Example

Cochlear Implants Affiliation Cochlear Implants What Are Cochlear Implants? Cochlear implants are electronic devices that are designed to provide an amplified sensation to any person with deficit in the hearing process, and for that cause profound deafness. The amplification stimulates the hearing nerves inside the ear. Those utilizing the implants are not in a position to benefit from the hearing aids. The auditory nerves receive direct stimulation as the hair cells that do receive a motion effect to facilitate hearing are bypassed. The implantation simply acts to increase the hearing effect rather than curing the deafness entirely. A cochlear implant consists of internal and external parts that act to facilitate sound perception. The external portion has a microphone, a speech processor and a sound transmitter. The microphone role is to pick up external sound, playing similar role like a hearing aid. It sends it directly to the speech processor that does analyze and digitalize the signals, sending them to the transmitter. The transmitter is worn by the victims just behind the ear, and sends the coded signals to the receivers implanted in the skin. Some electrodes are implanted in the cochlea through a surgical process. Such electrodes do stimulate the auditory nerves fibers arraying the sensations to the sounds (Clark, 2008, P 657 C 2 L 1-15). Obtaining a Cochlear Implant There are various centers in the country that does carry out the implantation process. There are multidisciplinary team involvement and multi-sectorial approach. The teams comprise of a surgeon, nurses, psychologists, language pathologist, and audiologist. Such a team does work hand in hand with the relatives of the client for the sake of health education and follow up. Not every person with a hearing deficit does qualify for an implant. For adults, one must be having profound hearing loss, does not benefit from hearing aids and with no chronic conditions that may put the surgical procedure at risk. In addition to that, the person should have a strong ambition to be a part of those who hear, listen and speech read. Of the critical factors, they should have lost their hearing ability shortly after the speech and language development duration. Children should be actively involved in the rehabilitation process after surgery to enhance coping mechanism. They should also receive immense educational support from the institutions where they do study so that they can have a chance to develop their auditory skills (Kermit, 2009, P 378 C 2 L 7-14). Event Participants The process of implantation involves a multidisciplinary approach. A series of investigations have to be done to ensure that the victim is the final beneficiary of the implant. To ensure that the candidate is the most suitable to undergo the process, various investigations are done, such as x-ray, audiological tests, medical exam, psychological counselling and electrolytes balance. The core goal is to ensure that the client will benefit from the implantation rather than causing a series of harm. The client has to sign a consent prior to implantation, citing any outcome of the procedure. After the surgery, the client has to go several follow-up visits in the hospital center for activation, adjustment and programming of the various electrodes. Speech therapy classes are also necessary to quick adaptation. They are given extensive skills on the adaptation process (Archbold & Mayer, 2012, P 22 C 2 L 1-10). History of the Implants A scientist named Lundberg did the first stimulation on the auditory nerve in 1950. Djourno and Eyrics did implant a single electrode in a deaf person in 1957. The client did not perceive full sound, but could hear sharp sounds as grasshoppers or crickets. He was not in a position to fine tune clear sounds such as father or mother. All the same, he could at least perceive sound. Such a milestone did act as a motivation to the scientists who worked persistently to come up with a deafness cure. A surgical procedure done by Dr. Blair in 1964 was a great breakthrough, as a deaf person was in a position to perceive fine-tunes and sounds. The desire to have the ultimate cure did continue in the 20th century, and has resulted to the great and simple implants present today. Impact of Cochlear Implantation Cochlear implantation has had great impacts not only in deaf education but also in developmental aspects, communication and goal attainment of the children. The impacts of the implantation range and differ from one child to another. Despite the fact that implantation in early life lead to improved spoken language levels, there are reported cases of those children who still utilize the deaf language as the primary communication tools. A child who was once adapting to speak to deaf language is then sidelined and blocked to heading that direction. In essence, there is initial confusion (Holmstr, 2013, P 22 C 2 L 1-7). The cochlear implant have had many implications on the medical personnel end the lives of the victims undergoing the procedure. In essence, since the first implantation procedure, various scholars have come up with various arguments regarding the procedures. Its impacts on the deaf community are great and significant. The implications are both negative and positive in nature. The medical personnel are at the overhaul of bringing assistive devices to the deaf population. They are doing all they can and even conducting extensive researches to help them recover their hearing ability. However, that is very contrary to the opinion of the deaf population. The deaf people perceive the trials negatively. They want to remain in a deaf world and feel comfortable when they are in that situation (Kermit, 2012, P 161 C1 L 1-9). The deaf community does perceive themselves as a culture and a group possessing a similar trait. The scientific discoveries about the cochlear implants have had significant pressure to them. They perceive that their culture is being eroded. They want to remain in their minority group, with deafness as their similar trait. Introduction of the implantation to the children in their young age have proved to be very beneficial. It does offer a variety of ways of experiencing change and thinking process. The child may fall at risk of developing resistance to change, hence working in both deaf and hearing community, but it remains the role of the medical personnel to ensure that the child embrace the new world successfully. Those who have undergone the procedure have a dilemma in the mode of speech and communication. Either they can use gestures or oral communication through oral communication is linked to implantation outcomes. The choice of the communication system to use is a choice of every person. It does not change instantly, but takes time through continuous practice. Younger children have the highest probability of changing the model of speech to oral communication as compared to those implanted at older stages. Some can even take as long as 6 months in the transition process (Pals, Sarampalis, & Baskent, 2013, P 1075 C 1 L1-20)). With reference to the educational progress and achievements of life goals, implantation has a slightly negative effect in the life of the children. In essence, the teacher will often perceive that the child can here and talk like the rest of the students. Hence, the child is left behind in the studying process. Research does indicate that such children have a problem in development of writing and reading skills. In addition, many problems arise especially with the use of cochlear implants in classroom, with the final decisions lying entirely on the hands of the teacher. When one have an implant, it is hard to do without it. Most students have preconceptions that the fixed implants help them have full understanding about what is taught in class. In addition to that, their self-esteem may be affected and ruined, in that they perceive themselves as “hearing deaf”, and some days they hear while at other times they are not (Geers & Nicholas, 2013, P 652 C 4 L5-10). Early implantations have changed the student placements. In classes, initially, a deaf person used to have a transfer in the deaf school, where he or she would start the deaf education system. In recent times, learners with cochlear implants can not only hear well but also speak with a degree of intelligence. The core disadvantage is that the teachers may fail to note their special needs. The students do suffer from mild unilateral hearing deficit. They also do suffer in areas where there is extreme noise (Marschark, Rhoten, & Fabich, 2007, P 271 C 2 L 1-8). With reference to the educational levels attainments, cochlear implantation has set a high mark in the performance levels of the children. They performance and aspiration to achieve greater heights in academic aspects is higher than for the cases of their counterparts who utilize hearing aids. Children with the implants require the direction of the teacher more than before. With the modification of new technology to meet the demands of the deaf learners, who are aspiring to hear again, teachers are encountering various problems. They have to be updated with the various teaching methods to teach a diverse group. The science of cochlear implantation has led to an increase in the diversity range among the students; hence, the needs of the students are growing daily. To the students, learning is simply dependence on two factors: the wearing of the cochlear implants and the working status of the same. The teachers must demonstrate skills to operate the equipment, as well as teaching other people how to use them in an ideal way. The technology changes are happening in a rapid manner. Teachers must be aware of that and train continuously so that they may not remain obsolete in the field. Such perspectives are causing immense challenges in the deaf learning (Dunn, Tyler, & Witt, 2012, P 186 C 1 L 1-7). Educational Challenges Educators do face many of challenges in school as they try to educate the once deaf children. They have to get time to provide flexibility in education in most times. They have to play a core role in effectively supporting them in different environmental settings. Moreover, they have to monitor any changes that may progress over time. They also have to play a role in the identification of the difficulties that the children could be undergoing. They have to be the key providers of exclusive education to those with additional learning difficulties and are utilizing the hearing implants. Teachers teaching such students have to develop collaborations with other professionals for the sake of the provision of counselling and psychosocial needs. The demands for education to those who have undergone the implantation process are rising day by day, from primary to secondary settings. Teachers have to be ready to provide additional learning to these disabled people (Archbold & Mayer, 2012 P 10 C 1 L 1-15). Technology use for such students is rapidly changing. Therefore, teachers also have to update themselves with such technological advancements hence an increasing cost in education. Ethical Implications Surrounding Cochlear Implantation There are many ethical implications surrounding the transplantation. Such ethical issues have to be followed strictly for the success of the processes. For instance, the parties undergoing implantation have to sign a consent. A consent consists of a powerful warrant, obliged to caution of the third parties of any implications or outcome. One has to report consciousness and awareness of the long-term effect of the procedure. Contrary to that, infants may not have ability to sign any consent. They lack the competency since they are underage. The parents have to carry the core responsibility in the process of implantation. In most cases, the parents to the deaf communities possess the ability to hear, hence decide on behalf of the child. However, conflicts have arisen, whereby most deaf communities have the perception that the parents should extend the consent to the deaf communities on behalf of the child. They tend to consider that the decision of the parents as being ill fated or ill prepared. In that case, they perceive the parent ideology as being biased. Such a decision splits up the ethical concern of beneficence and autonomy. Researchers argue that some of the actions done on behalf of the child may narrow down the avenue of making decisions when it comes to the adult life. Therefore, the conclusion is that the parent has to act in response to the best interest of the child (Sanchez-Cuadrado et al., 2013, P 226 C 2 L 1-12). The deaf community has a concern that their culture will come to dissolve and become obsolete. Therefore, they work to discourage the adoption of implants technology. They do not perceive deafness as something that needs to be cured, but as something as normal as other conditions. It is in conflict with the medical perception, as they perceive deafness as a pathology that requires both medical and technological intervention. Federal legislation has also been advocating the rights of the deaf people and those who are obtaining the implants. There also questions arising from the clarification of the medical procedure. Some people argue that the transformation disproves and perceived disability as a negative quality. Moreover, the implant should not cause any harm to the victim, but additional benefits. The action done is for the well good of the victim. The parent has the main role of practicing paternalism. He makes a decision on behalf of the infants. In case the client is above eighteen years, he makes decisions for himself or herself. The doctor or health care practitioner should practice the art of veracity during the health education process. He should not undertake the procedure for the sake of self-gain. He should stick to the Hippocratic Oath those talks of truth telling and justice as a core foundation of their practice (Marschark et al., 2007, P 270 C 4 L 1-9). Conclusion Cochlear implantation is a procedure that enables a person, who developed hearing complications after the development of the hearing milestones. It remains a complex issue in the deaf world. In addition, it has changed the lives of many children, reversing them from deaf to being in a position to hear, and changing their educational choices from deaf education to normal educational attainments. However, despite the technological advancement, there are many challenges that continue to romp the process be it to the victims of implantation, teachers and parents. Collaboration should exist between all the teams involved in implantation for the betterment of the services provided. The implantation provides the children with immense advantages in the academic field and hence, that skeptic about it should furnish their researches on the negativity of the procedure. Of most significant, it possesses more advantages to the clients despite its few shortcomings. References Archbold, S., & Mayer, C. (2012). Deaf Education: The Impact of Cochlear Implantation? Deafness & Education International, 14(1), 2–15. Clark, G. M. (2008). Personal reflections on the multichannel cochlear implant and a view of the future. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(5), 651–694. Dunn, C. C., Tyler, R. S., & Witt, S. (2012). Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Speech Perception and Localization Pre- and Post-Second Cochlear Implantation, 21(December), 181–190. Geers, A. E., & Nicholas, J. G. (2013). Enduring Advantages of Early Cochiear Implantation for Spoken Language Development, 56(April), 643–654. Holmstr, I. (2013). Technologies at Work : A Sociohistorical Analysis of Human Identity and Communication, I(February 2012). Kermit, P. (2009). Deaf or deaf? Questioning alleged antinomies in the bioethical discourses on cochlear implantation and suggesting an alternative approach to d/Deafness. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 11(2), 159–174. Kermit, P. (2012). Enhancement technology and outcomes: what professionals and researchers can learn from those skeptical about cochlear implants. Health Care Analysis : HCA : Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 20(4), 367–84. Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., & Fabich, M. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on children’s reading and academic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 269–82. Pals, C., Sarampalis, A., & Baskent, D. (2013). Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR, 56(4), 1075- 84. Sanchez-Cuadrado, I., Lassaletta, L., Perez-Mora, R. M., Zernotti, M., Di Gregorio, M. F., Boccio, C., & Gavilán, J. (2013). Is there an age limit for cochlear implantation? The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 122(4), 222–8. Read More