Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Community - Research Paper Example

Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Community Medical scientist and technologist with the view of reducing deafness in society developed cochlea implantstechnology. Since deafness is caused by little or no presence of hair in the ear in order to generate auditory signals for the auditory nerve cochlea implantation technology is designed to bypass the outer ear and cause some electrical stimulation of the auditory nerves. This cochlea implant has internal and external devices, which need to be interconnected correctly and surgically implanted to the patient in order to work well (Hladek, 1). There is also part of the cochlea implant that is inserted surgically in the outer ear of the person at the opening to the auditory nerve. The external components of the implant contains a microphone that is to be worn behind the ear of the patient, attached to a magnetic transmitter, which is attached to the earpiece and a sound processor. Once the implantation is complete, an audiologist uses a computer to set the speech processor for the patient. The audiologist sets the processor and programmes it to the appropriate levels of auditory stimulation between sound received from environment and brain nerve cells (Cochlear 1; Ouellette 1248). Once the processor is set, the microphone receives sounds from the environment and sends it to the speech processor, which then performs computation, and transforms the sound to electrical codes and digital format. The digital codes are sent to the outer ear component as coded signals bypassing the ear hairs. The magnetic transformer behind the ear then takes these codes, transforms them to electrodes arrays, and interfaces them to the cochlea. Then the internal device in the cochlea takes these arrays and stimulates the auditory nerves fibers that are connected to the brain, whereby the arrays are sent by the auditory nerve of the person to the brain for interpretation (Cochlear 1). This paper seeks to establish that cochlear implants technology is beneficial to the deaf community despite their opposition to the implants during their inception. In order to alleviate fears of the deaf community there have been improvements in cochlea implants technology over time and hence increased rate of success to patients who have undergone the procedure. Ideally, the procedure is meant to be applied to infants born deaf or those who have developed deafness in their early days. This is because cognitive development of a child into their senses and environment occurs between the ages of 0-3 years. Hence, if the procedure is undertaken during this time, it ensures that the child develops mentally normally as any other child, and learns how to translate environmental sounds with the cochlea implant very effectively. On the other hand, there have also been cases of success relating to the implants on deaf adults who have taken the procedure. However, the challenge arises when the adult patient, who has already learnt other ways of communication with outer world through sign language, or lip reading, needs to train their brain to comprehend new senses from the cochlea implant (Delost & Lashley1; Hladek 1). One of the concerns of the deaf community is the fact that patients who have undergone the cochlea implant are subjected to some training sessions with their audiologist, who analyses and trains them on how to use the implant. This is because their brains need to be able to take new signals and transform them in a way that it will create a meaning to the patient. However, the success rates for these sessions have been reported higher as the age of patients reduces, that is the younger the patient the higher the chances of success. Moreover, there has been protest by deaf community activists arguing that through application of cochlea implants on the deaf, these implants act as a reference of deafness by and as a sign of disability. They claim and advocate that deafness should be recognized as a minority culture and not as a disease or problem in the society. Through studies that have been undertaken, the perception is that deafness prevents a person from communicating with others effectively in the society (US Food and Drug Administration 1; Cochlear & Sparrow 148). Those who support the treatment of deafness began their campaigns decades ago, some of them being the founding fathers of sociology. This is because according to Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, everyone in the society needs to have equal norms that are intended to provide everyone an equal chance and opportunity in every aspect of development and in the society. In addition, Aristotle proposed that persons who are deaf in the society are usually rendered senseless and hence are incapable of reasoning and proper comprehension. Machiavelli also stresssed that whatever is done to impose a greater good of society should be fully adopted (Hladek 1). Thus, based on these facts, cochlea implants can be used to provide everyone in society an equal opportunity to grow normally and become fully functional. Moreover, based on Machiavelli principle that is bent on the greater good for the society, giving a child or person the ability to communicate well and interact with the others effectively in society can be achieved through implant. Therefore, cochlea implants play a vital role of enabling deaf people to receive sounds from the environments and respond to them. Moreover, they will also reduce the prejudice that a person is incapable of performing certain tasks or duties due to deafness. Thus, the deaf through these implants are in a position to access and enjoy same capabilities that others enjoy, in terms of job employments, educational facilities and socialization. This is because the deaf being few in the society may have difficulties in communicating with others who may not understand sign language (Delost & Lashley 1). There is also the cost-benefit analysis factor that is taken into account by advocating for cochlea implants, which is in line with Machiavelli, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who consider the cost of transplant and cost of providing specialized treatment to the deaf are much higher. In addition, the proponents argue that in the case of cochlea implants, the process and cost of treatment to the person is only imposed once to parents or the person financing the treatment. For the case of a deaf person, there are recurring costs ranging from provision of special equipment to the persons to specialized services (Hladek, 1). Moreover, cochlea implants give infants an opportunity to develop cognitively similar to those who have normal hearing capabilities. As Aristotle proposed that deaf people risk becoming senseless and incapable of reasoning, a deaf person is denied the chance to enjoy sounds from the environment. Therefore, with the use of implants after successful therapy sessions of approximately three weeks, a deaf person is able to enjoy sounds from the environment, from music with stereo systems to environmental sounds from nature (Med-el 1). In addition, cochlea implants enable deaf people to enjoy conversing with others whom they are interacting with and not depend on lip reading. This means that the deaf in the case they are fitted with implants from birth, shall rule out the task of learning lip reading in order to understand others. Moreover, since birth the deaf people are regarded to have low levels of language development and communication abilities with others. These cases will be solved when the deaf are fitted with cochlea implant whereby, since they shall be able to use word and not signs enabling them to have a good grasp of language. Proponents, who advocate for equality, encourage the use of implants; this is because implants will enable the deaf to enjoy technological advancements such as use of telephones and mobile phone to communicate. This is because the deaf cannot hear sounds from outside; they are therefore not able to use such devices, rendering them to be very disadvantaged in society (Bleakly 1). Furthermore, a person, who is deaf, is mostly viewed as devoid of the capacity to carry out his day-to-day tasks compared to a normal person in some activities in their day-to-day lives. Therefore, with the use of cochlea implants a person enjoys the full capabilities and can perform any task or duty, similar to normal persons (Cochlear 1). The deaf community who was strongly opposed with the use of this implant, mainly in infants, had some reservations about the use of this technology. Their main arguments were that deafness is not to be treated like a disease but as a form of disability. They even formed a deaf culture and movement that was meant to voice out their rejection of the treatment, as they were of the view a deaf child should grow and appreciate their condition as deaf. Moreover, they argued that deaf children should learn and develop their deaf adaptation ability such as through the use of sign language and lip reading in order to communicate with others. This has not been seen as entirely the case, as recent findings have revealed that the cochlea implants enable the child to develop normally and to fully develop communication and language skills in order to interact with others in society, be they deaf or normal (cochlear 1; Sunday Morning, 1). The opponents have questioned the level of technology that has been used in the treatment of deafness with cochlear implants. They question whether the cochlear implantation is really effective in the treatment of deafness as the implantation has been seen to treat deafness to some extent only. In addition, there has been an argument that in case a child is subjected to the implantation and then it fails; he/she is deprived of the chance to develop cognitively their ability to learn communication techniques such as the use of sign language, lip reading and special hearing aids. However, statistically there is a higher chance of success in the implantation on infants than in adults due to the level of development. This argument by some opponents of cochlea implantation is deficient because it has been researched and found out that infants, who have been implanted, have adopted well to the treatment and developed hearing abilities same as normal children (Hossain, 1 ; Sunday Morning, 1). Moreover, there has also been the case that deaf persons with implants cannot to take Magnetic Resonance Imaging tests (MRI) in hospitals because of the magnet in the implant. This is the case, but with the advancement in technology of the implants, ways have been devised that help reduce the effects in case of an MRI. In addition, in some cases, a child is seen to have developed other forms of disorders apart from their deafness, and this has been perceived to reduce or even limit the effectiveness of the implant. However, statistically this accounts for a very small percentage of the infants, and it has been identified that with use of this implants, there has been increased performance. This is because a deaf child through the use of cochlear implants is given an opportunity to develop fluent language and reduction of problems that may arise in educational institutions, as they can understand everything the same way normal ones do. In conclusion, cochlear implants technology needs to be fully embraced by everyone in society, be they deaf or normal, to enable everyone get an equal opportunity. As proponents have put it, especially Machiavelli and Aristotle, the greater good derived from the use of this technology surpasses many of its disadvantages. Moreover, the fear from the deaf activists that the implant makes deafness look like a disease and demoralizes the deaf culture should be changed. Children who are either deaf or normal should be given equal opportunity to get the best from society, what it has to offer and their abilities, which is being made possible by the use of this technology. Furthermore, legally a parent has the right to decide whether the child shall undergo the implant process or not. Since parents normally want the best for their child, they are encouraged to embrace this technology, allow their child getting the best of the world, and developing normally. The deaf culture, which the activists are fighting to maintain, can be integrated with deaf persons who have taken the implant and create a better understanding. Works cited Bleckly, Felicity. “Benefits of Cochlear Implants in Children”. Bellaonline The Voice of Women. n.d. Web. 4 July 2012 Cochlear. “Cochlear Implants for Children.” n.d. Web. 4 July 2012 Delost, Shelli and Lashley, Sarah. “The Cochlear Implant Controversy.” Drury University. 2000. web. 4 July 2012 < http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=2442&NLID=166> U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Medical Devices: Benefits And Risks Of Cochlear Implants.” U.S Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Web. 4 July 2012 Hladek, Glenn. “Cochlear Implants, The Deaf Culture, And Ethics.” Ohio university: The Institute for Applied & Professional Ethics. 2009. Web. 4 July 2012 Hossain, Shaikat. “Cochlear Implants and the Deaf Culture: A Transhumanist Perspective.” H+magazine.com. June 2012. web. 4 July 2012 Med-el. “Best Benefit for Med-el CI Users.” n.d. Web. 4 July 2012 Ouellette, Alicia. “Hearing the Deaf: Cochlear Implants, the Deaf Community, and Bioethical Analysis.” Valparaiso University Law Review; vol 43, no.3. 2011. web. 4 July 2012 Sparrow, Robert. “Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants.” Journal Of Political Philosophy; vol 13, no.2. 2005. web. http://www.neiu.edu/~gmoreno1/Special_Education__Courses_with_Dr._Moreno/Module_Nine_files/ActivitySix.pdf. 2nd July 2012 Sunday morning. “The Cochlear Implant Controversy.” CBS News. 2009. Web. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-10794.html. 2nd July 2012 Read More