Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness - Essay Example

The Pros and cons of the thinking behind the deaf community’s perception of the social model, medical model and rehabilitation model aspects of cochlear implants. Introduction The cochlear implant is an electronic device, part of which is surgically implanted in the ear and part of which is worn externally like a hearing aid. Cochlear implants have had both positive and negative influence on the education of the deaf. They have caused dissonance among certain members of the deaf community. Such disputes especially arise from disagreements on ethical matters. This essay seeks to discuss the pros and cons of the thinking behind the deaf community’s perception of the social model, rehabilitation model and the medical model aspects of cochlear implants. It will also examine whether the introduction of the neonatal hearing screening program has changed how the deaf community thinks about cochlear implants andfurther highlightsthe rolethe deaf community and cochlear implants advocates. social model Social model of deafness is part of disability that is linked to arising from the disabled people themselves, friends, family members, associated political and social networks. One aspect that discourages the understanding of an impaired condition by the promoter of cochlear implants is lack of impression. The Deaf Community insists that arguments concerning the deaf be made from the perspective of the deaf party and not his parents or the society. There are individuals in the society who do nor understand the use of cochlea implants on the hearing impaired. In this case, they tend to assume the use without exactly knowing what they are meant for. Such insinuations obvious in the society neglect the deaf person’s opinion. While the technology may be useful in trying to boost a person’s self-esteem it is only convenient as aiding device and not as a curative one. Children’s deafness persists on a bionic ear, while their hearing is still impaired. This defeats the relevance of the hearing aid (Martini, 2008). To assert further on needlessness of the bionic ear, cochlea implants cannot aid in improving a person’s cognitive or their language skills. Users of cochlear implants will therefore be still dependent on other persons who do not have hearing impairment issues in their day to day lives. The deaf persons will require translation and adoptive learning process in order to fit in the social structure of the hearing population. Deafpersons and other individuals with hearing ‘problems’ go ahead to form their own structures of social interaction that enhances their own method of communication. Such groups may include those of persons with cochlea implants (Delisa et al 2007). In regards to capacity, lack of ability to speech does not imply inability to communicate. The essence of communication is being able to express oneself to others using a language. Communication therefore does not require speech or hearing to be achieved.With this knowledge, the deaf community goes ahead to contend that parents should not make such decisions as cochlear implants for their children. Cochlear implant decisions by parents imply certain points as parental disregard for the deaf society. It implies that deafness is undesirable and unwanted in the family and the parents do not wish to be a part of the deaf community. By providing solutions to the young deaf persons, it is also implied that we stir less worth in older deaf people who cannot undergo such procedure by choice or circumstance. The importance of a decision to surgical process, as argued, is a critical and children should be left to make when they are older and have developed real interest in language acquisition by speech. However, in the event that parents decide to have their children implanted with a cochlear device, they should also avail themselves substantially to offer the necessary training to children on attaching meanings to sounds (Hott et al 2007). In order to enable parents of the deaf children, doctors provide training for the child’s sake. They train them to understand and interpret sound until they can acquire a language and learn to speak. The process involves constant training of the brain for example, to lapse between hearing and listening. Ability to comply with such prescription training will determine levels and speed of child acclimatization to the new lingo (Cullington, 2003).Where children were not trained in sign language; it could be hard to eventually fit in the deaf community. This especially happens when training is started immediately after birth and sign language is not their native language (Paludneviciene et al 2011).Deaf people benefit more skills than the hearing population in the process of learning their own language such as sign language. Notably, sign language enhances a person’s visual and dimensional movement adeptness (Lane, 1992). It is important to note that sign language is a first language for deaf community that is backed by other additional lingo such as English and German. As an effective platform of communication in the deaf community, it is feared that use of cochlear implants would encourage the use of spoken dialects and do away with sign language so that deaf people lose their heritage. Cochlear implants are therefore a threat to the deaf community as a whole since their existence and communication makes them a society or family group where they can bond and understand each other better than hearing person’s would (Tunkel et al 2003). To break such a bond would lead to esteem issues during the process of transitioning to a spoken language. It poses challenges to the deaf children in almost every aspect of their lives, psychological and socially. Generally, children at a young age ought to learn sign language as a basic native language before they grow up. In case they decide to take up cochlear implants, they should at least have had a platform of communication which they can fall back to (Picton, 2011). The social model therefore, is generally associated to the surrounding of an individual. In this case, professions who are invoked include those who have specialised in social sciences and human services fields. The concept of disability in regards to this mode, is associated with chronological products of communal forces. Apart form the social model, there is another type of model which is reffered to as the Medical model. Medical model Medical model of deafness is associated with nonexistence of the ability to perceive sound as being a physical disability or an illness. Individuals who are usually identified with this model are those who experience loss of hearing after mastering spoken speech. The other group of people identified with this group are those who refer to themselves as “Hard-of-hearing.” From a medical point of view, deafness is a condition that requires be addressed and assimilated. Advocates of the cochlear implantation technique insist that there is need to help deaf people gain hearing ability. This is meant to help them communicate and feel in resonance with the hearing majority. The medical perception is especially driven by search for a cure and solution to deafness problems as would be for medical specialists (Lea, 1991). On the other hand, the deaf community disapproves being addressed as a group of disabled persons but asserts that they are different and special people who do not require such as cochlear implants to aid their hearing (Chute et al 2002). The deaf have a culture of language amongst themselves that enables them to communicate and share ideas like any other person with hearing ability. They make use of sign language and visual language. In any case their language is well structured to contain grammar and other features of common language structure. The deaf community therefore considers hearing impairment as a minority issue and not a disability one further they illustrate that sign language is similar to second language for the hearing person (Bragg, 2001). To add to medical perspective, children may experience other challenges as encountered during the surgical procedure. Such risks of unknown outcomes of a procedure persist as unethical in practice of medicine since they put a child’s life and health at danger. It is argued that the procedure for cochlear implants during surgery could lead to complete loss of hearing in the event that the device fails. It poses more risk of medical complications from uncertainties linked with surgical procedure. Hence, treatment or correction of conditions like hearing or other medical situations should be based on evidence and not just mere ideology (Kaga K& Star, 2009). Most of the medical issues have their placement in individuals rather than the society or family. A great deal described medical perspective portrays the deaf community in the light of disability than peculiarity. It implies that deafness is an inability in the addressed persons. Furthermore, it is a biological condition viewed as impairment to hearing and use of an inferior language as compared to spoken language. Medical conceptions claim that deafness is found in an individual and is a personal medical problem thereof (Niparko, 200). The argument goes on in the social platform that viewing deafness as a disability and inferiority is a social problem and not a personal problem. This is because such deaf people are unseeing of any problem until other members of the society appear. Such appearances create awareness in the deaf persons that they are different from the rest of the population. However medical knowledge claims that the normal functioning of a human anatomy and systems is not dependent of any population even when such population aid in advancing its course (Waltzman et al 2006). With the medical model, persons who have hearing impairment problems are known to have physical disabilities or illnesses. This makes this type of model different from the other model which is the social model. Apart from the social and medical models, there is another model referred to as the rehabilitation model. Rehabilitation model Rehabilitaton model refers to a model of deafness where individuals who are invoked are professionsls, in this case, these professionals intend to find out and conceptualize what makes up human experience. This is why it is a group consisting the hearing impaired who are able to communicate with other individuals who are not in the same condition, even if not with the same language. Without denying the facts of disability, assertions by the deaf community go ahead to claim that a deaf person can live entirely on their language of signs and be able to communicate each time. They advocate for reciprocal regard by the hearing and speaking community and from themselves to the same group as means to survive (Blume, 2002).Rehabilitation is therefore an important aspect from both the deaf community’s perspective and that of medication. Hearing impairment should be addressed and not neglected, yet in the liberal manner. In addition to the aspect of survival, New Born screening by hospital faculty in most regions of the developed world enhance parental awareness of their child’s sound perception ability. The method is useful in knowledge of the condition in order for practitioners and parents to participate in the process of the action to be taken (Eisenberg, 2009). The deaf society however, does not change its perspective toward cochlear implants. It only emphasizes neonatal screening as measure to ensure deafness is detected early and managed accordingly. The idea will aid parents with their newborns’ inability to hear to go for further follow up to ensure the condition is well addressed and that they are informed on what to do. Such news as deafness at birth could lead parents to emotional devastation. However such news is delivered gently and he parent aided in deciding what to do. The options include cochlea implants or preparation for normal sign language adoption. All in all, parents are especially confused and require sober and well laid advice from medical practitioner (Nussbaum, 2003). To emphasize, on the aspect of decision, a black person who is less privileged in the society and does not have access to kind of facilities white people have, will not get them to change themselves in to white people. In this context trying to change deaf persons fit them in the ‘normal’ is irrelevant and a form of non-acceptance of such people. More deaf people assert to being okay with their situation. Most of them have gone ahead to develop themselves on a personal level and soar like the rest of the world if not better in common social affairs (Chou et al 1975). Despite the struggle thereof, psychological or social, deafness is totally livable with by persons affected by it. Trying to be part of the hearing majority may be challenging, it could be useful but it is more hectic than learning sign language. Moreover, deaf community advocates emphasize implants as unethical in addition to being unwarranted (Olaf, 2011). This essay has shown the importance of the society and family members of deaf persons to embrace liberal concepts when it comes to such differences by accepting deafness and aiding deaf persons integrate into their own community while receiving full support. This is in the end more useful than stigmatization and efforts by the public to try and change deaf people into their own society by use of technology (Martini et al 2008). To aid integration, acceptance is encouraged and so is mutual respect for both the person’s situation and health in the long run. After all, conforming deaf persons into the hearing world does not solve their ‘problem’ entirely since it will require training and translation for them to be able to communicate effectively (Newton, 2009). To insist, implantation is not a major issue in the cases where the deaf persons lost their ability to hear in their adulthood. At this point, persons can decide for themselves what they wish to do with their own hearing and the perception of cochlear implantation is seemingly not generally unethical as it involves reason by the person and their ability to weigh options. Most adults however will avert to sign language and avoid cochlear implants. They are easy with comprehending language since they had a previous reckoning in the period before they lost their hearing. Furthermore, such persons become self-confident which makes them pull through to achieving their goals by studying and attaining the respective proffesions as long as it is within their ability to handle issues in those fields. (Hughes, 2013). Rehabilitation model consists of individuals who are hearing impaired who through experience, have the ability to communicate with other persons in the community. In this case, the hearing impaired are in a position to communicate with other persons and get to undertstand each other. This is majorly facilitated by experience which makes them get used to life as it is and be able to live comfortably.This is the last topic which herein leads the essay to the conclusion part. Conclusion In conclusion this essay has pointed out specific associations that are useful in laying a platform created from the deaf person’s perspective and not that of the entire community. In the end it is the deaf person in a situation and their opinion matters more than that of any other person in the society. Final decisions to undertake cochlear implants or any other form of hearing rehabilitation processes falls in the hands of the individual with a hearing impairment (Jackler et al 2005). It has further indicated impact of cochlear implants as an ethical issue, a medical issue and provided acceptance and liberal thinking as a way to rehabilitate hearing impairment. It brings factors as irrelevance in a technology’s attempt to sort an issue that is necessarily not desperate if undertaken by other education methods. It has also emphasized respect for the deaf society and their decision making in regard to cochlear implants (Christiansen, 2002).The deaf society has also integrated to screening but not to cochlear implantation itself. The essay provides points of psychological concern in rehabilitation process that should be taken into account in the long run. Reference 1. Bacon, S. P., Fay, R. R., & Popper, A. N. (2004).Compression from cochlea to cochlear implants. New York, Springer. 2. Blume, S. S. (2010). The artificial ear: cochlear implants and the culture of deafness. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. 3. Bragg, L. (2001). Deaf world: a historical reader and primary sourcebook. New York, New York University Press. 4. Chou, C.-K., & Guy, A. W. (1975). The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on The Nervous System. Ft. Belvoir, Defense Technical Information Center. 5. Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. (2002). Cochlear implants in children: ethics and choices. Washington, D.C., Gallaudet University Press. 6. Chute, P. M., & Nevins, M. E. (2002).The parents' guide to cochlear implants.Washington, DC, Gallaudet University Press. 7. Cullington, H. E. (2003). Cochlear implants: objective measures. London, Whurr Publishers. 8. Delisa, J. A., &Gans, B. M. (2005).Physical medicine and rehabilitation principles and practice.Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 9. Eisenberg, L. S. (2009). Clinical management of children with cochlear implants.San Diego, CA, Plural Pub. 10. Hott, L. R., Et Al. (2007). Through deaf eyes. Washington, D.C., WETA-TV. 11. Hughes, M. L. (2013). Objective measures in cochlear implants. San Diego, Plural Pub 12. Jackler, R. K., &Brackmann, D. E. (2005).Neurotology. Philadelphia, Pa, Mosby.. 13. Kaga, K., & Starr, A. (2009).Neuropathies of the auditory and vestibular eighth cranial nerves. Tokyo, Springer. 14. Lane, H. L. (1992). The mask of benevolence: disabling the deaf community. New York, Knopf. 15. Lea, A. R. (1991). Cochlear implants. Canberra, Australian Govt. Pub. Service. 16. Martini, A., Stephens, D., & Read, A. P. (2008). Genes, hearing, and deafness: from molecular biology to clinical practice. England, Informa Healthcare. 17. Newton, V. (2009).PaediatricAudiologicalMedicine.Wiley. 18. Niparko, J. K. (2000). Cochlear implants: principles & practices. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 19. Nussbaum, D., Laporta, R., &Hinger, J. (2003). Cochlear implants and sign language: putting it all together (identifying effective practices for educational settings) : April 11-12, 2002 conference proceedings. Washington, D.C., Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center Gallaudet University. 20. Olaf DöSsel, Wolfg. (2010). World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, 2009, Munich, Germany.Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 21. Paludneviciene, R., & Leigh, I. (2011). Cochlear implants: evolving perspectives. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University Press. 22. Picton, T. W. (2011). Human auditory evoked potentials. San Diego, 23. Plural Pub. RUCKENSTEIN, M. J. (2012). Cochlear implants and other implantable hearing devices.San 24. Diego, CA, Plural Pub. Schwartz, S. (2007). Choices in deafness: a parents' guide to communication options. Bethesda, MD, Woodbine House. 25. Tunkel, D. E., &Grundfast, K. (2003). Pediatric otolaryngology. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co. 26. Waltzman, S. B., & Roland, J. T. (2006). Cochlear implants. New York, Thieme. 27. Washington Univ Seattle Bioelectromagnetics Research Lab, Taylor,Eugene M., &Ashleman,Bonnie T. (1974). Analysis Of Central Nervous System Involvement in the Microwave Auditory Effect. Read More