Thursday, November 12, 2009

Hearing Is Overrated

The Cochlear Implant, a tiny computer at the center of a very large controversy. According to the Cochlear Implant Controversy website, those who advocate for the implant feel that it would “medically "repair" deafness in children with a sensorineural hearing loss.” In fact, the implant does not repair deafness, instead it just causes the equivalent of hearing. The implant bypasses the majority of the ear, sending electrical impulses straight to the cochlea (the inner ear). Some things that most people do not think about when they are considering the cochlear implant is that it does not always work for all people, and implantation requires surgery, which, like any surgery, carries some possibly serious risks. These risks include infections (possibly meningitis) and facial nerve damage.
There are other damages that the implant could cause, not related to surgery. One thing that the implant is damaging is the Deaf culture. The Deaf community does not feel that deafness is a disability, or that it hinders their ability to do most everything. In the book The Parent’s Guide to Cochlear Implants, they say “Naïve members of the hearing community expect that implants would be welcomed by all persons who are deaf.” Deafness is seen as a cultural difference, the Deaf community, a single cohesive unit. Once you start changing deaf people into hearing people, you have lost the culture. Sign language becomes obsolete, and there is no reason for Deaf children with implants to interact with Deaf children who do not have the implant.
One man that I spoke with, Kevin Majors, says “If my parents told me that I should get an implant, I would tell them no. God made me this way for a reason, who am I to change that? Besides, I don’t think I could concentrate with all the noise, I like being deaf, it’s quiet!” This is a fairly general consensus the Deaf community; there is no reason to “fix” something that isn’t broken. Being deaf is simply part of who a person is, and if they feel that it is not their place to change that difference, that is their choice.
Further reasoning against the implants is the cost for those getting them. One article, The Pros and Cons of Cochlear Implants, cited the cost of implantation being upwards of $40,000 for the implant and surgery alone. Other medical bills such as MRIs and CT scans plus speech therapy cost extra. Some insurance companies do not cover implantation, meaning the family must find some way to pay for the cost out of pocket. I have heard of insurance companies denying payment on contacts because they are “cosmetic,” but if this tiny computer is so necessary as some would put it, why won’t the insurance company pay for it? It’s not a cosmetic procedure, that’s for sure.
Deaf children get a normal life, it’s just differently structured than that of the life of hearing children. Implant or no, there will be expenses but if you take the anti-implant side, at least the expense isn’t leaving your life on the operating table. The Deaf community deserves to make their own decisions, not have the implant shoved down their throats.

3 comments:

  1. Great op-ed. Your stance was clear and the information was logically presented. Different reasons for not receiving the implant were ordered well. Source info was introduced. I don't think I would change anything except for maybe one or two grammatical errors - just needs a final proofread.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So far your draft is pretty good, there are only a few things where I believe you could improve a bit. There are a few grammar errors that I found while reading it so revising would be a good idea.
    Overall it was a pretty focused paper, I was only slightly confused when you were talking about how insurance companies will not pay for the procedure because they claim it is a cosmetic procedure. You argue against that and say that it is not a cosmetic surgery. Why is it not? It seems to me that you are against the Cochlear implant throughout your essay but in that paragraph. It was not very clear to me since it kinda seemed that you were favoring it over other procedures, which goes against your stance.
    Besides that, good job :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really enjoyed your op-ed. I thought that your citations were well organized and done right. Just make sure you go through your rough draft and fix some grammatical errors. I liked that you included your interview with Kevin Majors. I felt that that was very compelling and helped your topic out a lot.

    ReplyDelete