*notice: Flame wars will NOT be accepted in the comments*
G'day Everyone.
I had to do it. I had to make a post of discussion after James Kittell posted on the youtube.com a joke. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wI8OPlULs
James may have thought it to be a great joke. But his timing of his posting is quite wrong. Especially coming on the heels of my previous post of discussion of Jamie Berke's posting on her Deafness.about.com site. If you don't remember what I mean, Link: http://thedeafsherlock.blogspot.com/2009/08/against-deafnessaboutcom-post.html
If James had waited for a few months later to post his video, it might have been accepted as joke. But now I find that I need to make a discussion about it. I know I may cause a bit of *flame wars*, but that's not my intention here. It's a subject of debate.
We know hearing parents are making attempts to make their deaf child hearing as possible though the use of cochlear implants (CI). Every time we hear this happen, it brings a response from the deaf community about it.
But what if the opposite were to happen? What if Deaf parents really wanted to find a way to make their hearing child totally DEAF ? Would it provoke the same type of response from the hearing community as the deaf community has done so far in the CI debate or worse? Frankly to say, in my opinion, it would be worse.
But the bigger question is: If hearing parents have a right to put the CI on a deaf child, then should the deaf parents be granted the SAME RIGHTS to be allowed the decision to make their hearing child DEAF?
The moral question is: would deaf parents, if given that right of decision to make their hearing child deaf, actually carry out that type of an idea? Would they actually want to do it? Or would they rather cherish that they have a hearing kid rather than a deaf kid?
You see, it concerns me that parents (hearing or deaf) will do anything that it takes to make their child to be put on an equal ground in the family / community. But if we go bent out of shape to "perfect" our children into the image of the hearing or deaf family, then we are robbing the way God naturally made them of their lives for His purpose here on earth. We go on thinking that we are better than God.
So there's the crux of debate. Would you do it? Would you make your hearing child deaf?
Semper FI.
*notice: Flame wars will NOT be accepted in the comments*
14 comments:
Here is the thing. We didn't give our daughter implants to "perfect" her. We did it to make her life easier and make it less frustrating and isolating for her. Implants are a tool to allow easier accessibility. She also knows sign language.
As to God's intention, it is all about the journey. I have great faith, and I prayed for guidance when she got meningitis and lost her hearing. There is no doubt in my mind that God directed us to the implant, and that God wanted her to get implanted. I am convinced that this journey she is on is the one God intended for her to be on.
If you look at Carl Schroeder's latest video regarding the second commandment. What's interesting about his post is that he seemed to forget that Jesus healed a deaf man. What does that indicate? Simple answer is that we all were meant to be whole as in "hearing." Why else would God have made us ears and all the works that goes with it. So, in essence the answer to your burning moral question as to whether it would be right to make one's child deaf is a simple NO.
I don't usually comment on this issue, but since you asked...
No, I would not make my hearing child deaf. While I realize "My Son is Deaf, Finally!" was meant to be funny, I think the message is very ignorant. To suggest, that as a parent, James would intentionally harm his child is very disturbing.
On the other hand, I *might* implant my deaf child with a CI. The video tries to draw a parallel between making a deaf child hear, and making a hearing child deaf. I suppose the intention was for a hearing parent to see this video and then realize that CI surgery is equally as barbaric.
From an ethical stand-point, the two surgeries are very different. Just so we're clear on what I'm talking about, I'll give the two example scenarios.
#1. You're a Deaf parent of a hearing child named Jack. You take him to a third-world country with far fewer health regulations. A local physician with little or no surgical training performs an invasive inner-ear surgery to induce bilateral deafness in Jack. Afterwards, Jack may or may not recover because this country has a low standard of care, and the risk of fatal infections is very high.
#2. You're a hearing parent with a deaf child named Jenny. You take Jenny to a licensed surgeon who specializes in cochlear implants. After confirming she is a candidate, the surgeon implants Jenny in a sterile hospital environment. Jenny later recovers as the hospital staff follow modern medical practices that speed up recovery, and greatly reduce the risk of infection.
I hope by now it's clear the two situations are worlds apart when it comes to safety. Jenny will very likely recover without complications, grow up, and live happily ever after. Jack has a very high probability of dying shortly after his surgery. But suppose it was legal and safe to surgically deafen your child. Would it *then* be the same as CI surgery? Before I answer, let's consider the motivations behind both surgeries.
#3. Parents (both hearing and Deaf) implant their deaf children to give them some hearing ability.
#4. Deaf parents intentionally deafen their hearing children so the parents will have the Deaf child they had hoped for.
Being a parent is not about having a "right" to implant or deafen your child. You are a legal proxy that makes informed decisions on behalf of your child. And these decisions should be in your child's best interest. This means that if your child were capable of understanding the consequences of the decision, that it's reasonable to think your child would make the same decision.
In #3, parents make the decision to implant because they believe that the child will thrive best being able to hear sounds. The decision is one that any parent can reasonably believe their child *might* make if he/she was old enough. Even if you disagree with CI, you can't argue that it's intended to *help* your child.
In #4, Deaf parents make that decision because *they want* a Deaf child. It is NOT reasonable to believe a hearing child would welcome such a surgery if he/she was old enough. Clearly in this case, the decision is a selfish act by the parents, and is NOT in the child's best interest. By performing the surgery in #1, you are intentionally *harming* your child.
Some members of the Deaf community will say that hearing parents are abusing their children by FORCING them to use a CI. This is not child abuse because "abuse" suggests mistreatment. More importantly, parents aren't "forcing" their children to use a CI anymore than Deaf parents are "forcing" their children to use ASL. Some parents think a CI is a good idea, and others don't.
The bottom line is that you should want a better life for your child than what you had. When you make a life-altering decision for your child, ask yourself: "is this the best way to help my child succeed in life?".
Here's some food for thought.
James Kittel's vlog was a satire, though it was in the format of a "joke". I don't think it was intended as a joke so much as a satire, created to make people think... and yes, evoke strong emotion in the process.
People say imposing CI on a deaf child is not abuse. It's not mistreatment.
Has anyone ever considered that a child might feel he or she was NOT accepted just the way he or she is, without being modified?
Yes, Jesus did heal a deaf man, but he did not actively SEEK out a deaf man to heal. That man chose to go to him. That does not mean to be deaf is a calamity. "Cursing the deaf" can take many forms. Nonacceptance of others' deafness and attempting to repair it is one.
It's my belief that if we are born to be Deaf, it's in God's plan. He doesn't make mistakes. However, man does.
Do we play God and tell Him He's wrong to have Deaf people come into existence? We are put on this earth for a reason, not to be fixed. That is man's hubris.
I know this comment is a bit strong, but all sides need to be looked at, no matter how painful or distasteful it might be to those with the opposing views.
In response to rj:
The question "Would you make your hearing kid deaf?" exposes two issues. The first is the hypocrisy of those, like the blogger who blogs for a CI maker, who say "It is the parents' decision, and *only* the parents' decision!". Clearly, what she really means is that it is the parents' decision when the parents agree with CI blogger, but not when the situation is reversed.
The second issue is the root of oppression. The root of oppression is the viewpoint that "People who are like me are more human, more worthy of living, than people who are different from me." Many hearing parents whom I've met cannot imagine that their deaf child could grow up to be a real person unless the child were hearing like the parent. To them, it seems Deaf people are not real people. They seem willing to accept me as an equal only if they can find a way to deny that I am Deaf.
These hearing parents talk at length about the limitations and barriers their deaf child will face unless they can make the child Hearing. The list of limitations and barriers is almost (not fully) the same as the list of limitations and barriers faced by black people, Asian people, women (you get the idea) in the past. The answer then was *not* to bleach the skin of dark-skinned people or change the gender of women. The answer was, and is, to face the bigotry of mainstream culture and work to change that bigotry. This makes life better for all, not just for one.
Imagine that next week there is an announcement that a new gene therapy allows parents to alter the racial or gender assignment of their child. (This is not as far away as you might think.) Does anyone really think that this would be welcomed by racial minorities? Should a White couple who adopt a Black child (common) be allowed to alter that child to be a blond and blue-eyed White child just so that the child might escape some "limitations" of being black? I would answer "No!". However, this seems to be the mindset of many, though not all, hearing parents of deaf children whom I've met.
David
KL, you think God wanted your deaf kid to get CI. I do not think SO! Unless you ASK Jesus to forgive for YOUR sin for NOT accepting a deaf kid, your kid would be heard.
I against CI on BABIES and TODDLERS. I support a child's right to decide for her/his desire to hear--get CI AFTER 12 years old!
I rather to put hearing aid until a kid decides to get CI. Surgeries are highest risk on babies and toddlers!! You parents are whines.
If I were in that story. I would DO IT to have my kid to be deaf! I felt HURT to see a child to get CI. You don't see how you and hearing community already hurt to watch. Just like all of us deaf community already hurt to see a CI in their little head!
David:
You've raised some interesting questions, and I have some counter-arguments.
Unfortunately when people have this discussion it's always rife with hypocrisy. Both sides have an opinion, and neither side understands the other. I would expect that hearing parents will implant their deaf children. The Deaf community sees this as robbing the child of his or her identity. But research shows that a child's environment growing up largely determines his or her personality. So a deaf child implanted at an early age has no Deaf identity yet.
To argue otherwise would imply that a Deaf person's identity is based on the pathological definition of deafness and NOT on cultural upbringing. In other words, if you say that the child is being robbed of his identity then you're saying that his Deaf identity comes from his deafness and not from being part of the community.
You can't have it both ways. If the child is deaf and born to hearing parents, then he will grow up in a hearing world with hearing culture. He may be deaf, but his identity is "hearing" because that what he knows. How is that any different than raising a CODA? If he wants to know about Deaf culture, he's free to choose that when he grows up. This is the same as a Deaf child choosing hearing culture.
I don't think oppression has anything to do with the issue. When you hold your deaf baby, you're not going to think about equality. He's 3% of your body mass, laying in your arms in a diaper, and drooling on himself. You two are not equal. Instead, you're going to think about your child's future, and how you can best help him to succeed in life.
No matter how you sugar-coat it, being deaf *is* limiting. Think of all the teasing you went through as a child, all the times people were talking and you stood there clueless asking for repeats and finally giving up, the jokes you missed, and the movies you didn't understand. How many times did you have people look at your hearing aids or signing with a friend, and point or stare? How many times have you faced discrimination at a job, a hospital, or a restaurant? Yes you made it. Yes you're proud. But do you really want your child to struggle with the same issues you did? Parents choose a CI because they think it will give their child a *better* life.
You compared these limitations to those encountered by minority races, but they're not the same. I may *think* a black man is incapable, but that doesn't mean he is. If you shout in my ear, no matter how nice you are, I can't hear you. Racism is a perception; deafness is a physical reality. And a CI is just a tool to help reduce or eliminate barriers.
If I had a deaf child, I may decide to implant. But I would want my child to be exposed to Deaf culture with or without a CI. Because his culture has nothing to do with his ability to hear.
Cheers!
rj,
How easily you dismiss hypocrisy! Well, people usually want to have it "both ways", that's how they maximize their advantage. Several times I have been told that the CI lets their child "hear and speak like everyone else". Then the parent wants accommodations from a school or other business or service. As you say, they want it both ways.
In terms of hearing parents adopting the oppressive views of hearing society, it *is* all about perception. As you point out, a newborn is potential. Hearing parents can envision a future for an infant who is *like them*. Many (most?) hearing parents do not seem to be able to imagine for a deaf child a future in which the child is a fully independent, functioning adult. In order to imagine a future for their child, the hearing parents must "fix" the child.
As far as "limits", there are many, many limits. The openness and fairness of a society is measured in part by how the society values different limits and capabilities and the ways a society constructs barriers. If I am tall, I can reach knobs, switches, shelves that are placed higher. On the other hand, I am limited if all doors are 4 feet high and cars are tiny. These may seem like trivial examples, because familiar society makes accommodation for people of different height, up to some limit. People beyond the boundaries of a society's accommodations are very much handicapped *by the actions of the society*. Current American-Canadian-British society is fully willing to make accommodation so hearing people can talk through glass windows at businesses (who should need that anyway? ;-), but some businesses such as fast food places refuse to consider work-around for the microphone/speaker at the drive-up window.
As I said, all people have limitations. It is the casual or intentional oppression of a society that turns some people's limitations into barriers and handicaps. The dream of an open, fair, and just society is better served by addressing oppressive attitudes and practices than by abetting oppression.
David
David:
You made some excellent points, and I agree with most of what you said. My counter-argument brings up some new issues that I think are at the center of the debate.
I don't dismiss hypocrisy so much as accept it as part of human behavior. In general, people will forego their principles when they believe they need something. The example you gave shows that parents at least partially acknowledge that a CI doesn't make a deaf child completely hearing. But that goes both ways and Deaf should be able to acknowledge that also-- even for a young child.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking over words, but "oppression" seems too extreme. There isn't some mass conspiracy of hearing people with deaf children who want to eradicate Deaf culture. Deaf people get offended at the notion that a deaf child needs to be "fixed" because it implies that Deaf people are somehow "broken". Well to be fair, our ears are physiologically defective. That doesn't mean we don't lead normal lives, but how can you expect a hearing person to completely understand that? It's very common for children born with a physical abnormality to undergo surgery or treatment to attempt to correct it. I don't see how this is different.
As for your view of limitations in society, I completely agree. But notice that there are far more tall people than deaf people. This is a problem that all minority groups (not just racial) face daily. To put it bluntly, hearing people have no reason to care about the needs of deaf people, and they never will. Lest we forget the doctrine of "majority rules".
I don't think it's unreasonable for a fast food restaurant to accommodate me in the drive-thru, but then again I'm capable of walking inside to be served. While you're sitting at the drive-thru window arguing entitlement, think of the other people you're inconveniencing. People want "equal" treatment but you're willing to take it at the expense of others, and that sounds more like special treatment to me. Maybe you wouldn't do this, but I've seen it happen and it makes us all look really bad.
And I've heard the argument that all we want is respect. Well if you have to demand respect, then you're automatically undeserving of it. If you deserved it, then you'd already have it. Respect is a reverse motion: someone else shows you respect. So if you want respect from a person or a group of people, then you have to *earn* it. How are we earning respect from the hearing world?
Some things are worth complaining about (closed captioning, hearing aid insurance, accessible interpreters, etc). But I think we as a community need to determine what's really important and fight *those* battles, rather than complaining about every little inconvenience. While we worked toward a better future, we must accept the reality that certain barriers still exist. And the CI can help children overcome those barriers.
Cheers!
rj,
To comment in reverse, I have long been an advocate of choosing your battles, so I agree with the principle you put forward. Of course, agreeing on which battles to make a first priority can be tough. ;-)
As for respect - this more often has to do with who has the power in an encounter. What is often called "respect" is really an acknowledgement of where the power lies. This is true everywhere from corporate board rooms to street gangs. I myself have occasionally been known to play this game by reminding someone of my title as proper form of address, though truly, I never watch closely for use of my title unless someone plays the a$$ or tries to treat me like I'm beneath them. Then I'll slip in a reminder, along with noting the person's name and asking for his or her supervisor. So, yes, you could say I have demanded respect.
The other form of respect, freely given, is much rarer and almost never seen in public interchanges between people who do not already know each other. The only examples I can think of are displays of respect for members of the armed forces in uniform. You might even argue that this, too, is an acknowledgement of power, though it does not come across as that.
If we were to follow the example we have from hearing society, we would pool our resources to obtain selected positions of power and then force hearing people to accommodate us on our terms. I am not arguing that this is right, but this is the pattern we have. If we did this, would you not call it oppression?
To shift gears a bit, Hearing society has many examples of accommodation for each other that we do not even think about. Health insurance is one. The principle of “insurance” is to pool resources to assist with *unexpected*, *uncommon*, catastrophic events. Health "insurance" is really collective payment for common, reasonably expectable, sometimes catastrophic events. This collective payment is a form of accommodation. In the past, most accommodations have been for the benefit of the (relatively) powerful and influential. I am merely arguing that the concept of accommodation needs to be extended to the (relatively) powerless and uninfluential, including us.
David
KIDS.. PLEASE PLAY NICE! The comments are intellegent but WHOA..! Lot of great discussion here.
Thanks!
Sherlock.
David,
I would argue that what you demanded was acknowledgement, and not respect. When addressing someone in a position of authority, we refer to the formalities as "respect". But to convey respect is to show honor or esteem, and so respect really is just an emotional response. In fact, showing respect to people you don't know would dilute the meaning of respect. How can I respect you if I don't know anything you? You must *do* something to earn my respect.
That's not to say you can't be *respectful* in that you give people the benefit of the doubt. I hold doors for people, address people as sir and ma'am, let the guy with two items cut me in line, and etc. But being courteous to a stranger is not he same as showing respect. We want respect as a community, but isn't our intolerance of CIs for young children showing *disrespect* for parents who are only looking out for their child's well-being? People are quick to judge, but until you walk a mile in a man's shoes...
If our community were to become the majority power, and then force accommodation then I don't think it's oppression at all. The intention would be to raise our own status without adversely affecting others. Oppression would keep hearing people beneath us, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. (I hope not anyway.)
I agree that accommodation should be extended to meet our needs, but where I think we differ is on exactly which direction the extension should come from. Being a small group, we lack the power of the majority. But we can still be influential, and in doing so become powerful. *Be* that inspirational story of the deaf person who overcame obstacles. You and I both know that's rubbish, but it would help improve our stature amongst hearing people. Sometimes perception is more important than reality.
The community preaches that deafness is not a disability because we can lead normal, productive lives. So on one hand we have that notion, and on the other we have this need to be accommodated. How can we be both self-sufficient and in need of assistance at the same time?
By reducing the need for accommodating (such as using a CI), we increase our independence. Think of the toy your brother only played with when you wanted it. If you ignore the toy for a while, then it's yours for the taking later.
Cheers!
Sherlock Steve:
I thought I was playing nice! Seriously - do you mean that I have been rude or discourteous? If so, I apologize and sincerely ask that you educate me further.
rj:
OK, I see you mean something different than I thought. However, I am a bit confused as to how this meaning fits with your earlier comment about not demanding respect. This meaning would seem to be mostly limited to private life, not public life.
Since we are explaining what we mean, when I was talking about "oppression", I was not limiting the meaning to planned, deliberate mistreatment, such as we saw in the former Yugoslavia. I was thinking of the casual, unthinking disregard for the harm that our actions and attitudes cause to others. An example of this is opposition to open captions at the movies. Open caption movies can be shown on existing equipment, so theater owners do not have to buy or install any new equipment. However, many theater owners resist showing open captions movies because some people *might* "not like the way the captions look". This harms other people who go to movies, and not just people we usually think of as deaf or hard of hearing. If my observations are at all representative, then there are an enormous number of people who cannot understand the dialog track at the movies. I consider the disregard of the people who do not "like" how open captions look to be oppressive in effect or result.
David
David, What I said before I was just warning that the discussion was getting out of hand a little bit, but I am very much amazed at the intellectual war between everyone! Keep it up. I love this discussion!
Semper FI!
Post a Comment