Being deaf does have many disadvantages in my opinion. I don’t feel like classifying deafness as a disability reflects the hearing population’s prejudices at all. Disability is defined as a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. A person who is deaf is lacking their sense of hearing. I suppose some may find the word “disability” harsh or offensive but I feel like it is not or never was intended to be. Gregory’s parents should (in my opinion) pursue cochlear implant surgery to promote his long term interests. While he may achieve everything he sets his mind to as a deaf individual, why not give him the ability to hear. He will grow up with deaf parents and more than likely be proficient in ASL as well as language and articulation. I feel like this child will have many more opportunities being able to hear and communicate with the deaf and the hearing population.
The case study mentions the fact that the parent’s considered waiting until he is old enough to make his own decision however the success rates are much higher when performed during infancy. In the essay by Ruth Macklin, Ethical relativism in a multicultural society, she talks about other cultures where often one family member will make all decisions for other members of the family. She gives an example that for a new diagnoses of cancer for example, that in some cultures, the physicians are expected to tell the designated family member first and let them decide whether to inform the patient with the newly diagnosed cancer. Now, I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it is related to this case study in a way that parents are responsible for their child. A decision such as this would fall into their hands (even at fifteen years old) unless he was an adult fully capable of making such an important decision.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
In my opinion, waiting until the child is 10-15 as the parents considered, would be a disservice to him. If the chances are greater for success within the first few years then I say go for it if you know that is what you want. not to mention, I am not sure about the decision making skills of a 10 year old.
I cannot imagine being deaf, or having any other disability for that matter. I do have an Aunt and Uncle that are both hearing, but have 5 children and 3 of them are deaf. They are all older and this was not an option for them. Growing up with them I will say that our relationships are limited due to our limited ability to communicate. We all did learn to sign the basics but not enough to truly get to know each other on a better level. In reference to the case, I think it is ridiculous that the couples friends will make them feel guilty. the child will still be deaf, and still have limitations, but he will have more options. Not to mention, the safety of being able to hear in certain situations.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
The safety issue was something I hadn't even thought about. Great point! I believe that alone would convince me as a parent to do the surgery. I wouldn't want to risk the safety of my child from not hearing some danger that could be avoided with the implant.
I agree Jess if you had someone like a child in your life that was deaf you would make it your mission to help them hear like cochlear implants and if they couldn't hear you would learn to sign. Also I agree with the safety concern we don't always think about what would happen if one of our senses were taken away.
This case touches on a subject I have not heard before. The deaf community's feeling about deafness being considered a disability as a reflection of the hearing community's prejudice. I understand the many achievements of the deaf community and the pride they take in their shared language, ASL and Deaf culture. I have just never heard of it put in such a way that hearing would not be sought after. A cochlear implant is an amazing technology that can help the deaf to hear better if not completely. I personally knew a little girl who had this surgery as a baby. She remained hearing impaired but with improvements. She and her family use sign language and the spoken word for communication with her. I never saw this as a detriment to her. As Ruth Macklin's article regarding ethical relativism in our multicultural society, she points out diversity requires physicians to be respectful of patient's differing beliefs. The McGs in the case study feel conflict now due to the pressure of their friends opinions. Being deaf is regarded as objectively disadvantageous, but subjectively maybe not so much. I do not think this is based on a prejudice, but the issue of an impairment being a disability. Possibly it would be better placed in a classification of minority; which also requires some special attention. I think the decision to have the surgery as Gregory as an infant, could offer him some special advantages that is helpful. In addition to all that the deaf community can offer, he likely would be as successful in society as anyone else.
Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. Thomas Mappes, David DeGrazia, Jeffrey Brand-Ballard, eds.
I agree with you, Gloria. I think deaf pride is wonderful, and I would never have imagined, and have not seen, any prejudice by the hearing against the deaf. I really feel this seems like a self-imposed prejudice by their "friends", and I'm dumbfounded they would pressure them to deny Gregory the chance to hear.
If Sean and Mary McG decide to have cochlear implant surgery for their 1-year-old son who was born deaf, I think there is no problem with it. Both parents were born deaf and this kind of technology was unavailable to them. I am sure they grew up dealing with the hardship the disability may cause. As parents you want to do everything you can to protect your child and provide them things that you may not have had. Even if Gregory is enabled partial hearing and speech comprehension, he will still learn ALS to communicate with his parents and others in the deaf community. The cochlear implants may further his opportunities as he gets older and allow him to expand and improve his life. He may become an interpreter for ASL and still have pride in his shared culture and language. The sooner the implants are placed the greater chance of reducing the effects of deafness. The only real argument I can think of against the implants would be that Gregory is only 1 and cannot decide for himself if he wants the surgery. Who’s to say that as he grows older he will or will not share the viewpoint of his parent’s deaf friends. He may decide that he does not want to conform to the majority of the hearing world and may wish to immerse himself in the Deaf culture. Ruth Macklin points out in her essay Ethical relativism in a multicultural society that there are critics of the narrow focus that the US has on autonomy and individual rights. These critics argue that most of the world embraces a value system that places the family, the community, or the society as a whole above the autonomy and needs of the individual person (Macklin, pg. 132). I personally have very limited experience with deaf individuals and have no knowledge of Deaf culture and lifestyle. Perhaps they view the someone who gets implants as a traitor to the deaf community. No one wants a child to feel left out or ostracized from a group.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
It is true, a baby cannot decide for himself, that's why his parents must. A decision for him to have the implant surgery does not have to be bad or good, but just a decision of what they want for their child. I believe that whether he has the surgery or not, he would likely have the same training from his parents and the deaf community that would allow him to succeed and flourish in his life like anyone else
The desire that Sean and Mary McG have to get cochlear implants for their infant child, Gregory, tells us that they do feel like they missed out on something by growing up deaf. If they felt that being deaf was an advantage and there was nothing to be gained by hearing, they would not desire this for their child. The case scenario clearly states they were enthusiastic about reducing the effects of deafness, which they consider a serious disability (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). They have lived the life of deafness and they have a true understanding of it, so their belief it might be advantageous to their child has a great weight in the argument of how ethical this is. I feel the strongest argument that can be made is for Gregory to get the cochlear implants. They should not wait until he can make the decision himself, because success rates are much higher when takes place in the first few years of life (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). By waiting they would decrease the chance of beneficence and increase the chance of non-maleficence.
Sean and Mary are facing guilt from their deaf friends who feel they should subject this deafness upon their child, simply because they are deaf, and they are all part of a deaf community; these friends they feel by choosing to have cochlear implants for Gregory sends a message that being deaf in not okay, they are not proud of it, and they feel pressured to place their child in mainstream cultural guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not. If he has the implants, Gregory will still grow up in a deaf household, he will still learn ASL to communicate with his parents, and he can still take pride in his parent’s deafness and ASL. As highlighted in Maclin’s essay, mainstream bioethics often apply a narrow focus on autonomy and individual rights. “Critics argue that much-if not most- of the world embraces a value system that places the family, the community, or the society as a whole above that of the individual person” (Brand-Ballard et al, 2011, p. 132). If Sean and Mary choose to not get the implants because of the pressure they feel from their deaf community/ society, they are allowing their principle of autonomy to be violated, and in turn, they are violating Gregory’s (implied) autonomy. The essay further goes to quote American sociologist Renee Fox who further explains “the conceptual framework of bioethics has accorded paramount status to the value-complex of individualism, underscoring individual rights, autonomy, self-determination, and their legal expression in the jurisprudential notion of privacy” (Brand-Ballard et al, 2011, p. 132-133). By listening to their friends, Sean and Mary, will allow Gregory’s individual right to be raised without deafness, his autonomy and self-determination, and the family’s right to make this decision in privacy to be blatantly violated. I also think the friends want Gregory grow up deaf just so they do not feel like there is something wrong with themselves because his parents would choose for him to have hearing. These so-called friends are violating Kant’s ethical theory of deontology. They are treating Gregory as a means only; they are treating him as a means to make their statement against mainstream culture, which they feel looks down on them for being deaf. They are not treating Gregory as an individual, as an ends, a child who will benefit greatly, and experience many pleasures his parents did not, because of deafness. They are also violating the ethical principle of justice; it is not fair for Gregory to be sentenced to deafness simply because they all have been.
The only arguments I can verbalize against the cochlear implants is the fact stated that they do not always enable partial hearing and speech comprehension (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). To have such a young child undergo a surgical procedure that might not benefit him. There is a very small question of non-maleficence versus beneficence with that scenario. If the implants did not help Gregory was the risk during the procedure and the post post-procedure worth the failed chance of benefit from them.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
I think of the five senses we were given, I can not imagine being able to hear the sounds around me. Those that are deaf are not at a intellectual disadvantage. They have surely overcome their disability if you look at individuals such as Helen Keller and Beethoven. I still consider it a disadvantage to those affected. Many of our society do not feel comfortable around deaf people and do not try to communicate with them. Some door are closed due to this disability. While we continue to make concessions for these individuals, I feel they are still limited in their opportunities. Medical personnel as ourselves quickly assess and identify anything out of the ordinary. I see the reactions people have when they watch two deaf people communicate with sign language. They have a look of disdain for these people due to their prejudices that they are not normal in their eyes. We see them more for who we are due to the dealing with handicapped people every day. The parents considering the implants leads me to believe it would be best for Gregory. They live with this disability and understand the ramifications. From the article I do not believe they would of had second thoughts if not for talking to some of their deaf friends. I would want to make sure of the reasons are valid for not getting the implants. I would want to offer any chance to my child the gift of hearing if it is possible. The technology will continue to improve. What is the advantage of Gregory being deaf?
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
I agree, the parents actually live with this disability so they more than anyone know the challenges their child will face that they could possible prevent.
I believe that the parents know best of what they want for their child and getting their son cochlear implants would give him a greater chance of having more opportunities in his life because he would have fewer barriers to overcome. I don't believe that deaf people aren't at a disadvantage but they do have barriers to get past and the obvious one is a communication barrier. I believe that with hard work they can over come those barriers. With the parents deaf friends advocating against him getting cochlear implants just because he may have the ability to hear doesn't mean he won't embrace deaf culture and American sign language He will have to use sign language with his parents on a daily basis. Overall I believe if you have the opportunity to enhance or better your child's life you should do it.
Perhaps his parents should consider different friends. I know that I would want people around me that would encourage and support me. I understand that people may have different opinions, but to criticize the parents for trying to improve the quality of life for their son seems to be the opposite of supportive.
All parents want what is best for their children. I think getting cochlear implants for their son is the parents attempt to do what is best for him. It is giving him the possible opportunity to hear and comprehend the spoken word. I'm shocked that the deaf community would criticize their efforts to try to give their son something they never had. If their son has the surgery and it is successful, he will be able to speak English and also be able to learn to sign. He maybe at a disadvantage at first because his parents can't speak, but I'm sure there are resources available to the parents for speech therapy for their son after the implants. I don't have an argument against the surgery because I think the surgery is in the best interest of the child.
Well put, Tracy. This could actually be a great growth opportunity for his parents as well, ad they would be pushed out of their comfort zone and they might take advantage of their English spoken language more as well.
I guess it is just all personal preference. My husband and I could think that being deaf is an adversity that our child could overcome and while Tracy you may think that it is not. There is no reason to judge anyone at all regardless of their choices. It is just a free world and no judgement should be passed on things like this. But I guess we wouldn't have ethics if there were not issues like this for us to discuss. :)
No judgements here. I was just stating that I thought the implants would be in his best interest. It would be a chance to allow the child to hear. A chance that his parents didn't have. I always wanted to give my children more than I had. That's how I was looking at it. No judgement either way. :)
I would classify deafness as a disability and at times being disadvantageous. I do not think that this is because of any prejudices from the hearing community. I think that they are impaired as many others with certain things such as blindness. I do believe that the people of the deaf community do not let that define them. They strive to further themselves in many ways such as other cultures and communities. I admire that they can communicate through sign language and body language without having the ability to hear. I do feel that the cochlear implant would benefit Gregory and his long term interests and goals. I do not feel that by the parents wanting this great opportunity has anything to do with them not being proud of being deaf. They have come accustom to this and have embraced it. Nothing says their son cant still embrace that language. After all he is still going to have to communicate with them in that language. I do feel they have their sons best interests in mind. As medical professionals we should act accordingly of course and respect what is wanted and be sensitive to other cultures and beliefs. As Ruth Macklin discusses promoting the value of diversity and all cultural groups be treated with respect as equals (Brand-Ballard, 2011). The friends of the couple need to not pass judgement on someone trying to better their child and take some of the hardships away.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
I agree Ashley, I think that being deaf is a disability. According to our healthcare anything that is out of the norm is a disability. And I think that the people who are deaf in society actually function better who "play the system and are immoral and use things that they could work with to their advantage as a disability. When we have people out there with actual disabilities who work through their obstacles everyday.
I have always said that I would rather be deaf than blind. The reasoning behind that is because you can at lease see what you are talking to or talking about. We have other ways of communicating with deaf people. Absolutely I think that this is disability however there are ways around it. Think of all the other disabilities that you could have that could be worse. I do know thought no being able to hear my parents say they love me or my future husband say I do could be taught but like I said there is another language that it could be communicated through. I do not think that them having a cochlear implant is immoral. I am a FIRM believer that the parents know what is best for the child, they are the ones who decided to bring this child into the world and they are the parents for a reason. For reasons like this is why we have parents to make decisions for us when we are unable. I think that the friends couple should not pass judgement due to that they don't understand and even if they do understand they should allow their friends to make a decision with out their opinion.
Being deaf does have many disadvantages in my opinion. I don’t feel like classifying deafness as a disability reflects the hearing population’s prejudices at all. Disability is defined as a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. A person who is deaf is lacking their sense of hearing. I suppose some may find the word “disability” harsh or offensive but I feel like it is not or never was intended to be. Gregory’s parents should (in my opinion) pursue cochlear implant surgery to promote his long term interests. While he may achieve everything he sets his mind to as a deaf individual, why not give him the ability to hear. He will grow up with deaf parents and more than likely be proficient in ASL as well as language and articulation. I feel like this child will have many more opportunities being able to hear and communicate with the deaf and the hearing population.
ReplyDeleteThe case study mentions the fact that the parent’s considered waiting until he is old enough to make his own decision however the success rates are much higher when performed during infancy. In the essay by Ruth Macklin, Ethical relativism in a multicultural society, she talks about other cultures where often one family member will make all decisions for other members of the family. She gives an example that for a new diagnoses of cancer for example, that in some cultures, the physicians are expected to tell the designated family member first and let them decide whether to inform the patient with the newly diagnosed cancer. Now, I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it is related to this case study in a way that parents are responsible for their child. A decision such as this would fall into their hands (even at fifteen years old) unless he was an adult fully capable of making such an important decision.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
In my opinion, waiting until the child is 10-15 as the parents considered, would be a disservice to him. If the chances are greater for success within the first few years then I say go for it if you know that is what you want. not to mention, I am not sure about the decision making skills of a 10 year old.
DeleteWell stated. They should pursue it now. Why wait until he's that old.
DeleteThanks Erin. I enjoyed reading your position.
DeleteI cannot imagine being deaf, or having any other disability for that matter. I do have an Aunt and Uncle that are both hearing, but have 5 children and 3 of them are deaf. They are all older and this was not an option for them. Growing up with them I will say that our relationships are limited due to our limited ability to communicate. We all did learn to sign the basics but not enough to truly get to know each other on a better level.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the case, I think it is ridiculous that the couples friends will make them feel guilty. the child will still be deaf, and still have limitations, but he will have more options. Not to mention, the safety of being able to hear in certain situations.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
The safety issue was something I hadn't even thought about. Great point! I believe that alone would convince me as a parent to do the surgery. I wouldn't want to risk the safety of my child from not hearing some danger that could be avoided with the implant.
DeleteYes, definitely a safety concern should play a factor in the decision making process as well.
DeleteI agree Jess if you had someone like a child in your life that was deaf you would make it your mission to help them hear like cochlear implants and if they couldn't hear you would learn to sign. Also I agree with the safety concern we don't always think about what would happen if one of our senses were taken away.
DeleteI never though if the safety issues either. I can not believe others would make them feel guilty for considering it!
Delete
ReplyDeleteThis case touches on a subject I have not heard before. The deaf community's feeling about deafness being considered a disability as a reflection of the hearing community's prejudice. I understand the many achievements of the deaf community and the pride they take in their shared language, ASL and Deaf culture. I have just never heard of it put in such a way that hearing would not be sought after. A cochlear implant is an amazing technology that can help the deaf to hear better if not completely. I personally knew a little girl who had this surgery as a baby. She remained hearing impaired but with improvements. She and her family use sign language and the spoken word for communication with her. I never saw this as a detriment to her.
As Ruth Macklin's article regarding ethical relativism in our multicultural society, she points out diversity requires physicians to be respectful of patient's differing beliefs. The McGs in the case study feel conflict now due to the pressure of their friends opinions. Being deaf is regarded as objectively disadvantageous, but subjectively maybe not so much. I do not think this is based on a prejudice, but the issue of an impairment being a disability. Possibly it would be better placed in a classification of minority; which also requires some special attention. I think the decision to have the surgery as Gregory as an infant, could offer him some special advantages that is helpful. In addition to all that the deaf community can offer, he likely would be as successful in society as anyone else.
Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. Thomas Mappes, David DeGrazia, Jeffrey Brand-Ballard, eds.
I agree with you, Gloria. I think deaf pride is wonderful, and I would never have imagined, and have not seen, any prejudice by the hearing against the deaf. I really feel this seems like a self-imposed prejudice by their "friends", and I'm dumbfounded they would pressure them to deny Gregory the chance to hear.
DeleteIf Sean and Mary McG decide to have cochlear implant surgery for their 1-year-old son who was born deaf, I think there is no problem with it. Both parents were born deaf and this kind of technology was unavailable to them. I am sure they grew up dealing with the hardship the disability may cause. As parents you want to do everything you can to protect your child and provide them things that you may not have had. Even if Gregory is enabled partial hearing and speech comprehension, he will still learn ALS to communicate with his parents and others in the deaf community. The cochlear implants may further his opportunities as he gets older and allow him to expand and improve his life. He may become an interpreter for ASL and still have pride in his shared culture and language. The sooner the implants are placed the greater chance of reducing the effects of deafness.
ReplyDeleteThe only real argument I can think of against the implants would be that Gregory is only 1 and cannot decide for himself if he wants the surgery. Who’s to say that as he grows older he will or will not share the viewpoint of his parent’s deaf friends. He may decide that he does not want to conform to the majority of the hearing world and may wish to immerse himself in the Deaf culture. Ruth Macklin points out in her essay Ethical relativism in a multicultural society that there are critics of the narrow focus that the US has on autonomy and individual rights. These critics argue that most of the world embraces a value system that places the family, the community, or the society as a whole above the autonomy and needs of the individual person (Macklin, pg. 132). I personally have very limited experience with deaf individuals and have no knowledge of Deaf culture and lifestyle. Perhaps they view the someone who gets implants as a traitor to the deaf community. No one wants a child to feel left out or ostracized from a group.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
It is true, a baby cannot decide for himself, that's why his parents must. A decision for him to have the implant surgery does not have to be bad or good, but just a decision of what they want for their child. I believe that whether he has the surgery or not, he would likely have the same training from his parents and the deaf community that would allow him to succeed and flourish in his life like anyone else
DeleteThe desire that Sean and Mary McG have to get cochlear implants for their infant child, Gregory, tells us that they do feel like they missed out on something by growing up deaf. If they felt that being deaf was an advantage and there was nothing to be gained by hearing, they would not desire this for their child. The case scenario clearly states they were enthusiastic about reducing the effects of deafness, which they consider a serious disability (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). They have lived the life of deafness and they have a true understanding of it, so their belief it might be advantageous to their child has a great weight in the argument of how ethical this is. I feel the strongest argument that can be made is for Gregory to get the cochlear implants. They should not wait until he can make the decision himself, because success rates are much higher when takes place in the first few years of life (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). By waiting they would decrease the chance of beneficence and increase the chance of non-maleficence.
ReplyDeleteSean and Mary are facing guilt from their deaf friends who feel they should subject this deafness upon their child, simply because they are deaf, and they are all part of a deaf community; these friends they feel by choosing to have cochlear implants for Gregory sends a message that being deaf in not okay, they are not proud of it, and they feel pressured to place their child in mainstream cultural guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not. If he has the implants, Gregory will still grow up in a deaf household, he will still learn ASL to communicate with his parents, and he can still take pride in his parent’s deafness and ASL.
As highlighted in Maclin’s essay, mainstream bioethics often apply a narrow focus on autonomy and individual rights. “Critics argue that much-if not most- of the world embraces a value system that places the family, the community, or the society as a whole above that of the individual person” (Brand-Ballard et al, 2011, p. 132). If Sean and Mary choose to not get the implants because of the pressure they feel from their deaf community/ society, they are allowing their principle of autonomy to be violated, and in turn, they are violating Gregory’s (implied) autonomy. The essay further goes to quote American sociologist Renee Fox who further explains “the conceptual framework of bioethics has accorded paramount status to the value-complex of individualism, underscoring individual rights, autonomy, self-determination, and their legal expression in the jurisprudential notion of privacy” (Brand-Ballard et al, 2011, p. 132-133). By listening to their friends, Sean and Mary, will allow Gregory’s individual right to be raised without deafness, his autonomy and self-determination, and the family’s right to make this decision in privacy to be blatantly violated. I also think the friends want Gregory grow up deaf just so they do not feel like there is something wrong with themselves because his parents would choose for him to have hearing. These so-called friends are violating Kant’s ethical theory of deontology. They are treating Gregory as a means only; they are treating him as a means to make their statement against mainstream culture, which they feel looks down on them for being deaf. They are not treating Gregory as an individual, as an ends, a child who will benefit greatly, and experience many pleasures his parents did not, because of deafness. They are also violating the ethical principle of justice; it is not fair for Gregory to be sentenced to deafness simply because they all have been.
(Continued in comments below)
(Continued from above)
DeleteThe only arguments I can verbalize against the cochlear implants is the fact stated that they do not always enable partial hearing and speech comprehension (Brand-Ballard et al, p. 712-713). To have such a young child undergo a surgical procedure that might not benefit him. There is a very small question of non-maleficence versus beneficence with that scenario. If the implants did not help Gregory was the risk during the procedure and the post post-procedure worth the failed chance of benefit from them.
Macklin, Ruth (2011). Ethical Relativism in a Multicultural Society. Biomedical ethics. Page 132-141. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
I think of the five senses we were given, I can not imagine being able to hear the sounds around me. Those that are deaf are not at a intellectual disadvantage. They have surely overcome their disability if you look at individuals such as Helen Keller and Beethoven. I still consider it a disadvantage to those affected. Many of our society do not feel comfortable around deaf people and do not try to communicate with them. Some door are closed due to this disability. While we continue to make concessions for these individuals, I feel they are still limited in their opportunities. Medical personnel as ourselves quickly assess and identify anything out of the ordinary. I see the reactions people have when they watch two deaf people communicate with sign language. They have a look of disdain for these people due to their prejudices that they are not normal in their eyes. We see them more for who we are due to the dealing with handicapped people every day.
ReplyDeleteThe parents considering the implants leads me to believe it would be best for Gregory. They live with this disability and understand the ramifications. From the article I do not believe they would of had second thoughts if not for talking to some of their deaf friends. I would want to make sure of the reasons are valid for not getting the implants. I would want to offer any chance to my child the gift of hearing if it is possible. The technology will continue to improve. What is the advantage of Gregory being deaf?
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. New York, NY. MCGraw Hill.
Agree the parents know the struggle more than anyone! They just want to give him more opportunities.
DeleteI agree, the parents actually live with this disability so they more than anyone know the challenges their child will face that they could possible prevent.
ReplyDeleteYes the parents know the barriers deaf people have and know what's best for their child they should get him cochlear implants.
DeleteI believe that the parents know best of what they want for their child and getting their son cochlear implants would give him a greater chance of having more opportunities in his life because he would have fewer barriers to overcome. I don't believe that deaf people aren't at a disadvantage but they do have barriers to get past and the obvious one is a communication barrier. I believe that with hard work they can over come those barriers. With the parents deaf friends advocating against him getting cochlear implants just because he may have the ability to hear doesn't mean he won't embrace deaf culture and American sign language He will have to use sign language with his parents on a daily basis. Overall I believe if you have the opportunity to enhance or better your child's life you should do it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps his parents should consider different friends. I know that I would want people around me that would encourage and support me. I understand that people may have different opinions, but to criticize the parents for trying to improve the quality of life for their son seems to be the opposite of supportive.
DeleteAll parents want what is best for their children. I think getting cochlear implants for their son is the parents attempt to do what is best for him. It is giving him the possible opportunity to hear and comprehend the spoken word. I'm shocked that the deaf community would criticize their efforts to try to give their son something they never had. If their son has the surgery and it is successful, he will be able to speak English and also be able to learn to sign. He maybe at a disadvantage at first because his parents can't speak, but I'm sure there are resources available to the parents for speech therapy for their son after the implants. I don't have an argument against the surgery because I think the surgery is in the best interest of the child.
ReplyDeleteWell put, Tracy. This could actually be a great growth opportunity for his parents as well, ad they would be pushed out of their comfort zone and they might take advantage of their English spoken language more as well.
DeleteI guess it is just all personal preference. My husband and I could think that being deaf is an adversity that our child could overcome and while Tracy you may think that it is not. There is no reason to judge anyone at all regardless of their choices. It is just a free world and no judgement should be passed on things like this. But I guess we wouldn't have ethics if there were not issues like this for us to discuss. :)
DeleteNo judgements here. I was just stating that I thought the implants would be in his best interest. It would be a chance to allow the child to hear. A chance that his parents didn't have. I always wanted to give my children more than I had. That's how I was looking at it. No judgement either way. :)
DeleteI would classify deafness as a disability and at times being disadvantageous. I do not think that this is because of any prejudices from the hearing community. I think that they are impaired as many others with certain things such as blindness. I do believe that the people of the deaf community do not let that define them. They strive to further themselves in many ways such as other cultures and communities. I admire that they can communicate through sign language and body language without having the ability to hear.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that the cochlear implant would benefit Gregory and his long term interests and goals. I do not feel that by the parents wanting this great opportunity has anything to do with them not being proud of being deaf. They have come accustom to this and have embraced it. Nothing says their son cant still embrace that language. After all he is still going to have to communicate with them in that language. I do feel they have their sons best interests in mind.
As medical professionals we should act accordingly of course and respect what is wanted and be sensitive to other cultures and beliefs. As Ruth Macklin discusses promoting the value of diversity and all cultural groups be treated with respect as equals (Brand-Ballard, 2011). The friends of the couple need to not pass judgement on someone trying to better their child and take some of the hardships away.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
I agree Ashley, I think that being deaf is a disability. According to our healthcare anything that is out of the norm is a disability. And I think that the people who are deaf in society actually function better who "play the system and are immoral and use things that they could work with to their advantage as a disability. When we have people out there with actual disabilities who work through their obstacles everyday.
DeleteI have always said that I would rather be deaf than blind. The reasoning behind that is because you can at lease see what you are talking to or talking about. We have other ways of communicating with deaf people. Absolutely I think that this is disability however there are ways around it. Think of all the other disabilities that you could have that could be worse. I do know thought no being able to hear my parents say they love me or my future husband say I do could be taught but like I said there is another language that it could be communicated through. I do not think that them having a cochlear implant is immoral. I am a FIRM believer that the parents know what is best for the child, they are the ones who decided to bring this child into the world and they are the parents for a reason. For reasons like this is why we have parents to make decisions for us when we are unable. I think that the friends couple should not pass judgement due to that they don't understand and even if they do understand they should allow their friends to make a decision with out their opinion.
ReplyDelete