In individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss, the hearing mechanism, specifically the cochlea, does not function properly and is incapable of transmitting sound signals to be processed in the brain. However, a relatively recent medical innovation involving cochlear implants allows these individuals, who would otherwise be deaf, to perceive sound. Cochlear implantation is a safe procedure performed on individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss in which an electric device is surgically embedded behind the ear.
The cochlear implant acts as a transducer, collecting sound and converting it to an electrical signal that bypasses the defective hearing mechanism, and directly stimulates the acoustic nerve. The sound signal then continues throughout the central auditory system to be perceived as sound. Cochlear implantation has been utilized worldwide and has been performed over 300,000 times (Yawn, Hunter, Sweeney, & Bennett, 2015). While cochlear implantation may appear to be an uncontested, breakthrough innovation, there has been fierce controversy involved with it.
As characteristic of most controversial issues, the matter of cochlear implantation is greatly complex. The main dispute derives from the view that cochlear implants are a threat to deaf culture, and that being deaf is a disability. It is important to note that the controversy mostly lies in performing cochlear implantation in prelinguistic children, rather than in individuals who once had normal hearing and had already developed a language. This paper will identify the arguments of both sides of this controversial matter: those that are against cochlear implantation, and those that are for it.
Additionally, I will outline my personal view on this matter, which is that deafness is considered a disability and that performing cochlear implantation in prelingual children should be considered morally permissible. In addition to this, responses to potential objections to my view will be included. For those who possess an intact hearing mechanism, it might be difficult to comprehend why anyone would detest the procedure of cochlear implantation.
After all, hearing is a crucial sense that the majority of people fully utilize on a daily basis, whether it be listening to music, talking on the phone, waking up to an alarm clock, or conversing with others. Nonetheless, there are many that completely oppose cochlear implantation, especially in prelingual children. For one, cochlear implantation appears to endorse the notion that deafness is a disability, as it is performed with the intent to “fix” deafness. To obtain a better understanding of why the deaf might not want to be labeled as “disabled”, one should consider what a disability is.
Generally, a disability might be understood as a condition or missing capacity that is associated with disadvantages, thus hindering an individual’s quality of life and making it more difficult to function in society. A quadriplegic, for instance, would be considered disabled because they are incapable of walking and require certain accommodations, such as ramps and elevators. However, many find the term ‘disabled’ to be immensely inaccurate when applied to the context of deafness. This is because deaf people are completely capable of leading successful and happy lives without using spoken language.
In other words, since having a happy and successful life is fully attainable for deaf persons, they do not consider themselves to be disabled. Moreover, many deaf individuals claim they would prefer to remain deaf even if they had the option to attain hearing, and many deaf couples seek out genetic counseling in hopes of learning their children will be born deaf. If those that personally experience deafness prefer to be deaf, enjoy fulfilling lives, and desire their own children to be deaf, then it can be argued that deafness does not impede the lives of deaf persons, and cannot considered a disability (Sparrow, 2015).
Indeed, it is certainly unlikely that anyone would long for their child to be born with a disability, especially when it would place them at a disadvantage. Perhaps the strongest argument against cochlear implant technology is that it poses a threat to Deaf culture. The Deaf community has its own unique language, history, value system, institutions, and members that have shared similar experiences. Due to these things, many deaf individuals identify themselves as Deaf, with a capital D, as one might if they were Hispanic.
The issue with cochlear implantation is that if it becomes increasingly implemented in children that are born deaf, Deaf culture will die out because those children will become assimilated into the hearing community, rather than the Deaf community. Furthermore, about 90% of children born deaf have hearing parents. Since hearing parents have no inclination to appreciate Deaf culture, as they are not part of it, they are likely to favor cochlear implantation for their child (Sparrow, 2015). A final argument against cochlear implantation in prelingual children involves one’s place in society.
Some have argued that cochlear implants are not efficient enough for deaf children to fully develop spoken language as well as their hearing counterparts. In turn, the children with cochlear implants will struggle to reach the same communication milestones at the same time as their peers, causing them to become an outsider to the hearing community. In addition, those that have received cochlear implants will also be outsiders to the Deaf community, as they are unlikely to accept an individual that has tried to assimilate themselves into the hearing world.
Consequently, it has been claimed that deaf children with cochlear implants will be incapable of finding their sense of belonging in this world (Crouch, 160). Contrary to those against cochlear implantation, many view cochlear implantation as a miraculous solution to an unfortunate circumstance. As mentioned, hearing is a capacity that most people depend on daily. However, hearing is even more crucial early in life, as it is an essential element in the development of language, social skills, and cognition.
With the aid of cochlear implants, prelingual deaf children have the opportunity to develop age-appropriate speech and language, which is a feat that was entirely unthinkable less than a century ago (Tucker, 1998). An additional argument held by those in favor of cochlear implantation involves the wide range of implications involved with deafness. For one, there are many financial expenses involved with being deaf. On a micro level, these expenses include the costs of special schools and universities for the deaf, interpreters, and even the costs of captioning.
On a macro level, it has been estimated deafness costs society over $2 billion for special accommodations, and more than $121. 8 billion for deaf education. Additional ramifications pertain to the education and employment of deaf persons. On average, deaf individuals have a fourth-grade reading capacity, one in three do not graduate from high school, few obtain a college education, unemployment is prominent, and deaf adults have a significantly lower income than their hearing counterparts (Tucker, 1998).
As discussed, the controversy of cochlear implants mostly stems from the concept that deafness is not a disability, but a culture, and that by performing cochlear implantation, Deaf culture is being directly attacked. If Deaf persons receive special accommodations like Social Security Disability Income, which is something only disabled persons are entitled to, then it cannot be argued that deaf persons are not considered disabled (Tucker, 1998).
Those in favor of cochlear implantation contend that even if being deaf is a culture rather than a disability, it is not the place of those in the Deaf community to ridicule parents that choose to give their deaf offspring cochlear implants. While Deaf persons might view the act of cochlear implantation as being detrimental to their culture, it is not the responsibility of hearing persons to maintain a culture that they are not a part of, nor welcome to (Davis, 1997). It is undeniable that society is structured in a way that serves the hearing population.
Take, for instance, the daily interactions that occur at restaurants, workplaces, sporting events, and other social settings. The ability to listen, understand, and interact with others is crucial in all of these situations. Due to this, deaf individuals often require the aid of others to interact effectively with those that do not know sign language. While there has been increase in the awareness of the needs of the deaf population, and special services have been offered more frequently, it is simply disadvantageous to be deaf in this society.
That is not to say that deaf persons cannot achieve incredible goals and lead accomplished lives, it just makes it more difficult to attain. For example, consider a situation in which a big company is conducting interviews for a particular job position that would involve a lot of communication. Say there are two individuals that both have the same accomplishments, work ethic, ambition, and qualifications for the job, but one is deaf and only communicates through sign language.
It is likely that the individual probably would not be favored for the position, simply on the basis of being deaf, although, fortunately, there have been laws enacted that protect persons with disabilities from being disregarded in such situations. Even still, this scenario is unlikely to occur in the first place because the deaf individual probably would not have had the same opportunities as the hearing individual, and thus would not have the same qualifications. Many who strongly oppose cochlear implantation do not consider deafness to be a disability.
I maintain, however, that being deaf is indeed a disability. Although there are many definitions of a disability, a disability is generally understood as anything that hinders the functioning of an individual, whether it be due to a physical or mental condition, and puts them at a disadvantage. In deaf individuals, the hearing mechanism is impaired and does not function as it should. Moreover, the human body is designed to be capable of perceiving sound. Since deaf individuals are incapable of perceiving sound due to a physiological defect, they often face disadvantages in society.
It is due to this that I uphold the notion that deafness is a disability. Contrary to my view, one might argue that since deaf persons can have meaningful lives without hearing and do not consider themselves to be disabled, they are not disabled. While I would respect this contradiction, I would argue that since deafness is a condition that precisely concurs with the criteria under what is understood as a disability, it is still a disability. Additionally, there exists many disabled persons that have purposeful lives.
Consider an individual that moves to the United States from a foreign country to become a U. S. citizen. While he may not particularly accept the label of ‘immigrant’, he would still be considered one because he fits the criteria of what is generally understood as an immigrant. In addition to my argument that deafness is a disability, it is also important to consider the critical period in any child’s life. It is well established that the first years of life are absolutely crucial to the overall cognitive development of a child, but especially the development of speech and language.
By receiving cochlear implants early in infancy, a deaf child has a better chance of developing adequate receptive and expressive skills. Still, some who loathe cochlear implantation in prelingual children might claim that it is immoral because the infant have no choice in the matter, and if they were presented with the choice later in life, they would choose deafness over hearing. However, parents are bestowed with the wonderful burden of deciding what is best for their child.
If the parents were to wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves, the child would be deprived of the critical period and would have great strife in trying to assimilate to the implants. On the other hand, if the parents decide to get cochlear implants for their child early in infancy, then the child will be able to adjust much easier and will receive that imperative auditory input. Later in life, should the child decide they want to identify as Deaf, they can turn off the cochlear implants.
I feel it is better to provide the child with the opportunity of having a normal life, rather than waiting for them to decide on their own and missing the critical period. The only issue with this, which one might propose as a counterargument, is that the Deaf community likely would not accept that individual because they have been assimilated into the hearing world. Personally, I feel this mentality is extremely dangerous. It would be ludicrous to deny that Deaf culture exists all together, but I do not think it is healthy to only associate with people of the same culture.
For instance, as an individual from a small agricultural town, I would be considered close-minded if I only associated with others exactly like me that share similar backgrounds, for I would be separating myself from people of diverse cultures. There is nothing immoral about taking pride in one’s culture, but it is important to be accepting of all people, regardless of their cultural background. By exploring the controversial matter that is cochlear implantation, one will discover an exceptionally complex debate.
One the one hand, cochlear implants appear to be a threat to Deaf culture and potentially undermines the lives of Deaf persons, as the procedure is conducted with the intent to spare children from the despair of being deaf. This is an issue because Deaf persons cherish their deafness and actually prefer to be deaf. Moreover, labeling deafness as a disability, a word sometimes associated with a potent stigma, promotes the idea that those experiencing deafness do not have meaningful lives.
On the other hand, society is engineered for the hearing population, as the majority of persons have an intact hearing mechanism. To be deaf in this society results in costly accommodations and numerous disadvantages. In addition, some argue that it is not appropriate for the Deaf community to expect hearing parents of deaf children to refrain from getting cochlear implants solely for the purpose of preserving Deaf culture. Ultimately, it is solely the decision of parents to decide if their deaf child should undergo cochlear implantation, and I feel that they are not obligated to ensure that Deaf culture lives on.