What the 42-years-deaf person said about her cochlear implant
After 42 years, woman hears for the first time popped up on Digg (here’s the Digg discussion, for what it’s worth - that is, not a lot).
Quotes from the story:
Initially there were deep concerns in the deaf community about the surgery. Some feared it would further define deafness as something broken that needed to be fixed.
This philosophical concern was diminished by the practical benefits of cochlear implants. Recipients were widely reporting the benefits to other deaf people. It worked too well to be argued away.
A second concern was more emotional. Some feared people with the implants would leave the deaf community and start identifying themselves as part of the hearing world.
Collins was well aware of all the debates. She did research, she spoke to friends and colleagues and doctors and ultimately found the decision not difficult.
“Since the initial controversy in the deaf community years ago, we have found that deaf people who become implanted don’t leave the deaf community,” she said. “They become deaf people with cochlear implants.”
The reason why Sherri Collins was aware about the controversy: she’s executive director of the Arizona Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
If she’s happy to have an implant, that seems like a good argument to me.
“I am most looking forward to hearing speech. Speech with clarity and nuance. And music. And to be able to understand the radio,” Collins said.
Yes, radio for the deaf is one of those definitions you’d use about other stuff.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- BBC programmes on deafness on 'Listen Again' (13 June 2005; score: 96.31%)
- 120 channels and everything on (12 April 2007; score: 94.38%)
- Cochlear implants: what it sounds like for someone who gets one (1 December 2008; score: 93.59%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
September 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I’m sure I’m being terribly rude here, but as far as I understood things, ears are meant for hearing, just like legs are meant for walking. If I broke my leg, I wouldn’t complain about a method to mend it. I think there’s a difference between saying deafness is something that needs to be fixed, and saying deaf people are a problem.
There’s me, leaping in, entirely uninformed on the issue. Apologies. Charles, feel free to delete the comment if it looks likely to start a flame war (although hopefully it won’t, as I’ve been careful not to slag off G4).
September 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
But the difference, particularly if you’re born deaf, is whether that’s a condition that needs to be “fixed”, or if it’s part of your identity. As I understand the argument, it’s that seeking cochlear implants implies that deafness is something to be repaired - whereas I liken CIs for the from-birth deaf as more like giving them superpowers, albeit when you’re already living on Krypton.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
If I understand your comment correctly, Charles, you are saying that a CI is for the empowerment of the Deaf, right?
And the 1st comment above is related to why people have issues with the CI, right?
For what it’s worth, the idea that you are proposing is correct: is Deaf an identity or is deaf a medical thing that has to be fixed? For many, the CI falls into the latter and makes it hard for kids to grow up.
As a father of a D/deaf son as well, I applaud your courage to undergo the surgery. It is not something my wife or I could have done; and don’t plan on unless our son decides he wants one in the future. Some of this could stem from the fact that my wife is also deaf and so neither she or I have the time constraints related to being able to learn sign language for the communication.
Good luck with baby3 and helping him/her to be a person and not see D/deafness as a handicap.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
@nick - just to clarify, it’s not me who’s having the surgery; baby3 has had. (Just wanted to clear that up.)
Yes, I do wonder whether our attitudes wouldn’t have been different - perhaps very different - if we, as parents, had both already been fluent in sign language.
I’ve got a table I’d been thinking of drawing - I’ll do it some time later and link back here, about risks vs rewards of the surgery.
We don’t see baby3’s hearing as a handicap. It’s just part of who he is. As is his CI, now.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
@Charles–I apologize for sounding as if I was thinking you were the one having the surgery; I meant to
come across as I knew it was baby3 with the CI.
Also, as someone who has worked with the D/deaf for several years, congrats on not seeing the hearing as a handicap but as part of who he is.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
“… Some feared people with the implants would leave the deaf community and start identifying themselves as part of the hearing world.”
Oh … for f**** sake! I was blind until I had a simple cataract operation … it is a social injustice that such healing operations are not universally available in the continent of Africa. “leave the deaf community …” and what? Join the human race? It is what is inside a person that makes them special and part of a community. Not if they are deaf, blind or disabled. Any community where admission is limited to those with particular physical attributes, whether use of a wheelchair or blindness, is a community based on bullsh1t. No person asked, as a baby, to be fat, blind, tall or deaf. Disabled people who talk of their “special communities” are only reinforcing the limitations which bigots may see in them. Let’s all be part of the worldwide human race.