Skip to main content
Log in

Ethical Dimension of Paediatric Cochlear Implantation

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In congenitally or prelingually deaf childrencochlear implantation is open to seriousethical challenge. The ethical dimension ofthis technology is closely related to both asocial standard of quality of life and to theuncertainty of the overall results of cochlearimplantation. Uncertainty with regards theacquisition of oral communicative skills.However, in the western world, available datasuggest that deafness is associated with thelowest educational level and the lowest familyincome. Notwithstanding the existence of aDeaf-World, deafness should be considered as ahandicap. Therefore, society should provide themeans for the fulfilment of a deaf child'sspecific needs.For the time being there is no definitiveanswer with regard the best way to rehabilitatea particular deaf child. Therefore,communitarian values may be acceptable. If thedeaf child parents' decide not to implant,their decision should be respected. Guardiansare entitled to determine which standard ofbest interest to use in a specificcircumstance. They are the proper judges ofwhat (re)habilitation process is best for theirdeaf child. However, most deaf children areborn to two hearing parents. Probably, theywill not be acculturated in the Deaf-World. Itfollows that cochlear implantation is awelcomed (re)habilitation technology.If auditory (re)habilitation will in the futureprovide the necessary communicative skills, inparticular oral language acquisition, customs,values and attitudes of the hearing worldshould be regarded as necessary to accomplish adeaf child's right to an open future. Ifcochlear implantation technology will provideall deaf children with the capacity to developacceptable oral communicative skills –whatever the hearing status of the family andthe cultural environment – then auditory(re)habilitation will be an ethical imperative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Morell R, Kim H, Hood L, et al. Mutations in the connexin 26 gene (GJB2) among Ashkenazi Jews with nonsyndromic recessive deafness. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1500–1505.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Steel K. A new era in the genetics of deafness. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1545–1547.

    Google Scholar 

  3. As reported, for instance, by the California Department of Rehabilitation. See Harris J, Anderson J, Novak R. An outcome study of cochlear implants in deaf patients. Archives of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 1995; 121: 398–404.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Comité Consultatif National D'Éthique Pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé: Avis sur l'implant cochleaire chez l'enfant sourd pré-lingual, Décembre, 1994.

  5. Lane H, Hoffmeister R, Bahan B. A Journey into the Deaf-World. San Diego: DawnSign Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. NAD (National Association of the Deaf). Cochlear Implants in Children. A position paper of the National Association of the Deaf. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1993.

  7. Rose D, Vernon M, Pool A. Cochlear implants in prelingually deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf 1996; 141: 258–261.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lane H. The Mask of Benevolence – Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lane H, Grodin M. Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: An exploration into disease, disability, and the best interests of the child. Kennedy Inst Eth J 1997; 7: 231–251.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kemp P, Rendtorff J. Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. Report to the European Commission of the Biomed II-Project, Basic Ethical Principles in Bioethics and Biolaw 1995–1998. Centre for Ethics and Law, Copenhagen, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Callahan D. Bioethics. In Reich W, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York, Macmillan Library Reference USA: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nelson H, Nelson J. Family. In Reich W, ed. Bioethics: Sex; Genetics and Human Reproduction, Macmillan Compendium. New York, Macmillan Library Reference USA: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Engelhardt T. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  15. There is no scientific data with regard this issue. However, the quality of life of a deaf child may be associated to his or her psychosocial behaviour and, therefore, to the degree of familial and social adaptation. As stated by Furth, and although this author acknowledges the difference between being acculturated in a deaf environment or a hearing one, “the point ... is rather to stress that their (deaf youngsters) psychological responses to these challenges as a rule are quite adequate to lead to the development of an autonomous, intellectually and socially mature adult. ” See Furth H. Psychosocial behavior. In Van Cleve JV, ed. Gallaudet Encyclopedia of Deaf People and Deafness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lane H. When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The British Deaf Association. Policy on Cochlear Implants. Carlisle: The British Deaf Association, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Danish Deaf Association and World Federation of the Deaf Position Paper on Cochlear Implants, October, 1993.

  19. Tucker B. Deaf culture, cochlear implants and elective disability. Hastings Center Report 1998; 28: 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lane H, Bahan B. Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1998; 119: 297–307.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davis D. Genetic dilemmas and the child's right to an open future. Hastings Center Report 1997; 27: 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Davis D. Cochlear implants and the claims of culture? A response to Lane and Grodin. Kennedy Inst Eth J 1997; 7: 253–258.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Balkany T, Hodges A, Goodman K. Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1996; 114: 748–755.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Feinberg J. The child's right to an open future. In William A and LaFollette, eds Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority and State Power. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, (1972).

  26. Te G, Hamilton M, Rizer F, Schatz K, Arkis P, Rose H. Early speech changes in children with multichannel cochlear implants. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1996; 115: 508–512.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nunes R. Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1998; 118: 421.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nottingham Paediatric Cochlear Implant Program. Progress Report. Outcomes for Paediatric Cochlear Implantation in Nottingham: Safe, Effective, Efficient. Nottingham Paediatric Cochlear Implant Program, 1997.

  29. Balkany T, Hodges A, Goodman K. Additional comments to “Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective”. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1998; 119: 312–313.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holden L, Skinner M, Holden T. Speech recognition with the MPEAK and SPEAK speech-coding strategies of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1997; 116: 163–167.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Crouch R. Letting the deaf be deaf. Reconsidering the use of cochlear implants in prelingually deaf children. Hastings Center Report 1997; 27: 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shannon R. Review of “Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective”. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 1998; 119: 308–309.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Quittner A. Cochlear implants in children: A study of parental stress and adjustment. Am J Otology 1991; 12(Supplement): 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pollard R. Conceptualizing and conducting preoperative psychological assessments of cochlear implant candidates. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1996; 1(1): 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nunes, R. Ethical Dimension of Paediatric Cochlear Implantation. Theor Med Bioeth 22, 337–349 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011810303045

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011810303045

Navigation