Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (4):337-349 (2001)
AbstractIn 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.
Similar books and articles
Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation.Rob Reuzel - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 2 (s 2-3):119-137.
Cochlear implants and the claims of culture? A response to Lane and Grodin.Dena S. Davis - 1997 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (3):253-258.
Can it be a good thing to be deaf?Rachel Cooper - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (6):563 – 583.
Philosophy's real-world consequences for deaf people: Thoughts on iconicity, sign language and being deaf.Ernst Thoutenhoofd - 2000 - Human Studies 23 (3):261-279.
Choosing deafness with PHD: an ethical way to carry on a cultural bloodline?S. Camporesi - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 19 (1):86-96.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Intervening in the brain: Changing psyche and society.Dirk Hartmann, Gerard Boer, Jörg Fegert, Thorsten Galert, Reinhard Merkel, Bart Nuttin & Steffen Rosahl - 2007 - Springer.
The time of one's life: views of aging and age group justice.Nancy S. Jecker - 2021 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (1):1-14.
Hearing Parents’ Voices: Parental Refusal of Cochlear Implants and the Zone of Parental Discretion.Owen M. Bradfield - 2021 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 19 (1):143-150.
The moral case for sign language education.Julian Savulescu, Angela Morgan, Christopher Gyngell & Hilary Bowman-Smart - 2019 - Monash Bioethics Review 37 (3-4):94-110.
References found in this work
The child's right to an open future.Joel Feinberg - 2007 - In Randall R. Curren (ed.), Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Blackwell.
Genetic Dilemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future.Dena S. Davis - 1997 - Hastings Center Report 27 (2):7-15.
Deaf Culture, Cochlear Implants, and Elective Disability.Bonnie Poitras Tucker - 1998 - Hastings Center Report 28 (4):6-14.
Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child.Michael Grodin & Harlan Lane - 1997 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (3):231-251.