Cochlear implant/Deaf World dispute: Different bottom elephants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the controversy between the proponents of cochlear implantation in children and the Deaf World opponents with the hope of offering a method for decreasing the acrimony of opposing positions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING (METHODS): The opposing arguments will be presented from a review of pertinent literature. The systemic philosophic process of bottom elephant analysis will be elucidated. Contrasting models of power will be described.

RESULTS: The application of the bottom elephant analysis of each group's position plus a paradigm shift in the utilization of power offers possibilities for the implementation of mutually respectful dialogue that does not undermine each group's stature.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Philosophic analysis and paradigm shift could lead to improvement in the interaction of cochlear implant proponents and Deaf World opponents.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lane

Grodin

Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: An exploration into disease, disability and the best interests of the child. Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal. 1997; 7:231–51.

Bertling

A child sacrificed to the deaf culture. Wilsonville (OR): Kodiak Media Group; 1994. p. 81, 90.

Lane

The mask of benevolence. New York: Vintage Books; 1993.

Balkany

Hodges

Goodman

Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;114:748–55.

Lane

Bahan

Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;119:297–313.

Engelhardt

The foundation of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 197.

Kopelman

Veatch

, ed. Medical ethics, 2nd ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett; 1997. p. 313.

Davis

Cochlear implants and the claims of culture? a response to Lane and Grodin. Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal 1997;7:253–8.

Early identification of hearing impairment in infants and young children. National Institutes of Health consensus statement 1992. 1992; 11:1–12.

10.

Waltzman

Cohen

Cochlear implantation in children younger than two years old. Am J Otol 1998;19:158–62.

11.

Clark

Cochlear implants in the third millennium. Am J Otol 1999;20:4–8.

12.

Tye-Murray

Spencer

Woodworth

Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience. J Speech Hearing Research 1995;38:327–37.

13.

Robbins et al. Children with implants can speak, but can they communicate? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:156–60.

14.

Nikolopoulos

O'Donoghue

Archbold

Age at implantation: Its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 1999;109:595–9.

15.

Robinson

Implications of developmental plasticity for the language acquisition of deaf children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1998;46:71–80.

16.

Balkany

A brief perspective on cochlear implants. N Eng J Med 1993;328:181–2.

17.

Balkany

Hodges

A.V.

Misleading the deaf community about cochlear implantation in children. Ann Otolaryngol 1995; 104(suppl 116):148–9.

18.

Stewart

Debunking the bilingual/bicultural snow job in the American deaf community. In: Garretson

, ed. Viewpoints on deafness: a deaf American monograph Silver Spring: 1992; p. 130.

19.

Geertz

The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc; 1973.

20.

Loomer

Two kinds of power. Criterion 1976;15:10–29.