To the Editor:
The two deaf mental health care professionals, who successfully procreated
a deaf child by using a deaf sperm donor are reported to have said, "A
hearing child would be a blessing; a deaf child would be a special
blessing" (1). Apparently, Mother Nature (or God, if you will) saw fit to
provide them with a son with partial/ residual hearing. This outcome was
predictable (if not poetic), and adds a further dimension to the ethical
dilemma.
For, (I believe), the subsequent refusal of the parents to allow treatment
of the partial hearing defect constitutes unethical behaviour. Would you
deny this child glasses, so that he could not see an oncoming car? Then
why would you deny him a cochlear implant/ hearing aid to hear the same
oncoming car? Having accepted that this child’s life would not be that bad
so as to make it unworthwhile, surely the onus is now upon his parents to
maximise his potential in all spheres of life, including both hearing and
deaf. The parents’ reported stance on the matter (that their son may have
a hearing aid later in life, if he so wished) ignores the fact that most
speech and language development occurs in the first few years of life.
Their decision effectively disables their child further.
My parents were reliably informed that their partially hearing son would
not succeed in mainstream schooling and a deaf school was recommended.
Nevertheless, I can look back on a reasonably happy mainstream schooling,
despite missing the punch lines to most of the jokes and never being a
party to all the whisperings in class. I thus, cannot accept that this
child will necessarily experience the isolation that his two deaf parents
refer to.
I believe that this deaf couple fears losing their only child to the
"hearing" world. Ironically, in the future, he may not forgive his parents
for denying him due care, and then they may truly lose his love and
respect.
A world of difference lies between the challenges of profound deafness and
partial deafness. Whilst the “Deaf culture” is praiseworthy for its
integration of the profoundly deaf, those of partial hearing need to
explore their hearing potential and, wherever possible, maximize their
ability to communicate in the logocentric world. My understanding of
ethics says that this child deserves to have his hearing potential
investigated with an open mind as to treatment possibilities.
Rapid Response:
Partially deaf or partially hearing?
To the Editor:
The two deaf mental health care professionals, who successfully procreated
a deaf child by using a deaf sperm donor are reported to have said, "A
hearing child would be a blessing; a deaf child would be a special
blessing" (1). Apparently, Mother Nature (or God, if you will) saw fit to
provide them with a son with partial/ residual hearing. This outcome was
predictable (if not poetic), and adds a further dimension to the ethical
dilemma.
For, (I believe), the subsequent refusal of the parents to allow treatment
of the partial hearing defect constitutes unethical behaviour. Would you
deny this child glasses, so that he could not see an oncoming car? Then
why would you deny him a cochlear implant/ hearing aid to hear the same
oncoming car? Having accepted that this child’s life would not be that bad
so as to make it unworthwhile, surely the onus is now upon his parents to
maximise his potential in all spheres of life, including both hearing and
deaf. The parents’ reported stance on the matter (that their son may have
a hearing aid later in life, if he so wished) ignores the fact that most
speech and language development occurs in the first few years of life.
Their decision effectively disables their child further.
My parents were reliably informed that their partially hearing son would
not succeed in mainstream schooling and a deaf school was recommended.
Nevertheless, I can look back on a reasonably happy mainstream schooling,
despite missing the punch lines to most of the jokes and never being a
party to all the whisperings in class. I thus, cannot accept that this
child will necessarily experience the isolation that his two deaf parents
refer to.
I believe that this deaf couple fears losing their only child to the
"hearing" world. Ironically, in the future, he may not forgive his parents
for denying him due care, and then they may truly lose his love and
respect.
A world of difference lies between the challenges of profound deafness and
partial deafness. Whilst the “Deaf culture” is praiseworthy for its
integration of the profoundly deaf, those of partial hearing need to
explore their hearing potential and, wherever possible, maximize their
ability to communicate in the logocentric world. My understanding of
ethics says that this child deserves to have his hearing potential
investigated with an open mind as to treatment possibilities.
No competing interests.
Competing interests: No competing interests