Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
From: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: (2 Of 2): Genetic Engineering?
Message-ID: <18505@bunker.isc-br.com>
Date: 4 Apr 91 19:35:33 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/26 - SoundingBoard, Pittsburgh PA
Lines: 47
Approved: wtm@bunker.hcap.fidonet.org

Index Number: 14631

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

 LB>      I'm not completly familiar with just what cochlear
 LB>  implants involve . . . .

They involve some invasive surgery, extensive auditory training,
and considerable expense.  And not every deaf child (or adult)
is a candidate.

 LB>  Children should be able to run and play, swim and climb
 LB>  and get dirty.  Would this be possible with such an implant?

I'm aware of no reason why not, Lana.  In addition to running and
playing, etc., children should be able to perceive environmental
sounds for their personal safety, and should be able to acquire
oral language if that be possible.  I believe implants do preclude
a few exotic medical medical procedures (like MRI), but not
ordinary everyday activities.

I know one person (not a child) with an implant, and it has made
a wonderful difference in her quality of life.

NAD's position seemed to me to be based on unsound premises. They
appeared miffed that the FDA, while consulting many knowledgeable
authorities and considering research findings before approving the
implant, had not consulted NAD (which so far as I know has no
expertise in the area).  And NAD's objection was that this could
"change . . children who would otherwise be members of the deaf
community into members of the hearing community . . ".  So what's
wrong with that?

IMHO, the NAD position seems to be a self-serving one.  They
would deny deaf children a possible opportunity to hear.

No way am I advocating that all deaf children should be implanted!
Far from it!  If that was even implied in the FDA ruling, I would
be firmly on the side of NAD.  But NAD seems to advocate that the
OPTION to choose a cochlear implant be denied to deaf children and
their parents.  That, I believe, is wrong.

... :-)

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org