5 ms·

But why? What if an average deaf child is happier than an average hearing child because of their community support, culture, and the sense of identity? I don't

by suslik 3y ago

But why? What if an average deaf child is happier than an average hearing child because of their community support, culture, and the sense of identity? I don't know anything about the lives of deaf people - but it definitely looks like there's something to it; what I don't get is why is it so obvious to everyone else.

mchusma 3y ago
Most people would consider deliberately damaging a child's hearing permanently so they can be a part of the deaf community to be child abuse. Similar to paralyzing a child to be a part of that community. It's great that there are communities for the disabled, trauma victims, etc. But those communities should hope that someday those communities are no longer needed.
kelnos 3y ago
You won't know about the level of happiness the child experiences until it's too late to reverse the damage. Or if it's still possible to reverse the damage, it may be difficult or impossible to acquire full spoken language skills, as the article notes is the case for this 11-year-old boy. So the plan is to leave the child without their hearing, in the hope that they just might end up being happier than if they could hear? And we can't run this experiment both ways! There's no way to know definitively which way the child will be happier. So it makes sense to me to give the child the ability to go through life without having to bear the burden of the disadvantages of deafness. And as much as some people in the deaf community will try to tell you that they have no disability, and that they just communicate differently... well, that sounds like a denial-based coping strategy to me. If that works for them to make themselves happy and get through life, then seriously, genuinely, I am glad they have that. But it feels abusive to force their child to have to go through the same thing. Consider a different case: parents are deaf, child is born with normal hearing. What would we think if the parents then deliberately damaged or destroyed their child's hearing -- because they believe their child could be a happy member of the deaf community and deaf culture -- even if it could be done surgically, without causing the child immediate pain or distress? No doctor would ever perform that procedure, and we'd absolutely call that child abuse. While I don't think that's exactly the same thing as denying a deaf child treatment, it's IMO close enough for the conclusion to be the same. (And before anyone thinks to bring up religious practices that forbid certain kinds of medical treatments: IMO those people are child abusers too, if they deny a child a live-saving or even life-improving treatment on religious grounds.)

by suslik 3y ago

mchusma 3y ago

Most people would consider deliberately damaging a child's hearing permanently so they can be a part of the deaf community to be child abuse. Similar to paralyzing a child to be a part of that community. It's great that there are communities for the disabled, trauma victims, etc. But those communities should hope that someday those communities are no longer needed.

kelnos 3y ago

You won't know about the level of happiness the child experiences until it's too late to reverse the damage. Or if it's still possible to reverse the damage, it may be difficult or impossible to acquire full spoken language skills, as the article notes is the case for this 11-year-old boy. So the plan is to leave the child without their hearing, in the hope that they just might end up being happier than if they could hear? And we can't run this experiment both ways! There's no way to know definitively which way the child will be happier. So it makes sense to me to give the child the ability to go through life without having to bear the burden of the disadvantages of deafness. And as much as some people in the deaf community will try to tell you that they have no disability, and that they just communicate differently... well, that sounds like a denial-based coping strategy to me. If that works for them to make themselves happy and get through life, then seriously, genuinely, I am glad they have that. But it feels abusive to force their child to have to go through the same thing. Consider a different case: parents are deaf, child is born with normal hearing. What would we think if the parents then deliberately damaged or destroyed their child's hearing -- because they believe their child could be a happy member of the deaf community and deaf culture -- even if it could be done surgically, without causing the child immediate pain or distress? No doctor would ever perform that procedure, and we'd absolutely call that child abuse. While I don't think that's exactly the same thing as denying a deaf child treatment, it's IMO close enough for the conclusion to be the same. (And before anyone thinks to bring up religious practices that forbid certain kinds of medical treatments: IMO those people are child abusers too, if they deny a child a live-saving or even life-improving treatment on religious grounds.)