5 ms·

I’m curious about the effect on the deaf community. I understand there’s resistance to “fixing” deafness as some consider it a component of their culture and co

• devilbunny 2y ago
  There is a fascinating documentary about this, but I cannot recall its name. One segment talks about a form of sign that represents sound, so that the child learns their family’s language (rather than sign language, which is another language entirely). It is very unpopular in the deaf community despite its advantages for daily life.
  • lazyasciiart 2y ago
    Sounds like Signed Exact English, which is disliked both for the context around it and for being more awkward than a natural sign language (e.g I think it doesn’t take advantage of using positions in space for grammar, it only uses the hand shapes and movements?) I don’t know of any language agnostic phonetic sign used as a first language for children: that sounds about as hard as making them learn through writing instead of talking.
    • gugagore 2y ago
      They are likely talking about "cued speech".
• akoboldfrying 2y ago
  >It is important to consider the sociocultural context, particularly in regards to the deaf community, which has its own unique language and culture Frankly, I disagree. I think a deaf person should be entitled to decline a low-risk treatment that would cure or mitigate their own deafness -- but to make that decision for a child is altogether different. Deliberately restricting a human being's sense experience throughout their lives should be considered child abuse, in the same basket as female genital mutilation. It's also about the most selfish thing I can imagine -- especially given that there's no reason I can see why a hearing child of deaf parents can't grow up "bilingual", learning both spoken and sign languages.
  • brenns10 2y ago
    This presupposes an awful lot. If it were truly a risk free magic wand you could wave, then I could see your point. But none of the current options are risk free, and I doubt this one will be. They all have risks, side effects, and probably the chance of failure. And then the question is how low of a risk is acceptable to restore a child's hearing. These are people who would live an otherwise healthy and normal life, and they'd grow up in an accepting deaf family which is likely already plugged into a community. I can't imagine how it would feel to have a serious side effect (or worse) impact your child when you know they could have gone without that procedure and lived a happy, fulfilling life. But I also understand the desire to give your child every possible opportunity. All of that is to say, I think it is reductive to compare this to child abuse or FGM. There's no right decision, and parents absolutely will need to make a difficult choice, hopefully prioritizing their child's safety and future above all else.
    • josephcsible 2y ago
      It's often not about the risk, though. It's sadly common for uppercase-D "Deaf culture" people to decline these kinds of treatments for their kids because they want their kids to be deaf too. That's absolutely child abuse.
  • houseplant 2y ago
    > Deliberately restricting a human being's sense experience throughout their lives should be considered child abuse I've got relatives that teach deaf children. most deaf kids who grow up in societies with mostly hearing kids, want to be normal more than anything. At the same time, for many who are eligible for cochlear implants, getting that early before speech development begins in earnest is very important, ideally when they're just a toddler or younger. Early enough and you'll barely notice any difference in their speech, understanding, etc. However, their parents often decline it and say they want to let their child be the one to choose when they're old enough to- which is far, far outside the best window for developing that area of the brain, as well as speech. They might be behind in those ways for the rest of their lives if they're not given therapy to help catch up. I understand both sides I guess, but if consent is the issue, why not give them the implant and let them choose to disconnect the receiver then when they're older? Obviously, because they won't want to, and rarely ever do.
• lannisterstark 2y ago
  >not unlike queer people and the attempts to “fix” them. To be fair, LGBTQ community isn't 'broken.' Some people are inherently gay, lesbian, etc. Deafness _is_ an actual defect. The weird thing that we should not strive to fix human defects when they are truly defects is astounding.
  • alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Some people are inherently deaf, what's the difference?
    • Veraticus 2y ago
      Being LGBTQ is not a disability or handicap; it’s simply different, like being red-haired or left-handed.
      • alexey-salmin 2y ago
        What makes you think that deafness is not the same as being left-handed? I mean objectively, not based on the current cultural norms which will be very different 50 years from now.
        • Veraticus 2y ago
          “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, whereas being deaf does. Cultural norms is an interesting comparison. Despite there being no actual difference in capacity, cultural views forced many left-handed people to be right-handed, making those people miserable in the process for no good reason.
          • alexey-salmin 2y ago
            Being deaf is surely different from not being deaf but you can't objectively say it's a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage in a world built for not deaf people, like being left-handed is a disadvantage in a world built for right-handed people.
• ugh123 2y ago
  That would be a terrible reason to give up, or slow down, on research in any area of health science.