Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Equating cochlear implantation of kids with bleaching?

It's sad that it had to come to this but I asked for clarification from an author in Deaf Echo who wrote a piece called "Jamaican Skin Bleaching… Parallels with Cochlear Implantation?" on exactly what was his definitive stance on cochlear implantation for kids. And there was a reason for asking. This was in response to an article where the author attempted to draw parallels of parents getting cochlear implants for their kids to that of black Jamaicans with very dark skin on their efforts to bleach their children so their skin color would appear much lighter in the name of "cultural acceptance." A rather odd approach I thought and wondered exactly what was his official stance regarding kids with cochlear implants. A legitimate question.






























And the response?






























And in a space of several minutes apart, too.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong on asking for clarification from an author on where he stands regarding cochlear implantation in children in light of that recent blog piece, um..... article. It's pretty fair question to ask for a more definitive statement than to make an assumption. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps he was playing the devil's advocate?  Or maybe the author is neutral on this? I don't know. But asking that question earned me another ban instead of hoping for an honest, forthright and open dialogue.

This wasn't the first time, either, in Deaf Echo which left me and others puzzled by that action as well.

I don't know who removed my comment and banned me. Although I must emphasize strongly to my readers that any comments in blogs or website's commenting area is a privilege and not a right. And a blogger has every right to decide on deleting comments or ban participants in his or her own blog space. Although I'm not exactly sure what rule I broke as you can see here folks.  It was certainly not harassment because I was asking for clarifications in light of that article seeing it as not a "neutral" piece, or so it appears.

I agree that the debate on cochlear implantation on kids is a controversial one as explained in Deaf Echo.
If you’re familiar with the Deaf community at all, you probably already know how ferocious the debate can become on the merits of getting an implant (and especially having a young deaf child implanted).
But does that warrant deletions or bans if one disagrees, or have additional questions? 

Anyways,  this whole cochlear-implantation-parallels-to-bleaching article thing seems to hinge rather on a more emotional level than not. The two are not the same. But since Deaf Echo left me with no recourse to participate as equals, I must address it here in my own blog, unfortunately. I had hoped that I would've gotten a clarification first so I can respond accordingly and appropriately.  But that opportunity is gone, however, I do have a recourse in here.

Cochlear implantation involves a decision process that requires more research along with multiple meetings with specialists, educators, doctors, other people such as those who have CI, culturally deaf people, and so on. It is a process that takes many months before the actual implantation takes place if parents ultimately decide to do so as part of their informed decision process. It is quite obvious this is certainly not the equivalent of doing a procedure on yourself or on your kids on a moments notice.

Also, I don't see it as a neglect issue when cochlear implantation is concerned but rather on what happens afterwards. As long as parents are active participants in an implanted child's life on helping develop language and communication skills then there is no neglect at all. Is it neglect if culturally deaf parents implant their deaf child? But by reading that blog piece you would think so yet the blog piece falls into the category of plausible deniability on making that inference. Hence, again, the reason why I asked that question.

Here's what Russell, a deaf parent with cochlear implant with an implanted son, had to say:
This is living proof Cochlear Implants works! The sound quality is beyond exceptional. Currently, my aided digital hearing aid is barely producing sound. My CI has taken over and it's indescribable what it's like to hear at the 15db to 20db range. It hasn't been 2 weeks since my activation and it is a life changing for me that I'm looking forward to.
Children ages 6 months to 4 deserve to get one without question. It's selfish to deny anyone the right to hear especially our children. The hoodized Deaf population needs to refrain from using myths, lies, and deception to prevent those who can benefit from CI's, particularly parents of deaf children.
Speaking of myths, lies and deception.

I understand the attempt on outlining those parallels in Deaf Echo but I must question first the reason behind it, hence, which is why I had to ask first about the author's stance on cochlear implantation just to be sure.  Now I'm left with an even bigger question mark.

As for my stance, I made clear many times that as long as parents make an informed decision on whether or not to implant their deaf child then I'm fine with it. The decision belongs to the parents, and not to the culturally deaf community or anybody else, hearing or deaf.  I'm not afraid to make a statement as a matter of record and clarification to my readers. But I tell you this, the opportunity to hear is a serious consideration not to be taken lightly where it has the potential to open up even more opportunities and skills in life. That decision alone does not preclude a child from learning sign language or the opportunity to meet with others in the deaf culture community.

7 comments:

Ann said...

"Now Noelle, to address one of your earlier points... you said that skin bleaching is based on racism, and implanting is... well you didn't say this directly but is it fair to assume you mean implanting is there to counter deafness, which in your view is a disability?"

I noted Noelle Cigarroa Bell's view was accepted in the Deaf Echo's comment section after Chris H. asked that question.

Ummmm.

Ann_C

Joseph Pietro Riolo said...

I saw your comment over there at Deaf Echo and later on, much to my surprise, your comment was gone. I questioned myself whether you removed your comment on your own or the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo deleted your comment.

Now, I know you did not.

This whole thing saddens me. I had high respect for Deaf Echo and I am trying to stay positive about it. But, this is the second time that your comment was removed. But then, as you wrote, the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo has the complete prerogative in controlling the comments and I could not argue against it. Is Deaf Echo becoming another yet platform for bashing cochlear implantation and by extension, people who have cochlear implant? I hope not.

(It seems that there is no end in attempting to make an analogy between cochlear implantation and everything else. I came across an analogy between cochlear implantation and circumcision(!) somewhere many moons or ages ago. I dread to see what will be the next analogy.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

Mike said...

JPR, I gave them the benefit of the doubt after that first incident and decided to respond over there but wanted an answer first. I didn't think it would happen again over a simple question.

Me thinks someone has a serious ax to grind.

As for CI analogies...yeah. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel there.

Candy said...

It's not only at Deaf Echo where there seem to be CI bashing, although there are other contributors who share the same view as ICED's statement of principle, I am seeing increasing incidents of CI bashing lately everywhere. Sad, indeed.

Anonymous said...

To let you know that CI and Skin Bleaching are both definitely two different issues. Both do not parallel within each other because cochlear implant is a device and skin is part of human. I do not see any correlation between those two. For example, if it was related to having normal skin color and bleaching the skin color as for analogy and comparative issue, that would make more sense. On the other hand, Cochlear Implant is more related to the deafness issue. It is like comparing Hearing Aid versus Cochlear Implants, which would make more sense because both are mechanical devices, that is designed for the deaf people.

In sum, I am seeing a lot of arguments is based on too many issues into one big issue, which does created a lot of confusion of how to make the arguments valid. I hope I am making sense unless I absolutely missed something?

WisDeaf

Anonymous said...

Oh wow, I disagree with the parallelism for what I think is in my opinion, a simple reasoning:

Desired effect of skin bleaching is psychological of _others_. It affects how other people behaves toward the blachee.

Desired effect of cochlear implant is physical of _self_. It affects how the implantee operates with her/himself.

Yes implant does have outward effect, but that is a side effect. Most changes will have some kind of influences anyway. The reasoning is the end-effect that makes the two so different.

Candy said...

I admit I didn't read the article Deaf Echo linked to, but, when I read it...interestingly there were statements by several Jamaican, the majority points to vanity (choice like getting a tattoo, it's like botox, It's the fashionable thing to do, etc.) While only one Jamaican says it could be a ticket to a better life (the elites in Jamaica tend to lighten their skin).

The one person in that article brought up "it raises awkward questions about identity and race."

That one person isn't a Jamaican, she happens to be a professor of literary and cultural studies.

So, what is really going on? Most likely vanity.

Lightening one's skin is cosmetic, vanity or not (most likely is vanity). A CI is definitely NOT cosmetic, so the comparison was badly done.

There are folks who still say CI does not work. Fortunately, saying that does not make it true.