Deaf Gain? Blind Gain? One-Hand Gain?

There's a new term being used and that's "Deaf Gain." Jannelle Legg and Sophie Sok at Gallaudet University explained in an article about the term.

The term “Deaf-gain” was coined in 2005 by a British performing artist visiting Gallaudet. Deafened later in life, Aaron Williamson noted that with each interaction doctors repeated that familiar refrain “hearing loss.” This experience, familiar to most deaf people, compelled him to posit the question, why “hearing loss and not gaining deafness?” That question is an important one because it calls attention to a fundamental issue in Deaf studies. The culturally Deaf experience is not, as many believe, a dramatic loss of hearing. Instead, deafness grants an entrée into a language, a culture and a way of life that is not only unique, it is valuable.

I have no compunction in pointing this out in my blog about the term, which is fine and dandy if people feel the need to use this alternative but positive term, however, a person is still a person and he or she is just as important as the next one.

But let me put this into context about "Deaf Gain."

What about terms like "Blind Gain" as something that's (supposedly) positive for those experiencing vision loss or complete blindness? Or what about "Deaf-Blind Gain"? Or "One Hand Gain" for those who lost the functional use of their hand or through amputation?

I understand how some deaf people are trying to put a positive spin on their deafness and access to deaf culture but the medical fact cannot be escaped or hidden away. A person may have a condition either involving hearing loss, vision loss or a missing or malfunctioning extremity such as a missing hand or whatever else that's "missing" or not "functioning" properly. A person is still a person no matter what. Best to make life as positive as possible with what you have rather than not what you do not have. That's what makes a person whole.

However, there are those who have a condition or senses that are somewhat "functional" such as those with, for example, mild, moderate or severe hearing loss who use a hearing aid. Though not at the level of a hearing person but it's the next best thing to have. Same for those with varying amount of vision loss requiring thicker or stronger lenses to see better for those with 20/40, 20/50 or 20/60 vision, for example. A semi-functional hand though weakened in it's functionality. Or a person with limited hearing loss and vision loss but is able to use those senses with limited success with various aids or devices used.

Even with limited functionality, a person can still feel whole as long as he or she is treated with respect as a human being for who he or she is.

Let's take myself as an example. I have a moderate-severe hearing loss in my right ear while my left is no good with profound hearing loss. I'm not afraid to use the term "hearing loss" because that is what it is. A hearing loss. A medical fact. But with my right ear I use a hearing aid that can boost what hearing I have left. My hearing aid has allowed me to successfully use what limited sound I can get out of it to the point of using the phone with anyone, field radios, talking with strangers in the street, help modulate my voice, and so on with success. In fact, I'm thankful for the limited hearing that I have. Just as I'm thankful that I can still see even though I need to wear my reading glasses. As for my hearing aid, it gave me "Hearing Gain." Would that be a term I'd use? No. It wouldn't make sense. But that hearing aid has allowed me to access to the hearing world the culture of sound. Without it I would have never taken up piano at age 7 where I'm now a Ragtime pianist.

It's all about preference when it comes to describing how one positively sees him or herself as. Again, not about putting down "Deaf Gain" but I am questioning about the use of that same term for other loss of senses and re-frame it into a context of a person who, for example, lost her sight completely, would that be a "Blind Gain"? Or a person who lost an arm? "One Arm Gain"? Or lost the use of her legs unable to walk for the rest of her life? "No Legs Gain"?  Or a stroke affecting the mental capacity of a person, would that be "Mentally-challenged Gain"? It would just sound totally creepy if not pitiful.

The point is people would find it odd to think that losing one of your senses later in life would constitute as a "gain." I understand the whole point behind "Deaf Gain" but it's not a term that every person with a hearing loss would use.

A cure is worth it....or not?

The now famous news of gerbils whose own deafness were nearly restored using stem cells to treat their hearing loss will probably be the turning point in medical history on the path to restore hearing loss for the human population. It'll be a matter of time until we are able to reverse hearing loss in humans using stem cells. This would bode good news amoung the many 35 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Not to mention a highly lucrative field once it gets going. I would say that 98% of the population with hearing loss would more than likely accept this news as positive and that many would accept this medical procedure for themselves instead of opting for hearing aids or cochlear implants.  The remaining population (2% of the total population of people with hearing loss) consisting of some 600,000 or so culturally deaf people would either accept this news positively, negatively or remain on the fence about it. 

Now, being culturally deaf does not mean all of them would be against this medical choice on choosing to restore hearing loss should a medical procedure actually becomes available.

Being culturally deaf also does not mean a person has to be born with a hearing loss first and learn to sign early on. Many late deafened people are culturally deaf.

Being culturally deaf does not mean a person must not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Or that he or she must go "au naturel" instead of relying on hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many culturally deaf people wear hearing aids or cochlear implants.

I would say that those culturally deaf people who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants would be more than likely support for the restoration of hearing loss in people using stem cells than not should it becomes available and a reality. And that it becomes a medical choice and not a law.

Would I take it?

Sure.

It'd be for my right ear only since that is the only ear that can hear well and it wouldn't take much for my ear adjust to the new clarity of sound in its natural splendor without my hearing aid for the first time in my life. As for my left ear I don't wear a hearing aid since I do not derive any real benefit due to the severe/profound hearing loss I have. Although the possibility does exist that I could "train" my left ear for years with a hearing aid and then opt for the procedure. Who knows?  I'll just bide my time and if this medical procedure does happen during my lifetime then I'll have the opportunity to make an important decision.

I'd say it's worth it for myself to see that my hearing loss in my right ear be restored and be fully functional. Others will have a different opinion about it and many would personally be against it. So, for those who are shaking their heads, if there's a cure for blindness, then please do not opt for it for yourself or for your baby if you have a serious vision problem. After all, you wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite for being against on the restoration of hearing but accept the restoration of sight?  Can't have one's cake and eat it, too.

The elimination of a scourge....

An organization in New Zealand is setting out to eradicate this scourge that affects an estimated 284 million people worldwide. Approximately 80% of the cases are due to causes which could have been prevented, treated or cured in the first place. This scourge cost the New Zealand society some $2.8 billion dollars in 2009. Multiply this cost in all of the countries worldwide and you'll see how exacting this condition affects society. This organization makes a point that this "is a scourge to be avoided at all costs." Just like the scourge of polio that is now a thing of the past. The irony here is that no outrage will be directed at this organization's ultimate goal in New Zealand on finding ways to eliminate this "scourge."

And then you have Dimity Dornan who says that deafness is scourge and that one day it will disappear just like polio. Yet you have some Deaf people in an outrage over this attempt at eradicating the condition of hearing loss whether it's mild or profound hearing loss.

Funny thing, if you were born with a hearing loss or became deaf pre-lingually and later in life as an adult you lose your vision completely but you'd be the first one to step up to have your eye-sight restored once a cure for vision loss becomes available. The irony would be that you'd object to a cure and the eradication for hearing loss but not for eradicating vision loss. Me think some people out there are hyperventilating a wee bit too much.

Capitalizing on what works

There's this fixation over the word "fix" when it comes to certain people with hearing loss, especially of those with greater hearing loss.  The word "fix" doesn't necessarily mean a permanent solution but rather a way to utilize a solution that best improve a condition. It's more of a correction and supplement to an existing condition rather than a "fix" per se but I understand exactly where people are coming from when they say that. Just as glasses helps fix poor eyesight or people with a variety of vision loss. You take off your glasses, you still can't see well. You take off your hearing aid or cochlear implant you cannot hear very well or none at all. It's utilizing what senses you have left by capitalizing the power of technology. Each of us has a hearing loss that is different ranging from mild to profound, bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. It's a fix, it's a correction but there is nothing permanent about it when comes to those adjustments being made. The question becomes whether people with hearing loss will capitalize on that or not. Some do. Some don't. Some won't. What works for me, works for me and has nothing to do with you. All we can do is respect the diversity out there. Not everybody signs. Not everybody can hear like the next person. We're all different. It doesn't matter if a person prefers to speak and listen, and don't know sign language, what matters is that we understand that diversity exists and we must respect that and the communication and language options for all those deaf and hard of hearing people out there. What works for me doesn't mean it will work for other people with hearing loss, deaf or hard of hearing with bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. What works for you doesn't mean it'll work for other people as well. I simply capitalize on what works for me.

Legally blind woman advice to the world....stop with the labels!

As I've said before, no need for labels because we're all human beings where we are unique in our own way. And this includes people with hearing loss. Be sure to click play and the subtitle feature will come on. Choose "English."