The Death of Deaf Echo......

No rhyme, no reason on the somewhat "sudden" disappearance of Deaf Echo which ceased operations sometime earlier this year after. It was an editorial website similar to DeafDC which began in 2005 and has been defunct since 2010 hosted several culturally deaf writers for their many deaf-related articles. Just like Deaf Echo you can still see DeafDC in the archive section in the Wayback Machine. Deaf Echo began in 2007 but slowly and quietly, if not without a whimper, abandoned the editorial writing scene earlier this year after years of providing editorial articles written by culturally deaf people for culturally deaf people. No farwell fanfare. No long goodbyes. No explanations on why it decided to cease operations. Maybe it was best to not say anything and let it die a natural death on its own accord. Eventually all good things come to an end with the opportunity to seek better things in life.

Adios Deaf Echo. The reverberation has now stopped.

CAD and the AB 455 California Bill

The AB 455 bill is looking more like a bill that needs to be thrown out because it lacks an official definition for the term "Deaf" seen here in the bill. Unless the bill can provide an official definition to the term "Deaf" then perhaps the bill can be saved rather than scrapped.

But there's a problem.

The confusion could be blamed on zealots who wanted to change the definition of the word "Deaf" with the capitalized "D" to mean all inclusive of those with a hearing loss from mild to profound, whether they know sign language or not.  In fact, you have people like Dr. Genie Gertz, Ella Mae Lentz, and  others who are in the same boat and would even agree with what Dr. Grushkin said,

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

And compare that to the official definition of "Deaf" according to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) who invented the capitalized, big D, word explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

In short, the term "Deaf" has always been defined as people who are culturally deaf and signs in ASL. That already defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. But people have a nasty habitat on putting the term "Deaf" into a bill or a bylaw without providing an official definition as a clarification.

California Association of the Deaf bylaws is another good example who used the term "Deaf" peppered throughout but no definition explaining the meaning "Deaf." Yet also, their bylaws make no reference to the term "hard of hearing," either. They didn't write down "Deaf and hard of hearing" in their bylaws like the AB 455 bill did but used only the  "Deaf" term instead. In other words they made the term "Deaf" to mean all inclusive those with a hearing loss from mild to profound rather than to mean only for culturally deaf people.

 At the very bottom of the bylaws CAD has a definition of the term "Deaf":

"Deaf is a term that includes all the individuals: born deaf, deafened in early, sometimes late childhood, for whom American Sign Language and Deaf community/culture collectively represent their primary experience and existence regardless of hearing disability they have.”

Was that an official definition of "Deaf" from CAD? Curiously so in their most recently updated bylaws as of August of 2011 they presented no definition for the term "Deaf" in various forms such as "Deaf community," "Deaf individuals," and the single term "Deaf."

Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made a point that they "own" the word "Deaf" and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a deaf culture group that uses ASL. They have always agreed with Padden and Humphries' definition of that term.

Deaf with a capital D is a cultural term, rather than an audiological one. As defined by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988), Deaf refers ‘to a particular group of deaf people who share a language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and a culture.”

Hence, it's understandable seeing the confusion of the bill's language writing in "Deaf and hard of hearing" into the bill when earlier it was written as "deaf and hard of hearing."  Exactly what is the official definition of the term "Deaf" seen in the AB 455 bill?

Well? What is it?

I'm waiting.

UPDATE: Of course, this is something that Tara Congdon failed to realize in her "investigative" reporting on CNN that the bill lacked any definition for the term "Deaf" which might become the unexpected monkey wrench. We'll wait and see, and get a more definitive report elsewhere whether the bill might present a problem or not.

Oral only are now officially Deaf by Humphries and Padden

The "Redeafined" blog is one of the few blogs and people out there using the capitalized "D" in "Deaf" to not mean as an inclusive group for all deaf and hard of hearing people - an attempt at a new ideology, or in this case moving the goal post, on what "Deaf" today supposed to mean in place of deaf and hard of hearing. I explained earlier in my recent blog on how that example of using "Deaf" is set to fail because of the confusing message and meaning behind it will simply be lost with the rest of the population of people with hearing loss.

Simply put, it won't work.

JPR said it well in one of my blog about this very same subject:

I shake my head at the ideology that Dr. Donald Grushkin exhibits. It is his business to think whatever he wants (the First Amendment is intact, last time I checked) but the ideology will not be helpful at all. It fails to recognize the pluralism and the huge diversity in the deaf population as you described. It is offensive to many deaf people who do not identify themselves as members of the Deaf culture when the proponents of the ideology insist that they must be Deaf. Have the proponents learned anything from the history? The U.S. attempted to impose the idea of Melting Pot on the immigrants but it did not succeed. Instead, the immigrants still retained their identities that they acquired from their native countries or cultures. Saying that all deaf people are Deaf is like trying to impose Melting Pot on them. It is not going to work, as you said.

Indeed. it won't work because people have their own identities and how they are comfortable with it. You cannot force an ideology on other deaf and hard of hearing people's own identities in the name of collectivism and unity.

JPR continues:

I have to wonder why some people are promoting the ideology of applying the cultural identity of Deaf to all deaf people in spite of the reality. Is it because they want to build the Deaf Ethnos? Is it because they fear that the technology of cochlear implant and medical technologies are changing the landscape of the Deaf culture? Is it because they want to build Deaf Utopia where unity and single identity (read: collectivism) are required? I will wait and see what true colors they are showing over the time.

I explained in response to JPR's comment that a "Deaf utopia" doesn't exist in the sense of "deaf and hard of hearing utopia" when taken on with the new meaning and definition of "Deaf."

Is Gallaudet University is an utopian example? In what way? Socially? Technologically? hierarchically? It may be an ideal place to go for a variety of reasons but the problem is you have deaf and hh people at Gallaudet University that make up 95 to 97% of the campus population. That kind of tight social fitting cannot be done at that level once you leave the gates of Gallaudet University. You become 0.2% (0.002) of the total population in the United States. The only way to achieve something close to that of Gallaudet University if you live in large enough cities (e.g. Rochester, NY; and perhaps in some surrounding communities of Washington D.C., etc) that have large clusters of culturally deaf people in their area. That's not utopia, neither is Gallaudet University's example. Rather it's an example of isolationism by mixing with your own kind and very little to do with hearing people.

All black universities are not examples of an utopian campus. Ideal perhaps but not utopian because they've become isolated with their "own kinds." An utopian society would be more liken where members are able interact with each other across culturally and linguistically. For that to happen technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap where it becomes 2nd nature to communicate with anyone regardless of mode of communication or language used.  (In reality) we'll be more likely to segregrate ourselves withn our "own kinds" than to mix and interact with those not of "our kinds." Just our basic human nature that we do this. Nothing utopian about it no matter how much fantasy you can throw it to other people.
 

So, the "reDeafination" use of "Deaf" will not confuse the message, the meaning and definition as established by Humphries and Padden back in 1988.  We have deaf and hard of hearing communities, not a Deaf community because a Deaf community means a culturally deaf community and not of those who are hard of hearing who are fine with speaking and listening, oral users, S.E.E. users, CUED speech users, deaf AGBell members, and anybody with a hearing loss who isn't a culturally deaf person. I can imagine the utter ridiculousness in trying to convince a person who has a high frequency hearing loss but has mild hearing loss ("late deafened") that he is a Deaf person.

No. It won't work. Still kind of incredible that people are willing to shove some three decades of the definition brought forth by Humphries and Padden in 1988 (as seen proudly in NAD's explaination) down the drain. If they weren't dead already they'd be rolling in their graves.

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "Deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.

Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.
 

AGBell members are now officially Deaf people

Recently Don Grushkin made an opinion regarding the use of the capitalized "d" for the word "deaf" to mean an all inclusive definition:

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews. 

 Since I'm persona non grata over at Deaf Echo I will as usual make my responses here and write my opinions on what Don Grushkin said. I will disagree with his attempt to move the goal post on what "D"eaf is to mean nowadays.

Noticeably over the past few years a few notable people in the culturally deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people and this was explained by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) on the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.

Granted. The culturally deaf community was able to grant their own exclusive right to capitalize the letter 'd' in "deaf" to mean one thing and one thing only as exactly as what Carol Padden and Tom Humphries pointed out.  And become members of an exclusive heritage group or so they say. Otherwise by not accepting the very definition set forth almost 30 years ago by Padden and Humphries would mean it could no longer to specifically mean culturally deaf people. It would simply become a generic brand with no identification on culture and language (ASL) that ties itself to a specific heritage group. In fact, that very act would devalue the very word "Deaf" away from the culturally deaf community and disappears altogether with no identity at all. AGBell members who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know a lick of sign language are now defacto Deaf people. No need to focus on ASL, deaf culture, culturally heritage and language. All that would be rather strange if not outright blasphemous to a lot of culturally deaf people and of all things coming from a guy who is helping run Deafhood Foundation.  Funny how one thinks that by saying deaf/Deaf is "divisive" yet there were ASL-only Deafhood workshops (here, too). So much for the concept of including everybody this "Deaf" idea of Don Grushkin's.

Another thing, there is no common ethnicity that ALL deaf and hard of hearing people share regarding their physical trait on hearing loss.  Ethnic means that a group of people either share a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Nothing about hearing loss which is a physical trait. The only commonality here we all share is hearing loss whether it is bilateral or unilateral. Whether born with it or acquired hearing loss later in life. And that communication access, as it varies from one person with a hearing loss to another, is the other commonality amongst them as well. Some struggle more than others. Some are fine with it. Some do not have the need to sign while others do require sign language to communicate.

What has been divisive is some of the nonsense deaf politics that have been going on for years rather than over two simple words, deaf and Deaf. There are two groups. The culturally deaf group and the not culturally deaf group. You have hard of hearing, deaf, and culturally deaf. And that's a fact of life.

A captioning question.....

How come at a live political rally there is a sign language interpreter next to a person giving a speech who is running for office in front of thousands of people but no real time captioning nearby?

That's something to think about.

You have about 600,000 culturally deaf people (adults) who use sign language as their main mode of communication but you also have some 38 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound who do not know a lick of sign language. You have about 6 million people who have difficulty hearing in the 18 to 74 age group, a rough estimate. But if you include those over 74 years old the estimate jumps to about 10 million as a total for those 18 and older.  There are about 200 million people in the United States in the 18 to 74 year old age category, an age group of those who are most likely to attend a political rally.  So that means 1 out 33 people in a large crowd listening to what a person is saying on stage at a political rally will have difficulty hearing what's being said vs 1 out 333 people who may be culturally deaf attending the event.

For example, in a crowd of 10,000 people attending a political rally you may have 300 people in the audience who will have trouble hearing or understanding what's being said versus perhaps 30 culturally deaf people who may be in attendance. I think it is a disservice to those who attend a rally but have trouble hearing what's being said with no access to real time captioning. Some have requested CART services at rallies (see page 5) yet this should be done automatically, within reason if it's not cost prohibitive, without the need to ask just as sign language interpreters are sometimes automatically provided.

The real hidden and silent majority of those with hearing loss are not the culturally deaf people but those who don't sign and have trouble hearing while relying on their hearing aids. In time this will change for the better on providing better communication to all those who need it.

MTVU at Gallaudet - the next brouhaha..ha ha?

It was an interesting beginning episode of the new MTVU tv reality series "Quiet Campus: Welcome to Gallaudet." Four Gallaudet University students introduced themselves in the show.  All of them came from mainstreamed schools. Two of them were strongly oral, a third one a late deafened student who lost her hearing while as a hearing child due to chemotheraphy who described herself as "deaf with a splash of hearing," and a fourth one described himself as a gay latino with "three strikes against him" (i.e. deaf, gay and latino). It was a nice video introduction and a way to show the world what Gallaudet University is like. Although there seems to be a bit of mild "brouhaha" going on with the complaint that the show was missing a "culturally Deaf ASL-using students be a part of the cast." Sure, why not. Although I'm not making a big deal out of it. Nor am I making a big deal of Taylor who described herself as "deaf with a splash of hearing" (i.e. hard of hearing). She's simply being with herself. I've no desire to make any kind of judgement against her or the cast based on their upbringing or what school they went to. Or how they describe themselves as. They are students of Gallaudet University and are representatives of that school and the Deaf community. Also, just because a deaf person went to a mainstreamed school does not necessarily mean they're not culturally deaf. A lot of that depends on their background and their primary means of communication among themselves.

Perhaps people should be asking the hard questions. Who did MTVU consult with at Gallaudet University about the selection process for their new reality show? Somebody inside at Gallaudet University administration had to know about the upcoming MTVU show beforehand before giving their approval. Was there any consultation at all? Were recommendations given on how to select the students? Who were involved? How were the cast members selected by MTVU? What were the criteria for the selection? And so on. Instead of targeting those four students who described themselves as mainstream students at one time.

John Rich or Marlee Matlin?

Finally watched the last Celebrity Apprentice show and saw that Mr. Donald Trump picked John Rich as the Celebrity Apprentice over Marlee Matlin. It's interesting to watch the culturally deaf people grumble about the selection saying that Mr. Trump made a mistake. I, on the other hand, do not think Mr. Trump made a mistake but the correct one. John Rich was consistent in everything he did including being a leader. Had Marlee Matlin been more aggressive as a leader rather than be lead around like a lost puppy with Meatloaf making the decisions. That not only happened once but a few times throughout the whole Celebrity Apprentice show. Marlee Matlin may have raised the most money in the beginning with $1 million dollars, the most ever on the show but it was John Rich's consistency on being a leader as project team leader that everyone can look up to. Marlee Matlin was great but she fell a notch below Trump's expectation of her and she lost an opportunity to showcase herself to be a thorough leader. I wasn't surprised that Mr. Trump selected John Rich as the C.A. Trump made the right decision.

I'm not sure why during the show that Marlee Matlin grumbled about John Rich receiving $250,000 from two people who came up to him during the show and donated the money to his charity of choice. It would be nuts for him to turn it down and Marlee Matlin knows it. And with John winning C.A. and received an additional $250,000 makes him the highest fund raiser ever on C.A. for his charity of choice. He fulfilled his goal at the very beginning of the show to raise the most cash for his charity of choice. He certainly did just that. Shows great leadership and compassion. Marlee Matlin did a great job on raising $1 million dollars for her charity of choice, Starkey Hearing Foundation. Plus, the 7-up can her team helped designed supports deaf kids where the 7-up company is donating money to the Starkey Hearing Foundation as well. And that's another story on how some culturally deaf people are grumbling and whining over her charity of choice, too.

F*ck you, Deaf Community!

Here's an interesting thread that has the title "**** you, Deaf 'Community' " from a hearing father about her four year old deaf daughter. This is an opportunity to read the viewpoints of mostly hearing people on their perceptions and understanding about the Deaf community and its culture, Gallaudet University, schoolings, ASL, sign language, oral/aural approaches, cochlear implant, and education when it comes to deaf and hard of hearing children and their parents. Granted, the views presented in that thread may not be representative of the hearing group as a whole but it certainly does give us some additional insights on their views of the whole Deafness thing in a more or less honest fashion.

Having said that, this is something to think about when it comes to communication choices in light of the upcoming California AB 2072 bill. Candy has a good bead on this as well. The AB 20727 bill states that:

Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss shall also be provided written or electronic information on American Sign Language (ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.

No conspiracy theory.

No mystery to this bill.

Just a straight up requirement that parents be given information for a wide selection of communication and educational choices be made available to them after the discovery of their newborn or infant with a hearing loss.

The irony is this. There are certain groups of Deaf people who seem to be undergoing an effort to derail this bill. And instead promote that ASL must be the first option for any parents of a deaf or hard of hearing child. Thusly leaving out any real choices for parents to decide. Nevermind the fact that this bill would make a requirement that these parents be given the necessary information so they could make a proper and informed decision on communication and educational options. An option that could involve one communication method or more.

Back to the "F*ck you" thread. This father explained in her first post on what he and his wife had to do based on information available at the time to help her deaf daughter.

We gave our daughter cochlear implants when she was an infant. We made this long and difficult decision based on the research that was available to us, based on the educational resources available in our area, based on the nature of her deafness, and, yes, based on our own biases and desires. She had her surgeries before she was old enough to make the choice for herself, because to wait so long means to give her hearing long after her developing brain can make the best use of it. It is a well-known and long-researched phenomenon that pre-lingual implantation leads to vastly improved speech and hearing skills. But you call it child abuse. You call it cosmetic surgery on an infant, and more than once you called me a monster for it. It is not child abuse, to make complicated decisions about your kids without their input - it's called parenting. Nor is it cosmetic to give my kid a developmental boost. So: f*ck you for heaping accusations of pre-lingual cosmetic surgery child abuse on me.

Our family is learning ASL, and have been since we learned our daughter was profoundly deaf. We will use sign as a second language, indefinitely. My wife is in school to become an interpreter. Nor do we believe in a purely oralist tradition; we acknowledge the importance of communication between deaf people without assistance. We get it, ok? We're committed. But because we gave our daughter cochlear implants, you automatically believe that we're out to destroy ASL, to destroy Deaf culture. You never listen to our reasoning, because what do we know? We're motivated by a desire to mingle in both worlds, and yet we're constantly scoffed at by the Deafies on principle. So: f*** you for your pernicious false dichotomies.

This AB 2072 bill will help alleviate the uncertainty for parents of a deaf/hh child in making an informed decision for the first time. But for groups to purposely derail this bill for the sake of demanding that ASL be given first priority and requirement for parents to follow are certainly not about parental choice but about control. Doing that could very well certainly earn the Deaf community many more "f**** you's" from hearing parents of deaf and hard of hearing children.

Give the parents the opportunity to make an informed decision for their deaf/hh child. Give them the respect and understanding they deserve. And understand that whatever informed decision they make, they still deserve our respect and support. It doesn't matter if you don't like their informed decision, they deserve our respect. Walking all over them and taking away their choices aren't the answer.

Texting and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome...a danger to deaf people?

In a Foxnews story a 16 year girl was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome of her wrists recently lost some feelings in her hands and was unable to pick up certain objects. This was due to excessive texting, constraining her fingers, hands and wrists over a smart phone keyboard which eventually affected her nerves in her wrists. This is known as "Repetitive Strain Injury" (RSI). Along with this affliction, it's not uncommon for many text users to experience thumb pain known as Blackberry Thumb.

Since texting is the number one communication method among most Deaf (or culturally deaf) and deaf cell phone users it comes with an added risk for those who also communicate preferably through signing. This is perhaps true among teens who are among the most prolific group of all phone texting users.

Teenagers sending and receiving an average of 80 text messages each day may be vulnerable to repetitive stress injuries of the thumb, according to the New York Times. As with Blackberry Thumb, compulsive texting can cause cramping, pain or numbness. While previous reports have stated that teens seem largely immune to Blackberry Thumb and that problems (like tendonitis) tend to crop up in patients in their 40s and 50s, the long-term effects of frequent texting are unknown. Ergonomics researchers are just beginning to study texting's impact, according to the Times.

Here are some statistics on texting:

* 72.2% of wireless users have paid for SMS packages. This equates to 203 million Americans.
* 57% of wireless users 13+ are considered regular text message users.
* There has been a 107% increase in text message use in the USA in the past year.
* 2.5 billion text messages are sent each day in the USA.
*More text messages are sent per phone than phone calls. The average
text messages used per month is 357 compared to 204 cell phone calls.
*15 million Americans used video on their cell phones in quarter two, 2008.
*138 million Americans have sent a text message in the past three months.

Not only are short texting popular you have Instant Messaging (IM) that are much more heavily used with longer conversations than short messages seen in SMS. On Facebook alone some 1 billion IMs are sent each day. Chatting or texting gives users greater privacy and are done in silence as opposed to talking on their cell phones heard by anybody within an ear shot.

The number of smart phones sold is rapidly on the rise so will the amount of texting/chatting that will increasingly merge URL linking to videos, music, webpages, and mobisodes/webisodes (and you thought TV soap operas were bad?)into their everyday smart phone communication. Which means more conversations using the QWERTY keyboard on smart phones to communicate.

Will this be a good thing or bad for deaf/hh smart phone users? Will we see an increase on fingers and hands related injuries or pain because of the constant texting that could affect deaf/hh people who signs? Are companies who offfer short text messaging or Instant Messaging be liable for people's hands and fingers injuries? Or are the makers of QWERTY keypads for smart phones be responsible for the supposedly "poor" ergonomics design?

Who is ultimately responsible?

The answer is that the smart phone users are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the health of their hands, wrists and fingers. Whether a person is prone to injuries or not there are ways to reduce the chances of injuries, pain or discomfort when it comes to texting or chatting on their smart phone.

If it's bad and quite painful, take a "Sabbatical" break for a few weeks off. This is almost like going cold turkey but if it's affecting your signing ability and that it is painful, your body is telling you an important message and that is to stop! If that's seems "impossible" then work out a plan to reduce the amount of time you use your smart phone. Include other exercises to help your hands, fingers and wrists.

Virgin Mobile has a website on exercises you can do to help alleviate the pain and discomfort. Or perhaps buy a contraption that supposedly helps strengthen your hands and fingers. But a cheap and simple sure-fire way of strengthening your hands and fingers is to get a bucket of sand and do some sand digging and finger extension exercises, among other exercises seen here.

The responsibility is yours alone on the health of your hands, fingers, and wrists when it comes to texting and chatting on your smart phones. More than likely if you are a smart phone user you will find yourself using the QWERTY keyboard more often as smart phones continue to improve and the desire to reach out and touch someone becomes even more irresistible.