Bleached article

Reading this bleached article piece again and again I can only conclude it to be a non sequitur piece. It made no sense, intellectually so. What I saw is an emotional piece in the guise as an intellectual discourse simply because of the attempt to insert the idea of "neglect" into the whole picture when it comes to parents' decision on implanting their deaf child. That agenda is clear. A subtle message without overtly saying it. Hence, my question to the author. What is he trying to say? What is his official stance on cochlear implantation for children?

You have parents making an informed decision on getting a cochlear implant for their deaf child versus making an uninformed decision of Jamaican parents who apply bleaching agent to their children's dark skin in the effort to lighten their skin color.  The former is not a neglect or child abuse issue while the latter is definitely considered as a neglect and child abuse issue because of the increased inherent medical risk, health issues and side effects to the child where it can disfigure the skin on the face, the most prominent feature to be bleached. An attempt to play "doctor" while using unsafe chemical products on the skin.

It's not even close between the two examples. Nothing to compare when it comes to parallels.

One is based on an approval from doctors and specialists before getting a cochlear implant while the bleaching example has nothing to do with any medical issue but about vanity and peer-pressure. The decision process on getting a cochlear implant is a long one that require many visits and researching before deciding on implantation. As for the bleaching part, it's an impulse decision without any regard to the child's own health and well being.

Again, no parallels. Nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is a fad much like tattooing. Cochlear implantation is not a fad. Bleaching is not a medical issue while getting a cochlear implant is a medical issue. No different from getting Lasik surgery for your eyes to help improve vision or getting the right prescription glasses for those blurry eyes. There is something to be said when senses are impaired do people seek medical correction or assistance.  Changing the color of one's skin isn't a medical correction or a need but purely a cosmetic one, just like using Botox to enhance the face.

Again, nothing to compare.

The bleaching of skin is due to peer-pressure based on the need for social acceptance and survival. Getting a cochlear implant addresses the need to access sound and not about peer-pressure or survival. However, cochlear implantation does allow the opportunity to develop listening and speaking skills over time. Bleaching one's own skin does not improve anybody's skills but it's purely on the basis of social acceptance. You cannot compare between the two as having parallels. Simply irreconcilable. 

Getting a cochlear implant does not preclude a child from learning sign language. Nor does it preclude a child from a social aspect on the opportunity to mingle among his or her signing, deaf, hh or hearing peers. You have a child's right to hear from the very beginning when the opportunity to develop listening skill would be at its peak (0 to 4 years old). Once that opportunity is past then it is too late to have that upper hand for the rest of the child's life.  It's purely a medical fact. Timing is everything when it comes to the brain's development on learning new sound and words. Having said that, the introduction to deaf culture can occur anytime during a child's life from birth to adulthood should child decide later or get introduced with the help of his or her parents.

Again, noting to compare when it comes to parallels.

That blog piece appears to covertly impart guilt on parents by using emotionally laden words like "cultural genocide," "neglect," and "criminal" and parallel them with the bleaching of children all in the guise of an intellectual discourse as far as I'm concerned since the author refuse to clarify his reason for that blog piece. I am left to make this observation on my own.  It turns out to be a non sequitur piece since one example is considered to be a medical issue while the other is obviously not. 

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.