Cochlear Implants: Evolving Perspectives

Introduction

vii IntRoDUCtIon Irene W. Leigh and Raylene Paludneviciene For many members of the Deaf community, the issue of cochlear implants has been fraught with trepidation, anger, frustration, and outright rejection of the concept that surgical insertion of an auditory device is required to restore a sense that is ”missing.” A good number of these members saw it as an attack on a ”visual way of living” and on their signed languages. They also feared the loss of their culture, a culture that has been around for centuries, one that was only formally acknowledged as a bona fide culture in the latter half of the 20th century. It took decades of struggle before culturally Deaf adults who decided on cochlear implantation began to be viewed by opponents of the procedure no longer as automatic traitors, guilty of betraying their Deaf culture values but rather as individuals who wanted exposure to different sensory experiences, in this case auditory stimulation, while holding on to the use of their signed language. Perspectives on pediatric cochlear implantation, viewed by many Deaf individuals as an ethical affront that took away a child’s right to decide on the surgery and an auditory way of life, are very gradually giving way to a more nuanced view on the part of those Deaf community members, who recognize that the number of children with cochlear implants is growing exponentially. This gradual change in perspective seems to be giving substance to Jay Innes’ observation that ”the deaf community is strong enough and mature enough to tolerate a full range of opinions on the topic of cochlear implants” (Christiansen & Leigh, 2002/2005, p. 288). We, Raylene Paludneviciene and Irene W. Leigh, the editors of this book, have been interested observers of the maelstrom surrounding the debate on cochlear implants, in particular pediatric cochlear implants. Both of us are members of the Department of Psychology at Gallaudet University, the world’s only liberal arts university for deaf students. As both of us are deaf and interact with the Deaf community , we come to this book from these vantage points. Disclosure: Neither of us are cochlear implant users, but we have extensive experience with the topic. Irene W. Leigh previously served as a consulting psychologist in the cochlear implant program at the former Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital in New York City. She later participated in a research project with John B. Christiansen that viii Irene W. LeIgh and rayLene PaLudnevICIene involved interviewing 57 sets of parents who decided on cochlear implants for their children and obtaining their perspectives (Christiansen & Leigh, 2002/2005). In general, findings indicated that a good number of the parents labeled the Deaf community as being misinformed about the merits of cochlear implants and not understanding or respecting the parents’ perspectives. These parents did not necessarily deny the importance of Deaf culture. Rather, they felt the cochlear implants provided additional options for expanding the world of their deaf children. Since then, Leigh has had many interactions with individuals who have gotten the implant and remained a part of their Deaf community. Raylene Paludneviciene is a native user of American Sign Language and a member of a multigenerational Deaf family immersed in the Deaf community. She became interested in the cochlear implant debate after several of her friends opted to receive cochlear implants about a decade ago. In professional settings, she sought out opportunities to work with pediatric and adult cochlear implant users to broaden her understanding of how cochlear implants work and the effects on the individual and environment. After several members of her family received cochlear implants, her direct experiences with the medical establishment, educational agencies, and members of the Deaf community provided the original impetus for this book. We felt that it was important to substantiate Innes’ perspective by illustrating the diversity of perspectives and the world of possibilities espoused by the authors who contributed chapters to this book. A good number of these contributors are themselves cochlear implant users. Nonetheless, we do not take a position on cochlear implants. We know cochlear implants are here to stay until some other technological advancement comes along. We recognize the presence of an inherent contradiction between the focus on auditory languages as exemplified by messages about the value of cochlear implants and the focus on vision as exemplified by visual languages/signed languages. For quite some time, it has appeared that following one of these focuses has traditionally negated the other focus. However, the assumption that the two cannot coexist...