Abstract
AbstractIt has been forty years since the first multi-channel cochlear implant was used in Australia. While heralded in the hearing world as one of the greatest inventions in modern medicine, not everyone reflects on this achievement with enthusiasm. For many people in the Deaf community, they see the cochlear implant as a tool that reinforces a social construct that pathologizes deafness and removes Deaf identity. In this paper, I set out the main arguments for and against cochlear implantation. While I conclude that, on balance, cochlear implants improve the well-being and broaden the open futures of deaf children, this does not justify mandating implants in circumstances where parents refuse them because this may compound unintended harms when society interferes in the parent-child relationship. For this reason, I argue that parental refusal of cochlear implantation falls within Gillam’s concept of the zone of parental discretion.
Funder
Australian-American Fulbright Commission
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science)
Reference49 articles.
1. Barnes, E. 2014. Valuing disability, causing disability. Ethics 125(1): 88-113.
2. Bernicchia-Freeman, Z. 2018. The blurring of identity: Cochlear implants and the deaf community. Journal of Integrative Research & Reflection 1: 64-74.
3. Bowman-Smart, H., C. Gyngell, A. Morgan, and J. Savulescu. 2019. The moral case for sign language education. Monash Bioethics Review 37(3-4): 94-110.
4. Brusky, A.E. 1995. Making decisions for deaf children regarding cochlear implants: The legal ramifications of recognizing deafness as a culture rather than a disability. Wisconsin Law Review 237: 270.
5. Buchanan, E., and W. Brock. 1998. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献