Emma Barnett

Research Paper

Erskine 2A

12/15/17

Cochlear Implant: Miracle or Inhibitor?

To hear sounds and voices again after being diagnosed as deaf seems like the

ideal route to take; however, a deeper gaze into deaf culture provides much controversy

surrounding the “deaf cure”: the cochlear implant. To grow up deaf is to belong to a

community that shares a unique language and a different perspective of the world.

Leaving this culture after many years by way of receiving a cochlear implant is

perceived as defying everything one once believed. The cochlear implant removes one

from deaf culture, but also prevents full immersion into hearing culture. A cochlear

implant can provide a new sense to explore the world or leave one to be lost depending

on one’s perspective.

The cochlear implant is often dubbed as the cure for deafness, but many of those

with hearing loss take offense to this statement. A “cure” for deafness implies that

deafness is a disability. Those who are deaf choose to believe otherwise, and that their

deafness does not inhibit their lives as a disability does. However, if the deaf succeed

in taking hard of hearing off the governmental list of disabilities, then the hearing

impaired lose much of the essential governmental support. This includes: the

Americans with Disabilities Act, interpreters for phone calls, closed caption chips, and

separate schools and school programs for the deaf (Solomon 38). This would make it
 Barnett 2

nearly impossible for the hard of hearing to assimilate into everyday life and

communicate with others.

Eight electrodes implanted in the cochlea with an adecoder, a decoder in back of

the ear, a microphone lining the rim of the ear, and a speech processor clipped onto the

belt loop provides only a stimulus of spoken word. This fifteen thousand dollar plus

procedure is an irreversible one that can change a life for the better or the worse (Malek

34-39). One study proved that the implication of the cochlear implant at the ideal age of

zero to two years old could increase their risk of acquiring pneumococcal meningitis by

five times ("Children with Cochlear Implants at Increased Risk for Bacterial..."). Though

this is can be prevented by vaccine, there is always a risk involved. During the surgery,

since the cochlear implant site is extremely close to the facial nerve, damage to facial

nerves, loss of taste sensations, or full paralysis of the face could occur. Some other

more serious risks include a leakage of the cerebrospinal fluid or perilymph fluid from

the hole that the cochlear implant creates in the inner ear. It is also a possibility that the

cochlear implant could destroy any remaining hearing ability the patient previously had

(Weiss).

Entering the world with no recollection of ever hearing words is a situation that

poses difficult ethical decisions for the parents. The best time to effectively receive a

cochlear implant is before age two (Soloman 38). This is because as deaf children age,

they gradually lose neural connections essential for speech due to disuse (Malek 34-

39). At this age, the parents have to decide to implant the device for the child or wait

until the child can decide for themselves at age eighteen. Though the controversy then

poses that if the parents allow the child to make this decision at age eighteen then they
 Barnett 3

are actually deciding against the implant because it will not be as effective after waiting

so long. This decision is very different for those who are born to deaf parents and for

those who are born to hearing parents. If the parents of the deaf child are also deaf,

then they are aware of deaf culture and are actively choosing to remove the child from

this community. They grew up immersed in a community with encouragement,

empowerment, and a unique understanding of the world. The deaf community has their

own history, role models, and connection with other individuals like themselves that the

outside world can never fully understand (Benedict and Legg). Ninety percent of deaf

children belong to hearing parents; as a result, the parent chooses based on ignorance

of the deaf culture in hopes of the child growing up in the hearing culture (Soloman 38).

This life-changing decision puts an enormous amount of pressure on the parents of the

child and their decision must be extensively evaluated.

Those whose parents choose to wait for their child to decide whether or not to

receive the cochlear implant must find a different way for the child to communicate. To

grow up communicating solely by American Sign Language (ASL) limits the community

in which the child is able to communicate without an interpreter. Only one hundred and

thirty colleges currently allow ASL to count as a foreign language. This is because

colleges claim that ASL is not globally used and deaf people do not have their own

culture (Toppo 9D). This significantly lowers the number of hearing people that are able

communicate with deaf people that utilize ASL. Many are actively attempting to change

these policies and raise awareness that ASL is a language that should be learned. The

other issue concerning growing up with ASL as a first language is that one must also

learn English writing as a second language. ASL has its own sentence structure with no
 Barnett 4

verb tenses that is completely different from English. ASL’s sentence structure includes

time, object, and then words to describe what is happening (Toppo 9D). Therefore, this

creates an extremely large obstacle for the deaf to overcome. As a result, the issue

becomes that hard of hearing high school students graduate with a fourth grade reading

level on average (Solomon 38).

A common assumption is that the cochlear implant automatically restores all

hearing, and the deaf will be able to hear just as well as hearing people. In actuality,

the implant creates only a stimulation of sound. Spoken word will sound mechanical or

synthetic, but over time the person will often accommodate for this. There are also

many other everyday tasks that need to be altered for those with a cochlear implant.

These consist of using caution when encountering metal detectors, theft detectors, cell

phone and radio waves, and computers. Users of the implant do not have the ability to

distinguish between a soft and loud sound, and must adjust the settings each time their

environment or background noise changes (Weiss). Complications vary between

person to person as does the success with understanding language and the overall

effectiveness of the implant.

The Cochlear implant is a very advanced procedure that calls for extensive

research when deciding whether or not to receive one. A look into deaf culture provides

a new outlook that may sway one away from implanting this device. The many risks

concerning complications and infections pose uneasiness in potential patients. Aside

from the many concerns, this device could truly change one’s life and allow a new form

of communication for one who has grown up absent of hearing. The ability to talk on the
 Barnett 5

phone, watch television, listen to music, and hear the voices of loved ones for the first

time could be worth the risks involved with the surgery for some.