Hacker News Reader

Comment by akoboldfrying | Hacker News Reader

>It is important to consider the sociocultural context, particularly in regards to the deaf community, which has its own unique language and culture

Frankly, I disagree. I think a deaf person should be entitled to decline a low-risk treatment that would cure or mitigate their own deafness -- but to make that decision for a child is altogether different. Deliberately restricting a human being's sense experience throughout their lives should be considered child abuse, in the same basket as female genital mutilation. It's also about the most selfish thing I can imagine -- especially given that there's no reason I can see why a hearing child of deaf parents can't grow up "bilingual", learning both spoken and sign languages.

View on HN

This presupposes an awful lot. If it were truly a risk free magic wand you could wave, then I could see your point.

But none of the current options are risk free, and I doubt this one will be. They all have risks, side effects, and probably the chance of failure. And then the question is how low of a risk is acceptable to restore a child's hearing. These are people who would live an otherwise healthy and normal life, and they'd grow up in an accepting deaf family which is likely already plugged into a community. I can't imagine how it would feel to have a serious side effect (or worse) impact your child when you know they could have gone without that procedure and lived a happy, fulfilling life. But I also understand the desire to give your child every possible opportunity.

All of that is to say, I think it is reductive to compare this to child abuse or FGM. There's no right decision, and parents absolutely will need to make a difficult choice, hopefully prioritizing their child's safety and future above all else.

It's often not about the risk, though. It's sadly common for uppercase-D "Deaf culture" people to decline these kinds of treatments for their kids because they want their kids to be deaf too. That's absolutely child abuse.

> Deliberately restricting a human being's sense experience throughout their lives should be considered child abuse

I've got relatives that teach deaf children. most deaf kids who grow up in societies with mostly hearing kids, want to be normal more than anything. At the same time, for many who are eligible for cochlear implants, getting that early before speech development begins in earnest is very important, ideally when they're just a toddler or younger. Early enough and you'll barely notice any difference in their speech, understanding, etc. However, their parents often decline it and say they want to let their child be the one to choose when they're old enough to- which is far, far outside the best window for developing that area of the brain, as well as speech. They might be behind in those ways for the rest of their lives if they're not given therapy to help catch up.

I understand both sides I guess, but if consent is the issue, why not give them the implant and let them choose to disconnect the receiver then when they're older? Obviously, because they won't want to, and rarely ever do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com