MEDI7231 Study Guide - Final Guide: Auslan, Cochlear Implant, Kantian Ethics
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS II
Hyde, M, Power, D. Some ethical dimensions of cochlear implantation for deaf children and their families. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2005;11(1):102-111
Questions
Hyde and Power note that there are significant inequalities in cochlear implantation access, stating,
“there have been inequalities among ethnic and linguistic minority groups, SES groups, and deaf children
with additional disabilities” (2006, p.104).
Statistics
oGreater incidence of implants: white background, high SES, no additional disability
oLower incidence of implants – Hispanic, African Americans, low SES, multiple disabilities
Why do you think this is so?
oDifferences in attitude towards deafness & CI – white speaking people may value hearing more than
other ethnic and linguistically diverse groups
oHigh financial costs + lower rates of available insurance and public funding for CI
oGreater access – higher SES individuals are more likely to live in areas accessible to CI programs, know
the right people, understand the CI and health system
oLess academically capable of learning how to use CI – multiple disabilities may not know how to
maximally utilise the CI; linguistically diverse background may not be able to communicate in the
correct language to utilise the CI
What might a Kantian approach be to this issue?
oKantian ethics would say if it is good for one child, it is good for everyone = every deaf child should be
given the device
oKantian does not take into account the perspectives of Deaf Culture, who believe CI are damaging and
counterproductive to their culture
oKantian followers who belonged to deaf culture would believe it is bad for all children to receive a CI,
thus no deaf child should receive one
oIs the child being used as a means to the parents end?
Is the parent only consenting to the CI to ease the difficulties of having to raise a deaf child, thus
looking at the benefits for themselves rather than the child
Likewise, are deaf parents aiming to perpetuate their culture without considering the best
interests of the deaf child
Therefore, Kantian would take the approach that allows the child to fit into whichever society it
is best suited to – open ‘future’ argument that doesn’t force the child into either view, as that
would take away the child’s autonomy
Would a Utilitarian approach be different, and if so how?
oUtilitarian approach aims to yield the greatest good for the greatest amount of people
oExample: if wealthy white children represent the largest portion of deaf children, they would find it
acceptable to treat these children first
oExample: utilise the funds to benefit the most people – spend most money on hearing aids vs minimal
CI (cost/ benefit) to maximise hearing people or give CI to reduce special education costs
oDeafness takes away an additional communication opportunity for the child, and a cochlear implant
provides some perception of sound, which helps in schooling education, for families who use
speaking/ hearing communication
oEarlier implantation correlates to greater utilisation of the implant
NOTE: both the deontological and utilitarianist view on CI depend on
oMedical view – deafness is a disability and rectifying it with surgery/ treatment will give a better
outcome
oCultural view – deafness gives a different mode of existence and communication; rather than defining
the child as an audiogram, we can value/ celebrate his cultural identity, and even mend bridges
between hearing and deaf communities
Should children with multiple disabilities receive a cochlear implant?
YES!!!
CI enables these children to receive environmental stimuli that promote their development
Acoustically-able to guide their own actions, react better to potential dangers, develop greater autonomy,
and relate to others with more consistency
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Hyde, m, power, d. some ethical dimensions of cochlear implantation for deaf children and their families. Hyde and power note that there are significant inequalities in cochlear implantation access, stating, There have been inequalities among ethnic and linguistic minority groups, ses groups, and deaf children with additional disabilities (2006, p. 104). Statistics: greater incidence of implants: white background, high ses, no additional disability o. Lower incidence of implants hispanic, african americans, low ses, multiple disabilities. Less academically capable of learning how to use ci multiple disabilities may not know how to maximally utilise the ci; linguistically diverse background may not be able to communicate in the correct language to utilise the ci. What might a kantian approach be to this issue? o o o o. Kantian ethics would say if it is good for one child, it is good for everyone = every deaf child should be given the device.
