Cochlear Implant Culture

The human ear is divided into three parts: the outer ear that contains the ear canal, the middle ear comprised of the ear drum and the small auditory bones, and the inner ear containing the cochlear and associated nerves. Sound is perceived in the brain through a mechanism that transforms auditory information encoded in the vibrations of the eardrum to electronic pulses that becomes transmitted through the auditory nerves in the brain. The cells that stimulate the nerve fibers and transduce the vibrational signal to electrical signal are the hair cells in the cochlea. A cochlear implant is designed to act in place of these cells (Christiansen and Leigh 363). It is inserted into the patient’s cochlea and contains a processor that takes the
For example, when the cochlear implant first appeared on the market, it was met with indifference from the Deaf community members rather than the enthusiasm that medical professions expected. This was because they did not feel they were lacking and did not see the need of a prosthesis to effectively communicate (Blume 61). However, as the cochlear implant became more prominent, was approved for children, and was increasing implanted in deaf children born to hearing parents, there was greater dissent. For example, when one hearing mother approached the Deaf community considering implanting her child, “certain members of the deaf community…their feelings were so angry and so hurtful…[the parents] were called child abusers…and butchers” (Christiansen and Leigh 365). Through the perspective of the cultural view, this reaction is understandable. Deaf individuals feel a great sense belonging and pride in their culture like other cultural minority groups. To them, getting the implant would be denying the unknowing child the opportunity to be part of the Deaf culture. Additionally, their anger and opposition to a device with a goal to rid of deafness is not surprising. Many of them saw the cochlear implant as a step towards the “death of deafness” and the abolishment of their community and way of life (Christiansen and Leigh 368). Therefore, many of those holding the cultural view showed
Recently, the debate appears to be more nuanced and less polarized, particularly due to the increased awareness of the opposing viewpoints as well as more information on the capacity and the limitations of the implant (Blume 192). Therefore, it is important to remember that the debate on the cochlear implant is not a simple one and leanings towards compromise or polarization can change with changes in time as well as the implant technology itself. Consequently, the views portrayed are not those of every single individual. However, the debate on cochlear implants is very much based on the differences between cultural and medical perspectives. Thus, it serves as an effective model in viewing the opposing opinions and compromises of these two views on Deafness as a