“For Some Who Lost Their Hearing, Implants Help”
Author: Jane E. Brody
Publication: New York Times
Date: October 3, 2006
This article gives a great overview of cochlear implants. It covers the mechanism of the implant, the method of implantation, financial issues associated with the device, and the social controversy surrounding cochlear implants. My only prior knowledge about cochlear implants came from a friend who had the device implanted when he was a child. Otherwise, I knew very little about the mechanism and function of cochlear implants.
Considering how our country was founded on the belief of every citizens’ right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” it seems hypocritical and unethical to put a price on health. In every realm of biotechnology we have studied, however, money always plays an unavoidable role. Insurance, copays, HMOS… these terms inevitably arise during any discussion involving medical treatments and advances. Cochlear implants are no exception. At a whopping $40,000 per implant, excluding the cost of doctors’ fees, audiologist evaluations and speech therapy, when the priority for low-income families is paying the rent and putting food on the table, cochlear implants for a deaf family member becomes an unaffordable luxury.
Prior to researching this topic, it had never occurred to me that social controversies beyond cost would exist, largely because I have never stopped to consider perspectives from the deaf community. Despite improving technology, cochlear implants do not perfectly restore hearing. Those who receive implants experience hearing that is equivalent to a mild to moderate hearing loss. Because of this, many in the deaf community are opposed to this imperfect technology. Sign language is an effective alternative to audible communication. They believe that a healthy deaf person who is able to communicate through sign language and lip reading has a better self-image than a person with an implant who has trouble hearing. Whereas a deaf person can sign perfectly and skillfully, a deaf person with the current cochlear implant could never hear as well as the non-deaf. Thus, implants present an inherent deficiency that could harm self-image.
It will be interesting to see how this particular controversy develops as cochlear implants improve. The Boston Scientific Corporation is currently developing the Harmony HiResolution Bionic Ear System, which would increase the number of inputs to the hair cells that trigger hearing from 24 to 120. The company says that this new bionic ear would grant improved listening in noisy environments and enhanced pitch recognition for music. If researchers and engineers were to craft a device that could create near-perfect hearing, would these objections from the deaf community still exist?
No comments:
Post a Comment