|
In reading David Luterman's article, "Counseling Parents About Cochlear Implants" (May 27), I was disappointed to find a few very biased statements in an otherwise informative article.
By calling advocacy by the Deaf community "militancy" and advocacy by the auralists "passionate advocacy," Luterman's position on the subject is made clear. If we truly have a breakthrough in the cochlear implant, why do we discourage people from also exploring the Deaf community when a deaf child is diagnosed? Luterman also seems to make the claim that the Deaf culture movement arose from the difficulties previously experienced in oral deaf education, and that it appears to be subsiding due to the advent of cochlear implant technology. I would argue the opposite, as the Deaf community feels strongly against the cochlear implant in many cases and has rallied against it.
I am neither for nor against cochlear implants, but am definitely in favor of a clear and fair expression of ideas. If I had a child with profound hearing impairment, I would expect that the professionals I encountered would advise me to not only talk with an audiologist and other parents, but also to go to a Deaf community center or school. In not doing so, we are not giving our parents all their options. We are not respecting their right to choose, and we appear threatened by the choices available. I propose that all SLPs and audiologists make a commitment to give parents of the deaf all the options available.
M. Beth Williams
Houston, TX
DakiniRawk@aol.com
|