Response by Sue Schwartz
Ethics Roundtable: Case Study
To Sign or Not?
Advising Families of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidate
|
Wolfson is in a difficult position since he is a new
member of this team. He does, however, have an ethical
responsibility to state his opinion. This should not be
done in the presence of the family since this is not his
case and he is only an observer. When the team meets he
should state his own opinions about methodology and
cochlear implants.
The child in question has a profound hearing loss and,
therefore, will not instantly respond to the sound he
receives from his cochlear implant. Signing could bridge
the time between implantation and successful use of sound.
Very often, the family is frustrated by an inability to
communicate with a child with profound hearing loss and
this could help the communication at home. There are
significant numbers of children with implants who use sign
language. The sign system should include hearing and
speech.
Mr Wolfson owes it to himself, the family, and the child
to state his convictions. The team that provides the
habilitation, likewise, has to make the commitment to using
the system that the family and the child have decided to
use. It is the responsibility of the team to support the
family in its decisions.
Sue Schwartz
Family Services
Montgomery County Public Schools
Programs for Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of
Hearing
|
Ethics
Roundtable Home
Case Study
Responses
Annotated Bibliography
|
To submit cases or to be added to the list of respondents
please contact:
Roy Shinn, e-mail:
shinn@edinboro.edu