On Friday, the 24th of April, Wisconsin turned a corner and passed new legislation potentially requiring all health insurance providers to fully fund cochlear implants in that state:
Gov. Jim Doyle has promised to sign the bill into law requiring private health insurance plans to cover cochlear implants, hearing aids and related treatment for those under the age of 18...
However, many families with deaf children cannot afford to pay for the $50,000 or more implants when those costs are excluded by insurance policies.
Proponents say getting the devices early is critical to help children develop their language skills.
At the same time, Deaf bloggers and organizations such as Audism-Free America became widely concerned, especially quoting Wisconsin representative Jim Cullen, who stated "this bill is going to allow children to keep their hearing, to become members of society, to go to school and keep a job." There are currently activities going on to drum up opposition for this bill, stating his comment shows great ignorance. Why is this happening? Is the road to hell really paved with good intentions? Join us as we investigate, below the fold...http://
I am a Deaf man who uses primarily American Sign Language. I also speak, use hearing aids, try to write novels, am an excellent cook, and have maintained several jobs, some at the same time. I consider myself a member of many communities, one of them the Deaf community. In my time I've been an activist for Deaf people's rights and freedoms. I, too, have concerns about the Wisconsin bill. First, let me quote the strong, clear words of Audism Free America:
We would like you to know that your statement exemplifies great ignorance and is very insulting. We would like you to know that –
- Cochlear implants do not allow children to KEEP their hearing. The children are (still) Deaf. (addition mine-jr)
- Deaf people are members of society and pay taxes, vote, work, live, and raise families fine with or without hearing aids and cochlear implants.
- Deaf people have been going to school in the U.S. since 1817 and are able to keep a job.
We realize that you may have never met a Deaf person who uses ASL and loves Deaf culture. We realize that you may view being Deaf as an affliction and something that needs to be fixed.
We wish that you would do your homework when advocating for legislation that directly impacts a people, culture, and language of which you know nothing about.
The concern of the AFA is that, by pushing for cochlear implants to be fully funded by insurance companies, parents will have no other option but to get that one device when confronted with the choice of what to do to help their newborn Deaf child grow and live a normal life. Cochlear Implants are, by far, the most-recommended instrument of rehabilitation and integration for Deaf children in the United States by medical professionals. They are backed by a powerful lobby and something which is beginning to become an excellent and sophisticated product. They are not, however, the only form of such rehabilitation, and in many cases not the best. They're classified as medical, so you can get the insurance company to pay for them. It's simple as that. If you want hearing aids and can't afford them, you petition the Lions Club or apply for aid; my family did that, once upon a time. If you want to learn ASL and try raising your child bilingually, you often have little or no support in this country. (Not true of others; many Scandinavian countries, for example, support sending parents and family members of Deaf children to learn their national sign language in special classes.)
Why support a variety of options? Personally, I have nothing against cochlear implants, but I do not use one myself. When chosen and used properly, they are a powerful tool, but they do not turn a Deaf child into a hearing person, they do not erase the need for American Sign Language, and they do not erase the attitudes people maintain about Deaf people and deafness, pervasive ones which are sometimes more harmful than can be believed. I benefited most by using hearing aids and learning American Sign Language, and was lucky to have had parents who took time to explain things to me and ask my own opinion. My particular combination of powerful community support and interaction with several communities proved the most fertile ground for my own development. I believe, however, that one of the most important points of being an American is having informed choice, and that people should have the right to choose how they want to live and raise their child. By supporting one choice over all others, politicians and lobbyists limit the abilities of parents to make the best choices for their children.
Audism Free America, and other culturally Deaf bloggers, are encouraging people to totally oppose this bill. I am not sure this is the best approach, although I understand their repugnance and distate for the misguided motivations behind this bill and the way they have manifested. I would personally advocate an revisionist approach such as the one below:
"(organization name here) is pleased that Wisconsin wishes to help the Deaf population. I am a Deaf person who has worked as [x] for a long time. I am proof that there are a variety of methods for successful rehabilitation and integration of Deaf children. These methods range from cochlear implants, an invasive surgical procedure, to hearing aids, to various speech therapies, and to the use of American Sign Language. The Cochlear Implant industry has lobbied to obtain support in the government, but by only fully supporting one of these options, Congress effectively creates barriers for those who would choose other options. This act should be enlarged to fully support equally effective (and cheaper) measures such as hearing aids and educational classes for new parents to learn about the issues Deaf people face and simultaneously teach families American Sign Language, which will allow them to communicate even if technology fails."
I believe the best options for the Deaf community are those which allow the most choices, not just another limited set. For one thing, it creates diversity, and diversity is what ensures survival - ask a biologist! For another, it feels somehow hypocritical to say "Only our way is right," simultaneously locking off any opportunity people will have to find their own way - it sounds like an approach which would turn off as many people as it might attract. Finally, why stop the momentum to support Deaf people, if there's a chance we can refine misguided impulses into something truly beneficial? If you support my suggestion, perhaps you will write a version in your own words, and send it to your representative.
UPDATE: After reading the text of the bill itself, the picture becomes less clear. It seems the bill supports the full funding of cochlear implantation as prescribed by the doctor, and the cost of one hearing aid per child per ear over three years. It does not support any other form of rehabilitation, family education or American Sign Language education for child or family. There is some panic due to rumor about the bill which is largely caused by an initial mis-reporting of Representative Cullen's words. I do not want to be misunderstood. This bill is a step forward in making sure services for Deaf children are covered by insurance companies. I want to find a solution which satisfies the needs of all children and doesn't try to apply a unilateral solution to a diverse group.
PS: The title was supposed to be sort of a pun on the idea of hearing every person's perspective and a phrase used in the Deaf community, "hearing people," meaning everyone who isn't deaf or hard of hearing. It didn't work.