Questions of deafness at center of new film from CNN.com

[Soundy]

Power was going on and off and missed the movie ...fried my phone , but thankfully
not the computer

I read an article in Wondertime Magazine when I was at school copying stuff...I have to go
back tomorrow and will lift the magazine from the workroom... just leave some of mine in it's place 
I looked on Wondertime website and couldn't find the article

It was written by a woman that has two daughters on partially deaf and the other totally deaf...
the younger has cochlear implants on both sides and at 4 or 5 will take them out when she
wants to not hear ... for them it has over all been a good experience

We have a little boy at school that has only part of a brain... one side of his skull is flattened and a
good 2 inches in from other side... he is totally deaf on one side as there are none of the inside
parts of the ear... and little hearing in the other side... his hand movements are jerky and often
flailing about ...so teaching him to sign has been a total failure... he has an implant and although
only makes grunts and no real words it is easier to communicate with him and for him with the implant...
when he first got it he would jerk it off his head , moan and cry when ever it was put on him...
that was in October...

now he will tolerate it longer... when classes change you have to take it off as the noise of kids going to
next class are too much for him...he loves to be outside and if you say DJ , Door he smiles and tries
to get out of his wheel chair to get to the door... complete sentences confuse him still but DJ Door
and a happy kid are alot better than the unhappy child we had back in the fall that hit himself and bit himself and
cried most of the time... he is in special classes except for recess and music... and has PT three days a week...
before the implant he refused to try to walk and got mad and tried to hit and bite... with it and learning
simple one or two word phrases he is a different child... he is walking 6-8 steps at a time and can get back
up with someone holding his hand

I know his other problems dwarf the deafness... he was sent home to die after birth... the plan was to just
feed him and do no extraordinary things to keep him alive... today he still only takes liquids through a bottle
as he can't manage solids ... but the ability to hear has made such a vast improvement in his life it
is almost unbelieveable... a learn to deal with it attitude , which til he was 6 is what was being done ,didn't
work for him...and now his parents are regretting not doing it sooner ... he won't ever be fully dependent but
he is no longer trapped in a silent world... he loves music and claps and stomps with the beat ... and he
laughs which he didn't do before


My youngest has a lymphatic malformation to the right side of her mouth... it is an over growth of lymphatic
tissue that protrudes into her mouth and makes her look like she has been popped in the mouth all the time ... she
had surgery at 3 and at 5 and at 5-1/2 and at 6-1/2 to remove tissue... the excess was getting bit and infected and
making brushing teeth on that side impossible... she is getting a bit puffy again and will go for evaluation in June ...
people have said we should not put her through it since it is unlikely to kill her... if it starts growing down neck it can
interfere with breathing or swallowing so mainly was done for cosmetics... when she was in kindergarten another child
held her down and pried her mouth open to see why her mouth was like it was and she came home black and blue
and bleeding ... he told her she was stupid and ugly because of her mouth ... if a kindergärtner does this , what would
happen as she got older... kid can be cruel... I forget about it and someone will say to her What happened to your face ?
and I will look to see what happened only to see what to me is my child's normal face...

she was already scheduled for surgery about 3 weeks later ...I marched to school the next morning talked to the
guidance counselor , principal and teacher ... without singling out the child as the bad guy we all talked about people
that were different... then the teacher explained that Sarah had a problem that made her mouth a little fat and was
going to have surgery soon and made it a class project to keep her healthy til then... the little boy ended up driving
her nuts in the process of keeping care of her ... and now as a third grader unless her mouth swells or gets purple
looking people don't notice... and she makes a good indicter of some virus or something like strep getting ready to hit
the class because her face will swell and get a purple look to that side 

My point is that sometimes you as a parent have to make choices for your child even if not popular with people
around you ... now at 8 almost 9 we let Sarah say whether she can live with the amount of excess tissue that is
there... last surgery was her choice and after next consult she and doctor will come to some decision.. I will step in
if the growth ever starts going down her neck as this could cause life threatening problems...like lack of breathing ...
and as long as it stays in soft tissue is easily removed and her mouth reshaped ... good thing is that these things
stop growing in about 98% of people after they get past puberty...

[Jim Scott]

My point is that sometimes you as a parent have to make choices for your child even if not popular with people
around you .

Soundy:

Thanks for your post and for sharing your real-life experiences that are affecting and educational for us all.  Your comments were welcomed and have moved me to rescind my prior declaration that I was leaving this thread, in order that I may respond to you. 

My (now adult) son never presented us with any sort of physical problem that required us to make a life-altering decision for him.  Still,  my wife and I both agreed that we would have done whatever was necessary to improve his life, if it ever came to that.   I believe most parents would do the same. 

Your handling of your child's lymphatic malformation has been commendable, but, as you noted, children can be extremely cruel.  Often, with children in groups, the slightest deviation from the physical (or emotional) norm is seized upon as a reason to torment another child.  This is one reason (among many) that children need almost constant adult supervision, but, realistically, we can't always protect our children from the world, which is too often merciless, but we can help them to cope as best we (and they) can. 

I believe that helping a deaf child to hear, even if that hearing has limitations, is better than pretending deafness doesn't matter and by so doing, keeping a relatively helpless child from the opportunity to hear.  Trying to base that decision on 'deaf pride' seems absolutely ludicrous - and callous.  This is why I opposed the mothers (Marlee Matlins' character) position in the movie that was discussed.  Now, I think I'm finally done here.   

Jim

[Pooter]

First, let me say that I only saw the last hour of the movie.  I didn't realize that it was a Tv-Movie until I was flipping through the channels the night it was on.  So, I can't speak to the entire movie, only the last half.  Although, I plan on buying it when it's out on DVD so I can watch the whole thing.

With that said, let me stir the pot up a little bit with Jim.

I believe that helping a deaf child to hear, even if that hearing has limitations, is better than pretending deafness doesn't matter and by so doing, keeping a relatively helpless child from the opportunity to hear.  Trying to base that decision on 'deaf pride' seems absolutely ludicrous - and callous. 
Jim

I think you're missing at least one of the points of the "deaf side" of the argument.  One of their points, and based on what parts of the movie I did see, the child wasn't helpless.  To go back to the movie, he wasn't "broken".  He seemed happy, except when seeing his parents obviously struggling in their relationship, and he was able to communicate.  At one point, you saw him at a desk drawing (or something) like most kids do.  Like most kids, he wanted to please his parents (when he said "Dad") and then refusing to talk after he realized that it upset his mother.  Had he never tried to speak or sign then you would have never known he was deaf by any other indication.  He didn't come across to me as a "relatively helpless child".  I disagree with the premise that a deaf child somehow has a less than happy and productive life simply because he cannot hear.  Sure, there are things that he wouldn't be able to experience that other kids would (e.g. hearing the 'crack' of a baseball bat at a game).  A similar argument could be made of kids that live in the deep south.  We don't get snow around here so my kids will not get the experience of making a snowman in the front yard at Christmas time.  A similar argument could be made of those that are poor.  They will not experience the thrill of getting a brand new Lexus on their 16th birthday (I realize that most don't).  The same argument could be made of left-handed people and the fact they'll never experience being able to write in a spiral notebook without the spiral cutting into their writing hand or that the entire world is geared for right-handed people.  (I'm left handed, btw) There are hundreds of examples of how circumstances would deny a child the same experiences of other children.  Many of those things can be "fixed".  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're being denied a happy life.

I think we tend to judge "quality of life" through our own experiences, and if another person doesn't get to do or experience the same joys that *I* do, then somehow they are being denied something critical in their life.  Fire away!

On anothe aspect for the entire group in the discussion.  There were several posts in this thread about the ending and how it left you hanging as to the outcome of the battle.  I disagree.  It seemed to me that the father finally realized that he wasn't acting in the best interests of his child, but in his OWN best interests.  In his office near the end, he had that realization when he was telling another character that it was his job to find what was beautiful and unique about his clients, not to change them into some "norm".  He realized that he was imposing his own idea of what a happy and complete life is.  When he went to see his wife/ex-wife at the end, to me he was going there to end the battle by giving in to her.  Again, this is my impression after only seeing the 2nd half of the movie, but it seemed to me that he was going to her to say, in essence, "You're right, I'm wrong...can you forgive me and take me back?".

*parachutes off soapbox"  "WHEEEEEEEEEE!"

Brian

[leapyrtwins]

Okay, Brian -

going to stir the pot a little myself 

You're a parent.  If this was your child, what would you have done?

Jan

[ppearl214]

*sits back with freshly popped, butter, 94% fat free popcorn*

[Melissa778]

Move over phyl, make room on the couch....I've got some milk duds to share.....They certainly aren't fat free, but I pretnd they are

Melissa

[Jim Scott]

Double post.  See below.

[ppearl214]

ya know, I've learned that I never question someone's parenting skills or parenting decisions. What may be right for one in handling/dealing with their children (and situations) may not be right for another.  Issue with the folks next door to me and I watch what they put their kids through... works for them... but it doesn't work for me.....

Phyl

[Jim Scott]

First, let me say that I only saw the last hour of the movie.  I didn't realize that it was a Tv-Movie until I was flipping through the channels the night it was on.  So, I can't speak to the entire movie, only the last half.  Although, I plan on buying it when it's out on DVD so I can watch the whole thing.

With that said, let me stir the pot up a little bit with Jim.


I think you're missing at least one of the points of the "deaf side" of the argument.  One of their points, and based on what parts of the movie I did see, the child wasn't helpless.  To go back to the movie, he wasn't "broken".  He seemed happy, except when seeing his parents obviously struggling in their relationship, and he was able to communicate.  At one point, you saw him at a desk drawing (or something) like most kids do.  Like most kids, he wanted to please his parents (when he said "Dad") and then refusing to talk after he realized that it upset his mother.  Had he never tried to speak or sign then you would have never known he was deaf by any other indication.  He didn't come across to me as a "relatively helpless child".  I disagree with the premise that a deaf child somehow has a less than happy and productive life simply because he cannot hear.  Sure, there are things that he wouldn't be able to experience that other kids would (e.g. hearing the 'crack' of a baseball bat at a game).  A similar argument could be made of kids that live in the deep south.  We don't get snow around here so my kids will not get the experience of making a snowman in the front yard at Christmas time.  A similar argument could be made of those that are poor.  They will not experience the thrill of getting a brand new Lexus on their 16th birthday (I realize that most don't).  The same argument could be made of left-handed people and the fact they'll never experience being able to write in a spiral notebook without the spiral cutting into their writing hand or that the entire world is geared for right-handed people.  (I'm left handed, btw) There are hundreds of examples of how circumstances would deny a child the same experiences of other children.  Many of those things can be "fixed".  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're being denied a happy life.

I think we tend to judge "quality of life" through our own experiences, and if another person doesn't get to do or experience the same joys that *I* do, then somehow they are being denied something critical in their life.  Fire away!

Let me respond to your points and state that I appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue, although I think, at this point, it's nearing it's useful life as a subject of discussion.  Let us remember that this was a fictional situation and that in real life such decisions are very personal - and emotionally wrenching - to the people involved.  While I have strong opinions on the subject, I would never think of attempting to impose my point of view on a couple that were in the situation the movie presented.  It would be none of my business and even if asked for my opinion, I would be very hesitant to offer it as I believe in parental rights and don't wish to interfere with parental decisions.  No matter how strongly I might feel, unless it's my child, I have no right to tell another parent what to do, especially in such a serious decision as the movie presented.  That said, discussing the issue hypothetically is fine and gives us the chance to state and defend our relative positions on the issue with no real consequence to anyone, except for a lot of tying. 

The deaf boy was 'happy' the same way a child I know who has CP and walks very awkwardly is happy.  He accepts his limitations and copes as best he can.  I am convinced that he would prefer to walk normally.  This boy (age 10) has had several surgeries to help him walk better.  They were successful.  His parents made the decision to help their son have a better chance of walking normally, even though he was 'happy' prior to having the corrective surgery, which didn't cure the underlying condition but ameliorated the consequences of the CP, just as a cochlear implant improves a deaf person's condition without actually restoring normal hearing.  I see nothing wrong with that and I'm a bit surprised to learn that some do, at least in hypothetical cases, such as the movie in question ('Sweet Nothing In My Ear').   

I find the contention that because a deaf child is presumed to be happy and so, should remain happily deaf, absurd.  In reality, such a child is deprived of a very basic sense we use to function and this limits his opportunities.  I see that position as misguided compassion, taking the concept of human equality a bit farther than common sense would dictate.  The ‘happy’ deaf child portrayed in the movie relied, as all deaf people do, on hand signing to communicate.  Very few people can sign or interpret sign language so this, alone, while a useful tool for the deaf, limits the child to a great degree, as the father pointed out to his deaf wife in the movie.  I used the term'helpless' to describe the child's inability to obtain a cochlear implant on his own.  If the mother has her way, he'll remain deaf until he is old enough to make the decision (and pay for) the implant.  Until then, he depends on his parents for everything, as all minor children do.  In that regard, the boy is definitely helpless.  He cannot legally make the decision to have the cochlear implant much less, pay for it.  By the time he is old enough to do so, he'll have been totally deaf so long that re-learning speech will be far more difficult than it would have been had he been given the implant as a child.  This hardly 'respects' deafness.       

The example of being left-handed fails here because being left-handed is only a minor impediment to a full, productive life and does not require surgery or an implant.  Living in the south and not seeing snow is a choice and doesn't relate to the loss of hearing as an impediment because it isn't a physical problem.  A bus ticket north could rectify that situation.  Being poor is in the same non-relevant category.  Poverty, although it can impact one's physical health, isn't a physical problem and unlike deafness, can be reversed.  Deafness, as with being a paraplegic or blind, is unique, life-changing and cannot be seriously compared to being left-handed or some other minor difference.  That is the point.  Attempting to pretend that being deaf is simply being 'different', like being left-handed or whatever, in my opinion, is grossly misguided.  Then, to compound that mistake, advocates of the mother (in the movie) would attempt to characterize the simple recognition of this profound loss (of the ability to hear) as insulting to deaf people and demand that the child's deafness be 'respected'.....by refusing to authorize a cochlear implant for the child.    Further, they would contend that the deaf child is 'happy' so the father (in the movie) should just 'leave him alone' in his world of silence and concentrate on helping him sign better.  Again, this is taking the reasonable and compassionate concept of 'respecting' those with infirmities or that are different from the norm to absurd, even unconscionable  lengths.  If a person is born with a physical affliction that cannot be helped with medicine, technology or surgery, that concept of acceptance (for the person and society) applies and we employ it all the time.  However, when a child is born with (or develops) a serious physical handicap, such as deafness, and can be helped (to hear) with a combination of technology and (implant) surgery, to ignore that opportunity to help the child on the basis of 'respecting' his deafness seems wrong to me.  It's also easy to impose this alleged 'respect' when one does not suffer from the same handicap.   

On another aspect for the entire group in the discussion.  There were several posts in this thread about the ending and how it left you hanging as to the outcome of the battle.  I disagree.  It seemed to me that the father finally realized that he wasn't acting in the best interests of his child, but in his OWN best interests.  In his office near the end, he had that realization when he was telling another character that it was his job to find what was beautiful and unique about his clients, not to change them into some "norm".  He realized that he was imposing his own idea of what a happy and complete life is.  When he went to see his wife/ex-wife at the end, to me he was going there to end the battle by giving in to her.  Again, this is my impression after only seeing the 2nd half of the movie, but it seemed to me that he was going to her to say, in essence, "You're right, I'm wrong...can you forgive me and take me back?".

*parachutes off soapbox"  "WHEEEEEEEEEE!"

Brian

I disagree, Brian.  Gee, what a surprise! 

I think you're reading into the movie's conclusion what you want it to be, which supports your position.  You could be right, but I believe the writers purposely left the ending ambiguous so they wouldn't offend anyone by taking a definite stand on the issue, as this thread - and your arguments - make it obvious that the issue is somewhat contentious. 

In the final analysis, as Phyl noted earlier, it's a personal choice for the real-life parents of a deaf child to decide.  These comments are simply personal opinions, pro and con, with no real impact on anyone.  That being the case, I think we can agree to disagree on the issue.  I'm willing, as I'm sure you are. 


Jim

[sgerrard]

Since there is popcorn and milk duds, I'll join in. 

I think a good compromise on Adam would be to put in the cochlear implant, and then continue to raise him as if he were deaf. By that I mean teach him sign language (and learn it themselves), put him in an education situation that supports deaf children, find him deaf or nearly deaf friends, and so on. It is not the technology itself, but the presumption that if he has an implant, he can hear normally, and should be able to speak and converse normally. If that becomes the expectation, and he can't live up to it, he might be in for a childhood of misery and torment. On the other hand, if he can grow up in a deaf-supporting environment, and have the added bonus of a little bit of hearing, so much the better.

To be honest, I didn't actually see the movie, so this is based entirely on what I'm reading here, and many conversations with my sister, who is a professional sign language interpreter and has worked in the Seattle deaf community for many years.

It is too bad that our society tends to polarize on issues, under that mistaken notion that stubbornness equates to dedication, but we all know that it is very common. I think both sides on this issue go too far when making their arguments - in the movie, of course, not the forum.

Steve

[leapyrtwins]

Jim -

good debate, your points are well taken.

Steve -

I'm not playing favorites here    What you're saying makes total sense to me; it's very logical and, as an accountant, I like logical things.  Pass the milk duds, please.

Brian -

I still wonder if you'd feel differently if the child in question was yours.  I only ask because as a parent, I've had to make decisions on behalf of both my children that I never thought I'd ever have to make.  It kind of goes with the territory.  In my case it's a little easier to make the hard decisions because I don't have to agree or compromise with a spouse, but then again I have the disadvantage of not always looking at both sides of an issue.  A couple of times during the movie I wondered what I'd do if the boy were my child.

Jan 

[Pooter]

Oh how I miss debating "hot" topics.  I used to do it all the time in college.  Then, a "real" job, marriage, kids, bills, etc.. all got in the way.

Jim - All good points.  I should point out that I never expressed my argument directly as MY argument, but a defense of the "deaf side".  I totally agree that parenting decisions are very personal ones and should be made within the immediate family and not taking into account what everyone else thinks or feels about it.  About the ending, I admitted that I hadn't seen the whole movie, which could have jaded my interpretation of the ending.  I stated how *I* took the ending to mean in the context the little bit of the movie I actually got to see.  I could be wrong.  I'll watch the whole thing when it comes out on DVD and re-evaluate then.  So far as the debate goes, I'll agree to leave the dead horse be.  Again, in true debate form, I wasn't necessarily stating *MY* beliefs but taking the "other side" for the purposes of the debate itself.  Like you, I enjoy it so long as it doesn't degenerate to ad hominem attacks that take away from the discussion.  I used to really irritate people by convincingly arguing one side of an argument only to come back later and just as convincingly argue the other side.  It's the debate itself that I love. :*)

Jan - To address your question.  My first thought is that it's not a fair question.  The situation would be different than the ficticious scenario (the movie) that we're discussing.  I'm not deaf (at least not yet) and my wife isn't either.  Neither of us know sign language (at least not enough to effectively communicate with a deaf person)  If we had a child that was born hearing and then went deaf, our thought process and life experiences would guide our decision on the implant surgery. What guides and motivates me, as a hearing parent married to a hearing parent, would be VASTLY different than that of the characters in the movie.  Taking the differences in the situations out of the mix, I think I would opt for the implants.  My wife may take a totally different stance, though.  She's deathly afraid of any kind of medical procedures especially when it involves the kids.  Don't get me wrong, she'd allow procedures, even if very scary to her, in the situation where their health would be jeapordized without the treatment, but implants would be essentially an elective procedure and not needed to save their life or protect from further life-threatening things.  That's the long answer.  The short answer is, I don't know what we would decide to do.  It's not a black and white issue (as evidenced by the very discussion we're having right now).  If your queston was intended to be "what would I do if I were the parent in the movie" then again it's tough because I didn't have the benefit of seeing the whole movie so I don't think I'm qualified to make that call.  I didn't get the benefit of seeing the first half of the movie, which I presume had lots of character development that would shape my opinion on the characters, especially the mother and father.  It's hard not to interject my own life into the thought process of making the decision, and having gone through a very rough time in my marriage and literally dragging it back from the depths of heck to where we are now, I tend to think that I would have done whatever I needed to do in order to preserve the family even if that meant relenting to not going through with the implant.  I believe that keeping the family as a single unit and united would likely have outweighed my personal opinions on the implants.  Does either of those answer your question?

So, we have popcorn and milk duds, but did anyone bring the skittles? 

~Brian

[ppearl214]

*passes bag of littl' skittles down the sofa*

[Jim Scott]

Brian:  Thanks for the discussion.   Really. 

I don't generally seek debate - especially on the internet - but I don't hesitate to state a position I believe in and I'm always willing to defend it as well as consider the opposite point of view.  As this is a support site for AN patients I harbored no desire to engage in ad hominem attacks on anyone and, re-reading my posts, I don't believe I've done so - and neither have you.  I simply feel the 'pro-deaf' argument is flawed.  I've offered numerous reasons explaining why I hold that point of view.  I stand by my original contention. 

Again, let us not forget that this was simply a TV movie - fiction - although probably based on reality.  A reality I'm thankful I never had to live through.  The fact that one parent was deaf (in the movie and, ironically, in real life) skewed the fictional decision-making process but was likely added to generate conflict and enhance the inherent pathos of the story. 

At this point, despite a few 'bystanders' using the discussion as an excuse to snack, I feel I've exhausted the subject, but if you wish to have a last word on it, I'm amenable to that. 

Jim

[ppearl214]

At this point, despite a few 'bystanders' using the discussion as an excuse to snack, I feel I've exhausted the subject, but if you wish to have a last word on it, I'm amenable to that. 

HEY!!!!!!!!!  I resemble that remark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!