Differently

"I'll sacrifice a rabbit -- or, if I can't find a good one at a decent price, then three fine peaches."

Good answer.

Bioethics major here. We studied the implications of cochlear implants in one of my classes. Just as you say, it's a controversial issue for some people, and presents something of a dilemma: Children at a pre-linguistic age are too young to decide for themselves if they want the implants, but also stand to gain the most. Waiting until a later age means passing a critical period of language development -- people who are totally deaf until adulthood often have difficulty learning to speak and understand spoken words, even when hearing has been restored.

On the surface, this appears to be a very uncomplicated case of weak paternalism; the child cannot choose for themselves but there is an obvious benefit involved, so we can assume they would choose that option. However, it is made more complex by the arguments of the deaf community, that non-hearing isn't "bad" but simply "different," that there is a culture at stake, etc.

My view is that the case for cochlear implants is stronger than the case against. Briefly:

1) Safety: Deafness isn't really an alternative lifestyle; it bears with it a lot of restrictions and risks that are not present in other lifestyle choices. Someone might not eat pork because of their religion, someone else might not eat pork because of an allergy. The first could choose to have a slice of bacon if desired; the second could not. A deaf person isn't committing to deafness out of some kind of respectful observance; it's outside their control. This can be problematic when it comes to safety, fire alarms and such.

2) Autonomy: People don't choose to be deaf if they're born with hearing. I don't mean to make an argument from popularity here, what I mean to say is that, if it really was a level playing field, being deaf and choosing to remain so would be just the same as having hearing and choosing to become deaf, it would be a permeable boundary in both directions. Arguing that people born deaf shouldn't become hearing implies that there is something about being "born into" deafness that ought to keep people there; we think this is an ethical problem when it comes to things like religions, and the same applies here. If you can't choose out of it, your autonomy is compromised.

3) Culture: The deaf community is important to its members because they can understand each other; not just ASL but the experience of deafness. There are other communities with thriving cultures as well, expatriate enclaves for example. If there was a family living in an English-speaking country who tried to prevent their young child from ever learning to speak English in order to keep them close to the community and culture of their national group, we would find that unethical and not respective of the child's autonomy. Bilingual people can be members of both the English and non-English speaking communities. Hearing people can and should learn ASL. While having the ability to hear might make it difficult to relate first-hand to the experiences of the deaf, that is not sufficient reason to consign a child to a life without hearing.

Now you might say, hey, what's the deal with this? In #2 you say that it's not respecting autonomy to decline the surgery on behalf of the child, isn't that exactly the opposite -- isn't letting them grow up and make their own choice more respective of autonomy than making the choice for them? The answer is no, and here's why: Declining the surgery is as much of a choice as electing it; just because you choose the status quo doesn't make it not a choice you've made. In this case, you're deciding between deaf and hearing. Choosing deaf isn't a non-decision, and it will affect that critical linguistic development period mentioned earlier, as well as prevent the child from doing some things like music that they might otherwise have liked, so it's a pretty restrictive thing to put upon them. Not saying it's bad to be a deaf person, just that it's bad to say "I do not want my child to hear."

Okay, so we're deciding here and now whether to let this child hear or be deaf. Can a hearing person still participate in the deaf community by learning sign language and making friends with everyone? Maybe, maybe not, but I sure hope the answer is yes on that one. The next question is, can a deaf person still participate in the hearing community where very few people speak ASL? Society does its best on that one, but deafness creates an interpersonal barrier more complex than differences in language or culture. I think it's wrong to deny a child the ability to hear just because doing so cements them as a member of the deaf community.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this isn't the best argument that could be made (feels to me like a solid B- essay, middle-of-the-pack at best), but I sort of got onto a rant here and made it a lot longer than I intended. If you read all the way down, thanks! Hope you enjoyed it!

I'm glad you said so, because most people can't really call Nick Vujicic an asshole without seeming like a worse asshole themselves.

I'm sure that would be someone at the soap dispenser company and not a professor of psychology at a Canadian university.