I Knew I'd Be Wrong...

As someone who has been hard of hearing since I was a teenager, I read with great interest about the case of Opal Sandy – the 18-month-old British toddler who has recently had her hearing “restored” in a pioneering medical trial.

I tweeted about this story when the news first broke.

Of course, I was proved wrong. 

It’s fantastic news that this little girl can now hear. She will no longer have to go through the negative situations that people with hearing loss often face. She won’t experience being self-conscious about her hearing, as I did as an adolescent, nor the difficulties of meeting new people, such as having to ask them to repeat themselves again and again. She won’t miss out on job progression because of her hearing loss. What is often required to get on in a company – overt participation in meetings, receiving verbal instructions and engaging with clients – are all affected by hearing loss. The impact that this will have on her life is tremendous.

So, it is an unalloyed good thing?  

Opal’s case is something to be celebrated. But it doesn’t have the profound ramifications for all deaf people that some hearing people might assume. It’s important to note that every case is different, and hers is very specific. This treatment is only applicable to a particular and rare type of deafness, meaning that its implications are not as widespread as some headlines might suggest.

So your objection is because this won't help enough deaf people? Oh no, Reader, we've come up against this phenomenon before, haven't we? It's the 'deaf culture' nonsense again...

But what might worry deaf people more is the discussion around Opal’s treatment. Prof Manohar Bance, the chief investigator for the trial, has used words such as “normal” and “cure”. There has been talk of deaf people being “given hope”. For some in the deaf community, words like these can be insulting. They suggest that people with hearing loss are hopelessly and aimlessly wandering through life, waiting for a magic wand that will cure them. Word choices like this make deaf people feel endangered.

Imagine feeling 'endangered' by a medical procedure that no-one will force you to take. That you can opt to 'spare' your disabled child from and no-one will find that surprising or demand that you rethink. 

Because make no mistake, being deaf IS a disability. Humans are meant to have five working senses, just as they are meant to have four working limbs.  

They don’t acknowledge that deafness is not a disease or that deaf people are not abnormal – we are most often happy, successful and thriving individuals, and make up a community with a language and culture we’re proud of. None of that needs to be “cured”.

Isn't it strange that there doesn't appear to exist a similar 'blind culture'? I wonder why.