Many of the comments under the article on cochlear implants that appeared on National Public Radio’s (NPR) website on April 8th, 2012 claim that it is heavily biased in favor of cochlear implants, and poorly researched. Also of note are two remarks by Dr. John Niparko, an expert in the field, and the lack of critical analysis surrounding those remarks.
He claims: “The implant works for the vast majority of deaf people,” and “all children born deaf and without other disabilities have the chance to be fully integrated into a hearing society.”
Are these accurate but ultimately empty claims?
In the first statement, what does “works” mean? For example, if we take “the vast majority” part of the statement to heart, and assume an implant “works” for 90% of the deaf people who have one (this is merely a hypothetical number used here for the purpose of discussion and is in no way meant to imply Dr. Niparko himself made such a precisely numerical claim–but that in and of itself, the lack of precision, carries implications all of its own), what are we to make of that? And let’s further purposely avoid the issue of socio-economic divide, which is most likely true.
If a cochlear implant “works” for 90% of the deaf people who use one (or two), does it “work” to the same extent for all of them?
The question is not merely one of semantics. Nor is it meant to turn scientific analysis into a political debate. The same question could be asked of any medical/technological device or drug. Does a pacemaker work equally well for all patients who receive one? Does Lipitor work equally well for all people who take this drug? If the answer to these questions is obviously “No,” why does the NPR article emphasize the “miracle” and the success of cochlear implants in favor of a more balanced approach?
Another issue to keep in mind is that “balance” in this issue should not involve contrasting the success of cochlear implants with the struggles of residential schools for the deaf (though this is something NPR, and not Dr. Niparko, is responsible for). That isn’t an issue of readers being misled, it’s an issue of distraction.
Bluntly stated: What is the failure rate of cochlear implants? How does the medical community define failure? What percentage of deaf people in the hypothetical “90%” figure given above (it bears repeating that we’re using this figure because we haven’t been given an actual figure) receive, in effect, very little useable hearing, though the implant does technically “work” for them? How many have approximately only half of their hearing restored? How many have some version of their hearing returned, but not a version of hearing most would consider “normal” (hence the training and rehabilitation that follows an implantation)?
Certainly Dr. Niparko does not mean to claim a cochlear implant works flawlessly or even equally well for “most” of the people who receive one. If this assumption is incorrect, perhaps future media interviewers will invite him to provide clarification upon this issue?
This leads us to another issue that is not merely one of semantics. We repeat here Dr. Niparko’s other statement of interest in NPR’s article: “…all children born deaf and without other disabilities have the chance to be fully integrated into a hearing society.”
The “all” part of the statement has already been covered by the percentage question above. All of them equally well? All of them fully? Without analysis and evidence, we have to assume that by “all” he in fact means that there is a whole range of implant users, with only some of them being able to function in sound-based communication environments without difficulty, and some of them not able to function adequately at all (at least not based on the information they receive from their implants).
This assumption would make the statement contradictory until one considers another part of the staetement: “have the chance to be”. On the surface this resolves the contradiction, because regardless of how well the implant works, everyone has “a chance to be” fully integrated into hearing society (this claim would also logically apply to deaf signers who elect not to get implants).
But let’s examine this more closely. What does he actually mean? Does the phrase accurately measure something, or does it fan the flame of false hopes? For example, a three foot tall human being certainly has the chance to join the NBA in the sense that there’s no law against it (in fact there are laws that prevent the NBA from discriminating against him because of his height). But will this happen? A woman certainly has the chance to join the military, and countless have, but can she do so without being concerned about discrimination or in fact about her physical safety?
What are Dr. Niparko’s views on the “hearing world’s” acceptance of cochlear implants?
This is an important question. The media often implies that it is only members of the signing deaf community that have difficulties accepting implants, while the “hearing world” will greet those who receive cochlear implants with open arms. (The NPR article indirectly does this by bringing up the example of children with multiple handicaps being sent to schools for the deaf and the tensions this causes through the impact on tradition and culture).
The former implication, as a sweeping generalization, is false—though of course there are deaf people who are not open to the idea of implants. It is precisely because of this fact, however, that it is also completely fair and reasonable to assume that there are hearing people who are not open to them as well.
So let’s put the focus there, solely on the “hearing world,” since the media won’t. This is where the focus should logically be if that is the world deaf people who elect to get implants actually want to join (to say nothing of hearing parents who choose to have their children implanted).
Is Dr. Niparko claiming that deaf people who receive cochlear implants will never face discrimination, or social rejection, from hearing people in the “hearing world?” Do we not deserve to know? If we agree not to question the claim there is a “chance” deaf people with cochlear implants can be integrated—and even “integrated” is a term that carries with it the question of extent and degree—should we demand his precise views regarding the extent to which they will not?
It is high time that medical professionals, including those who champion the advance of cochlear implant technology, be held accountable for vague and possibly empty claims as well as claims that are precise, research-based ones.