Patrick Kermit

Deaf or deaf? Questioning alleged antinomies in the bioethical discourses on cochlear implantation and suggesting an alternative approach to d/Deafness

The assumption that there exist two mutually exclusive conceptions of d/Deafness – a medical/biological as opposed to a socially constructed one – is an underlying premise for much of the ongoing bioethical discourse on paediatric cochlear implantation. This text first presents this discourse and then analyses the alleged antinomy. Using the original Kantian conception of antinomies, it is argued that trying to judge which is more ‘true’, nature or convention, is futile. Against the backdrop of the history of deaf education and recognition of signed languages as fully fledged languages, a three-fold, intertwined approach to d/Deafness is suggested that includes: deafness as physical impairment, Deafness as lingual belonging and deafness as socially constructed disability. Whether or not cochlear implants represent something useful or something harmful to deaf children depends on how the interaction between the different notions of d/Deafness is understood.

Enhancement technology and outcomes: what professionals and researchers can learn from those skeptical about cochlear implants.

This text presents an overview of the bioethical debate on pediatric cochlear implants and pays particular attention to the analysis of the Deaf critique of implantation. It dismisses the idea that Deaf concerns are primarily about the upholding of Deaf culture and sign language. Instead it is argued that Deaf skepticism about child rehabilitation after cochlear surgery is well founded. Many Deaf people have lived experiences as subjects undergoing rehabilitation. It is not the cochlear technology in itself they view as problematic, but rather the subsequent rehabilitation process. Because they themselves have experienced what they describe as harmful effects which relate above all to the idea of normalization, they have articulated worries for the new generations of deaf children in need of rehabilitation following cochlear implant surgery. These insights have attracted little attention, but could represent relevant ethical questions of which both practitioners and researchers in the field of implantation might be aware.

‘Hearing’ or ‘Deaf’? Discussing epistemological and methodological issues related to the bioethical discourse on paediatric cochlear implantation

Abstract Perhaps the most dominating question in the bioethical discourse on paediatric cochlear implantation is that of whether or not a prelingual deaf child should undergo surgery. This paper argues that other, possibly more important questions can be posed if the bioethical discourse is based on a better empirical understanding of what cochlear implantation might mean for a prelingual deaf child. Many contributors for and against paediatric cochlear implantation base their arguments on the theoretical premise that choosing whether or not to implant is effectively the same as choosing between having a hearing and speaking child or a (culturally) Deaf and signing child. This notion is rejected analytically as oversimplified. Methodologically it is paramount to distinguish between hearing ability, the ability to pick up and utter words or sentences and the ability to use language to successfully interact with others. The text argues that more epistemological weight should be placed on the latter. Unfortu...

Choosing for the child with cochlear implants: a note of precaution.

Recent contributions to discussions on paediatric cochlear implantation in Norway indicate two mutually exclusive doctrines prescribing the best course of post-operative support for a child with cochlear implants; bilingually with sign language and spoken language simultaneously or primarily monolingually with speech only. This conflict constitutes an ethical problem for parents responsible for choosing between one of the two alternatives. This article puts forth the precautionary principle as a possible solution to this problem. Although scientific uncertainty exists in the case of both doctrines, there exists a scenario of possible irreversible harm to some of the children habilitated monolingually. An application of the precautionary principle may hence suggest that it is rational to agree on the bilingual approach, at least for the time-being.

Gatekeeping in professional higher education in Norway: ambivalence among academic staff and placement supervisors towards students with disabilities

ABSTRACT Despite legislative regulations, many students with disabilities face barriers to their participation in higher education. In professional education, the requirements for placement practice add to the barriers for both students who need to disclose their impairments and request special arrangements, and staff who need to make the arrangements to accommodate to the students’ special needs. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the perspectives of academic staff and placement supervisors on supporting students with disabilities in professional programmes within health care, social work and teaching. Data were generated from focus group discussions with 13 lecturers who worked with students on campus, and 8 professionals who supervised students during practice placement. The results indicate an ambivalence among the staff and supervisors regarding working with students with disabilities. This ambivalence seems to be triggered by conflicting roles and values, unclear outcome measures to evaluate the students, a lack of knowledge of how to accommodate, time constraints, insufficient institutional support, as well as a lack of openness regarding students with disabilities in professional courses. The results call for an increased awareness of how complex processes in the structural and cultural environments affect students’ disclosure of disability and the collaboration between the stakeholders.

Sign language, translation and rule of law – deaf people's experiences from encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified in Norway, June 2013. Nordic countries are generally associated with the promotion of human rights as well as disability rights. The Rule of Law Index from the World Justice Project ranks the Nordic countries among the top nations when it comes to high standards of justice (both civil and criminal justice) and rule of law. However, there are also well-known examples of grave miscarriages of justice in cases where disabled people have been involved. These cases address issues of access to justice and questions barriers to effective communication in criminal justice. Taking the situation of deaf people in Norway as a case, this study asks what barriers deaf people face when reporting a crime, being accused of a crime or being a witness in court. The methodological approach is semi-structured, open-ended interviews with deaf persons, professional sign language interpreters, judges, prosecutors, police officers and lawyers. All the info...