The Deaf Child Should Not Be Legal

1227 Words5 Pages
“A cochlear implant is a surgically implanted device that is capable of restoring hearing and speech understanding to many individuals who are severely or profoundly deaf” (Tucker, 1998, pg. 6). The deaf child should be the one to consent to a cochlear implant regardless of their age. Receiving an implant at a younger age rather than waiting until the child grows older means easier development of speech and hearing (Sound and Fury). If they would like to gain the ability to hear and have the capacity to communicate more easily with others they should be able to access the opportunity to. If they do not want to receive an implant either, they should not be forced into getting one. I will argue that the parents of a deaf infant should not have an ethical obligation to consent to cochlear implant surgery for that infant because the child is the one who is deaf and has to manage with the daily struggles of not being able to hear. First, I will explain why the infant should be the one to consent and why. Second, I will consider opposite views from my own argument. Some may disagree and think that the parent should be the one to determine if an implant is best or not, since the infant may not be old enough to really know what they are deciding on. But no matter what age the child is, if they know they are deaf and they know that they have an option to hear, they should be the one to decide on what’s best for them during that time and in the future. Infants should be the ones to

More about The Deaf Child Should Not Be Legal

Open Document