But, medical ethics is never as easy as all that. Medical devices aren't fool proof, nor are they always a perfect fix - even though the media and the medical community itself like for us to believe that. (being part of the medical community, I'm well aware of our paternalistic way of dealing with people at times)
The article dealt with the very good question of what is it that really needs "fixing" in a deaf child or adult? Is the issue the same as other medical issues - is this a medical issue, really? What if the part of the body that was being "fixed" was skin color? We already try to fix our hair, our weight, our height (many children in this country are receiving growth hormones - especially boys - to "fix" their shortness), we're giving active children drugs because we think they are too active.
The deaf community has a point, I think, in looking at themselves more in terms of a language minority than people with disabilities. If I were deaf, I would want options, not a mandate that I had to have a procedure that would give me hearing functionality, but not normal hearing. If we push sign language out of the picture, what options do folks have when the implants don't work for them?
I would just like to see everyone included - for everyone to notice when the cutout in the sidewalk isn't there, so someone in a wheelchair won't be able to cross - for us all to be less adamant about conforming with what norms should be about our abilities and our bodies.
