Ive come across persistent rumors that this organization is opposed to restoring the auditory faculty to sufferers. Deafness, some seem to think, is a blessing in disguise, and there are lots of other things in life besides hearing.
Really ? When my ears got blocked for a while i cant say i found it intellectually enhancing; imagine how a person deaf for his whole life would suddenly hear whole new vistas upon hearing beethoven or bob dylan or (insert your favorite music here) for the first time.
Anyway, its a reductionism by any standards. If i get blinded for some reason, i can still hear. But if im deaf, what do i do THEN ?

It is disheartening that the first comment above is (through ignorance) anti- Deaf . Rather than attempting to gain insight into Deafness simply from their own experience of having had blocked ears temporarily, which is incomparable, the writer could read When the Mind Hears'' by Harlan Lane. This gives a thorough history of Deaf people, and explains why Deaf Sign Language users across the globe do indeed form a cultural/ linguistic group - not a 'disability' group to 'suffer' or be 'cured'.

Like other minority culture groups , Deaf constantly have their culture attacked- as if it should be 'replaced' by a 'better' dominant hearing culture...Music is nothing more than a fetish of hearing culture, however much you like it. Deaf people have developed a rich visual culture that is no less rewarding than music is to hearing people. Those Deaf who celebrate Deaf culture and language don't want to see it destroyed by 'becoming hearing'- why should they?!

Even for those Deaf who would want to 'become hearing', the promise of the 'miracle cure' of cochlear implants is a lie: Implants do not "restore the auditory faculty" to give anything approximating natural hearing - only electronic impulses to be interpreted... What's more , any natural hearing the person may have has to be destroyed in the process!

Apart from these considerations, Cochlear implants are seen ideologically as just the latest attack on Deaf Culture, following over 100 years of "oralism" which has cruelly denied Deaf people accessible Language, through the Banning of Sign for Deaf children. This is why Many Deaf people are deeply opposed to implants :They see only the interests of the medical/ business establishment in the development of this ridiculously named 'miracle' technology.

Lastly, just to clarify, I found it bizarre that the author of the first comment said they had heard "persistent rhumours" about the views of "this organisation" as there was no fixed 'Organisation' behind this : the 'SLDJ' group only came together for this particular action!

...And here's to many more,,,

Well, Guy Debord (the Philosopher who died in Paris in 1994), you have confirmed my very worst fears . You havent answered any of my points, just travestied them into a spurious attack on 'culture'. well, this begs more questions than it answers: if my hearing problem returned, i could do a crash course in sign language, couldnt i? what makes you think that cultures are exclusive, by the way ? Can I not be , say, Jewish, Scottish, British and a leftist at the same time ? And you're Anti- medicine too ! Wow! So if these ear implants are manufactured by the NHS, thatll be ok , wont it ? I tell you, if i needed an implant to restore my hearing, i wouldnt hesitate, for it gives me more choices in life. For those who have no hearing, I will always support every cause to improve their lives, including better facilities and job opportunities, and also the chance to hear. When reductionism is elevated into a culture, call me a philistine .

There is something seriously fucked up when people profess to "support every cause to improve (Deaf) lives" without being remotely interested in what Deaf people themselves want.

The fact is that Deaf Organisations and Individuals across the globe, including the 'World Federation of the Deaf', have consistently questioned Cochlear Implants ability to 'improve their lives'. But obviously 'SK' is not interested in this.

Despite thousands of implants on Deaf children to date , there is still NO concrete evidence that implants are succesful in creating happier , hearing people. The Deaf Community is therefore opposed to this experimentation on Deaf children.

SK talks about giving Deaf people the 'choice'. If Deaf adults want to make that choice it's up to them - and not surprising some do, given the domination of anti-Deaf attitudes. But where is this 'choice' for the thousands of Deaf children that have been and will be implanted ?

Not all Deaf children are 'suitable' for implantation in fact. A team of surgeons, audiological physicians, paediatric audiologists, hearing speech and language therapists, teachers, social workers, counsellors, psychologists, physicists and paediatricians decide which are the 'lucky' ones : All these 'experts' to make the child 'normal' ?!
(Obviously no Deaf people are invited to be involved- Access to Sign Language and other Deaf people is actively discouraged for implantees...)

And after the surgery , years of therapy is then needed to 'cope' with this 'cure' !

And Finally ,even after all that , the implantee is still ultimately- deaf- just with some ability to 'identify' noises- Implants can not "restore normal hearing"... What they can do, however , is create deaf people with very negative self-identity, and psychological damage due to a failure to live up to unrealistic expectations...

What kind of a fucked up 'improvement' is that ?!

So it is not that Deaf people are "opposed to medicine"- they reject the Medical Professions' pathological view of Deafness (as repeated by SK) that labels Deaf people merely "' Deficient '' and insists on negative Deaf self-identity, even in the face of ' Deaf pride'.

There is no question that the value in this perspective is for Medical Business, rather than Deaf sense of self : £25,000 per implantee is involved in operation , equipment ,follow up therapy etc. As with other businesses , implant centres (NHS) are in competition with each other for punters, and have to carry out a certain amount of implants each year to justify funding...

It is not just that the view repeated by SK is stupid : It actively reinforces the kind of discrimination s/he claims to oppose.

Clearly SK must believe that " We are all born equal- but some are more equal than others " ?

Guys, you're missing the point here.

Some Deaf people (like myself) like being Deaf. Some don't.

But the point of our demo was not about all that.... it was to expose the injustice within our community. We made a stand to show that we Deaf people will not be walked over and used as money generators ok!

Yes, I regret this has gone way off the point of the demo - just felt compelled to respond to the 'cure the Deafies' agenda... But will leave further responses re: Culture to another time, and shut up now!
...Anyone else has things to add?

I am sorry I cannot resist.

I welcome these developments in the Deaf community, and was glad to join the March for the recognition of British Sign Language with 9,000 other people this year. It has taken many years and a lot of oppression for Deaf people to collectivise and take control over their own futures, it's not perfect but it's POWERFUL!

My 4 year old daughter is hard of hearing, and my view based on learning from Deaf people is she should have the choice how she wishes to communicate and all available options. she has little choice as sign language has not been available to her from the outset. It would have helped us if at any time the powerful organisation 'for' deaf people concerned has fought for her to have the right to be taught sign language as well as have an expensive pair of NHS hearing aids which she likes less.

I have to £90 pay course fees and £10 taxi every week for 30 weeks from her disability benefits in order to learn BSL myself so I can teach her. It's worth every penny but not everyone can afford this. I would be interested to know just the cost of a hearing aid in comparison to this. andthis is just to achieve level one sign language which is VERY basic.

There is no sign language classes for children either in or out of the NHS an I would have to fight if I wanted her to go to a school where BSL is used all the time. this is the reality of the choices on offer to even hard of hearing children. she has benefitted more from a few signs than any hering aid and sign language is what got her communicating, fact.

My daughter knows what works for her. deaf people know best. here's to taking the lead from Deaf people who have the direct experience (and also embracing Deaf culture too)!

Still, I get some feedback ! Appreciated. Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads this site at all! and at least you can say that I was interested in the protest.
But I'm still a bit worried, I must say. I'm sure there are endless complications with the medical aspects, but I'm equally sure that difficulties are to be surmounted, not compounded. As I told you, I had a scare recently that Id lost my hearing, and as an activist, I think I need all the faculties at my disposal. I doubt whether I could turn to your organization for support in that. Still, up to you to determine your position.

I was on this action too, and I support anyone who makes an informed choice to have a cochlear implant.

The operative word here is *informed choice* - Many parents are being pushed to have this still-experimental and dangerous operation on their infant children, without being given all the information. If you as a responsible adult research the subject and decide to have an implant, then I'm behind you all the way.

Please reconise that there is a vast difference between someone who has been deaf since birth, and someone who is partially hearing or deafened, just as there is a huge difference between wearing spectacles and being blind.

I and, I think most other Deaf protesters, fully accept that regaining a proportion of hearing for the deafened and hard of hearing is a useful and needful thing, since they already have the neccesary mental auditory equipment and background. However for the Deaf (Deaf = unable to use a telephone, deaf = hard of hearing / deafened), it's a totally different story....

I was born deaf, and as a child in the UK educational system, I repeatedly stated I wanted to learn BSL in order to communicate with other Deaf people. The authorities refused to let me learn BSL, and it is only now, as an independent young adult that I am able to attend BSL classes, for which I have to pay for out of my own pocket. I am not unintelligent, but this is the first time in my life that I have been able to express myself fully in daily life without worrying about the words I choose, without having to simplify my thoughts so that my mangled speech can be comphrended by these around me.

It is standard educational policy not to let deaf children learn BSL, and to cut them off from contact with the wider Deaf community, for fear that they will pick up 'contamination' and 'undesireable characteristics'. Don't ask me what these are. The result is that many Deaf children grow up not understanding their own teachers, being forced to sit through lessons they do not understand, unable to express themselves fluidly and coherently, and cut off from access to adults or mentors with similar life experiences.

The protest was partly about this, and also partly about the fact that Livermore and Strachan, two rich merchant bankers, stepped in and kicked out the RNID's first ever Deaf chairman (who had northern working class origins - this shouldn't really be relevant at all, but unfortunately, in a charity with the size and prestige of the RNID, this, along with his Deafness seemed to matter).

Livermore and Strachan then proceded to reverse the RNID's Deaf First policy, cancelled internal BSL classes and support for BSL users, and seem more concerned with awarding themselves lavishly paid positions and working their way towards knighthoods while trying to eliminate all opposition to the point of engineering police raids (well documented) on the houses of opponents, amidst other maneuvers that have launched a flood of complainants to the Charity Commissioners.

I've rambled on long enough for now...

Luther

I think the term 'entrenched position' has been used wrongly in one of the comments above.

When Black people argue that skin lightening/ lip-reducing surgery reflects & reinforces racism, you probably do not disagree, or dismiss that view as being an 'entrenched position'- Most clear thinkers would 'support' anybody who chose to have this surgery, whilst also understanding that the desire to do so is triggered by experiences of racism.

Similarly, some gay/ bi people are , in the context of this homophobic society, alarmed by their own sexuality, and take measures to 'become straight' by trying hormone treatments etc. Again, you'd support people in their choice to do this , whilst at the same time questioning in whose interests such treatments are.

Cochlear Implants for Deaf people (though not necessarily for hard of hearing or deafened people) are another example of this . Of course anyone who makes a choice to have an implant should be supported- but again their choice is not a 'neutral' one- but reflects the position of Deaf people in society as it is now.

I believe a society which values all people equally and celebrates human differences would not cause people to feel the need to make such (alienated) choices as the above examples.

Capitalism, however, creates warped needs - what all of us need really is to change society, not us.
....Or would you say this obvious statement is also an 'entrenched position' ?