More ill-informed plugs for preserving deafness, totally ignoring the issues it presents for the deafened. When will we stop reading this rubbish that always fails to identify the many many sectors that constitute the 'deaf'. With a mish-mash of culture and hearing non-acceptances millions are simply ignored. Being 'Normal' is indeed relative but hardly an excuse to totally generalise the whole thing. 'Many deaf do not see it as a disability at all.." a MINORITY of deaf people may see it this way. This blog suggests it is always some 'preference', or lifestyle choice or even a right, and NOT, an issue they might well have been born with, so are totally unable to relate to the aspect of losing hearing anyway.
Having more deaf children to make things easier for them may well be up for debate.... not least for an unborn child's right. Get the real choice THEN decide otherwise it is all relative Ignorance is bliss IF you are born deaf, if you aren't, it can be, or is a lifetime of trauma or constant struggle. These pontifications do nothing to raise any awareness of how negative deafness actually is for MOST. Disability versus deafness is also, Deaf V deaf. A point totally missed, on purpose ? or the ignorance of the blogger ?The issue is this: is being deaf a disability? Our natural and immediate instinct may be simply to say yes: a deaf person is denied the use of one of his or her senses, thereby fitting nicely into Webster's definition of the word disability.
Of course in reality the issue is much more complex. Many deaf people do not consider their lack of hearing as a disability at all; in fact some see it as a preference. This school of thought -- that "designates" itself by using a capital D instead of a lowercase d -- says that being deaf isn't a burden, but in fact a blessing. There are some deaf couples who, if given the choice, would want their child to be born deaf too.
The question here is not whether we can cure a condition or even whether we should cure a condition. The question is whether being deaf is a "condition" at all. Why do we, who can hear, presume that those who cannot would want to? If someone likes the way their his body is, and isn't harming anyone else, then why shouldn't he be allowed to live out their his own definition of a full and happy life?
One might ask in what way is a deaf person currently not allowed to lead a full and happy life? Obviously no one is telling him that he must be cured. However, his dignity and self-respect are being threatened, because although he judges himself as "normal," his society judges him as "impaired," and that prevents him from living a fulfilled life.
Furthermore this question becomes much more convoluted when the idea of bringing a deaf child into the world is discussed, but at least for consenting, rational adults it seems fairly clear-cut.
What this issue points to is the need for a fundamental reassessment of the way we talk about, and act towards the disabled. There is the assumption that by being physically different they are somehow at a disadvantage, that because of the loss of a sense or an appendage there is also a loss of ability -- and this may not necessarily be the case. Some people may choose to try to "cure" their condition. Others may not. But irrespective of the choice, there shouldn't be an assumption by society that a disabled (or in this case deaf) person has less to offer or is less fulfilled.
An important thing to keep in mind is that the idea of being normal is a relative one.
SOURCE/MORE
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder