week 3 forum post responses
In need of a 250 word response/discussion to each of the following forum posts. Agreement/disagreement/and/or continuing the discussion.
Original forum discussion/topic post is as follows:
- Sensory Compensation. When a sensory system is damaged, other sensory systems can in turn compensate for the damaged system. Discuss the implications of this sensory compensation and how it helps individuals navigate their environment after sensory system damage. In your opinion, can a person with damage to a sensory system operate at the same level in their environment through compensation as someone with all systems functioning perfectly?
forum post response #1
An argument that people have that being born blind or deaf is a normal way of life that should not be tampered with is something I am utterly unfamiliar with. I am, however, somewhat familiar with Little People, or people born with dwarfism, wanting their condition to be viewed as just another one of Mother Nature’s wonderful variances, but definitely not a disability. Some members of this group do not want a cure and do not want any kind of preventative genetics. Other Little People have endured countless painful and sometimes life threatening surgeries in order to gain height and to be seen as “normal”. It is quite ethical for scientists to perform research in an effort to provide sight to those without vision or to provide hearing to those without it. A restoration of senses cannot be likened to butt implants, face lifts, or nose jobs. Vision is likely the most important of the five senses (note that some researchers claim we have many, many more senses than merely five). Regarding vision, the human eye is the visual organ. But, most important, anywhere from eighty to eighty-five percent of the data incoming from the environment is channeled through the eyes; and a far greater brain region is also dedicated to processing the visual sense. When ‘seeing’, light is reflected off of things; and specialized brain components translate these signals into images (visual cortex) (occipital lobe). Sight helps people to make sense of the world around them, to learn, and to especially recognize danger. Hearing is also very important and is one of the more complicated sensory processes. ‘Sound’ slams into the eardrum, where it vibrates tiny bones, which are then channeled along to the inner ear. The cochlea translates the sound/vibrations (all sound is truly vibration; and it was famed scientist Tesla who drew the world’s attention to the importance of frequency and vibration) into electrical impulses. These impulses are ultimately conveyed to the brain via the auditory nerve for processing and interpretation (auditory, prefrontal cortex) (temporal lobe). Hearing allows us to communicate. Like vision, it also allows us to understand and to stay connected with the environment. In extreme survival conditions, it is the hearing sense that is most relied upon. Although human beings tend to take both eyesight and hearing for granted, nearly everyone would do anything it took for these senses to be restored.
There is an anatomy and physiology of blindness and deafness. There is also a psychology to both conditions.
Sensory perception is vital to how organisms translate and then comprehend their environments; and vision and hearing are both crucial components of sensory perception. Consequently, being without these senses is certainly not a normal way of life; although human beings most certainly adapt very well to being blind or deaf because they have to. In conclusion, scientists’ efforts to restore these senses is just.
forum post response #2
Sensory Absence. Many people argue that being born blind or deaf is a normal way of life that should not be tampered with. The argument is similar to the one made by groups who feel dwarfism is a normal condition that should not be tampered with. Given this argument, is it ethical in your opinion to do research in an attempt to provide sight to those without vision or to provide hearing to those without hearing?
In my opinion, I don’t believe it’s unethical to progress medical research to find solutions for those who don’t have sight or hearing. Who are we to say that those impaired shouldn’t have the experience of all five senses? There was research conducted on two young boys, who were diagnosed with severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Their parents have normal hearing and serve as sign language interpreters for the deaf. Both parents decided that their sons would only communicate through American Sign Language interpretation and had no intentions of pursuing cochlear implantation or hearing aids (Byrd, Shuman, Kileny, & Kileny, 2011). Based on this particular research, there was much controversial debate as to whether hearing rehabilitation should be mandated. Research has developed for those to receive hearing aids, implants, or other forms of treatment (based on the severity of one’s condition), and it’s something that can be assisted for children. Should parents be able to intervene and prevent their children with receiving important care? Byrd, Shuman, Kiley, and Kiley (2011) concluded that the ethics of parental rights to “refuse hearing augmentation are complex and strikingly context-dependent” (para. 3). It’s important that medical and legal professionals arbitrate such issues to determine the best interest of children. Again, there are different circumstances for adults in such challenging situations.
The same can referenced for blindness. Just like hearing, vision is a vital element in how human beings and other species navigate around their environments and throughout the world. However, there’s some physiological elements that significantly impacts one’s health. Loss of vision at birth can affect one’s brain, especially the compartmentalized sensors that affects organization (Kupers, Pietrini, Ricciardi, & Ptito, 2011). There’s many reasons why the deaf and the blind should have their senses. It’s not only environmental, but physiological—especially when dealing with health issues. Researchers continue to conduct animal research studies to assess the psychophysical and functional brain imaging to determine the fate and modern design for hearing and sight loss.
Forum post responses #3
In my opinion it is absolutely ethical to do research in an attempt to provide sight to those without vision or to provide hearing to those without hearing. While it may be normal for a person to be born blind or deaf, this does not mean that, should new medical breakthroughs be able to provide it, they should not have the opportunity to be given sight or hearing. There are so many amazing things in this world to see and hear, and to think that a child may never get to see their parent’s face or hear their parents say “I love you” is a troubling thought. While there is nothing wrong with being blind or deaf, and many people who were born with one (or both) of those conditions are still able to thrive and leave full, productive lives, I believe the choice should be up to them or their parents if they are a minor. There are many videos that are accessible to the public that show children in their doctor’s offices being able to hear for the first time, and the looks of joy and astonishment are evident on their sweet little faces. Furthermore, there are also videos showing formerly blind people being given the gift of sight, and their mouths often drop open and they are left speechless at being able to finally see the world around them. One of my favorite videos is when people who are color blind are given special glasses that finally allow them to be able to see all of the beautiful colors this world has to offer, and they are so taken aback that they, too, are often speechless. This goes to show that just because someone may be born blind or deaf does not mean that they should not be able to be given the opportunity to see or hear if the technology and medical advancements are available and do not present intrusive procedures.
On personal notes, my cousin, Michelle, was born with cancer in one of her eyes and it had to be removed. While she has always had sight in her right eye, she has said repeatedly how she wishes she could know what it is like to have sight in both eyes (no medical procedure can help her because her entire left eye was removed when she was 3 months old). I wish I could give her the opportunity to experience sight in both eyes, but unfortunately, I can’t. When I think about her though, and how lucky she is to at least be able to see out of one eye, it makes my heart hurt for those who have never been able to see or hear anything. Therefore, I don’t really feel as though the question should be, “Is it unethical to provide sight and hearing to the blind and deaf,” but rather, “Is it unethical not to provide sight and hearing the blind and deaf?”
