Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar;19(1):143-150.
doi: 10.1007/s11673-021-10154-8. Epub 2021 Dec 16.

Hearing Parents' Voices: Parental Refusal of Cochlear Implants and the Zone of Parental Discretion

Owen M Bradfield  1
Affiliations

Hearing Parents' Voices: Parental Refusal of Cochlear Implants and the Zone of Parental Discretion

Owen M Bradfield. J Bioeth Inq. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

It has been forty years since the first multi-channel cochlear implant was used in Australia. While heralded in the hearing world as one of the greatest inventions in modern medicine, not everyone reflects on this achievement with enthusiasm. For many people in the Deaf community, they see the cochlear implant as a tool that reinforces a social construct that pathologizes deafness and removes Deaf identity. In this paper, I set out the main arguments for and against cochlear implantation. While I conclude that, on balance, cochlear implants improve the well-being and broaden the open futures of deaf children, this does not justify mandating implants in circumstances where parents refuse them because this may compound unintended harms when society interferes in the parent-child relationship. For this reason, I argue that parental refusal of cochlear implantation falls within Gillam's concept of the zone of parental discretion.

Keywords: Autonomy; Cochlear implants; Consent; Zone of parental discretion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

References

    1. Barnes E. Valuing disability, causing disability. Ethics. 2014;125(1):88–113. doi: 10.1086/677021. - DOI
    1. Bernicchia-Freeman Z. The blurring of identity: Cochlear implants and the deaf community. Journal of Integrative Research & Reflection. 2018;1:64–74. doi: 10.15353/jirr.v1.1869. - DOI
    1. Bowman-Smart H, Gyngell C, Morgan A, Savulescu J. The moral case for sign language education. Monash Bioethics Review. 2019;37(3-4):94–110. doi: 10.1007/s40592-019-00101-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brusky AE. Making decisions for deaf children regarding cochlear implants: The legal ramifications of recognizing deafness as a culture rather than a disability. Wisconsin Law Review. 1995;237:270. - PubMed
    1. Buchanan E, Brock W. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

Publication types