We read this a while ago in the UK, if it was proven to work, with a fair chance of success, I'd take it. It's NOT a contentious issue, since people would have free choice on whether to take it or not, as it stands it is stil research and not much else.

I personally don't consider it contentious, but there is a core faction out there that is adamantly opposed to this type of research because they believe it is geared towards ending deafness as a culture. I don't subscribe to that line of thought because, like you said, it comes down to a choice, a personal choice. Now, there are some issues that people will say "what about when parents choose to have it done on children? That takes away the child's choice." And that is true TO AN EXTENT, but the fact remains, as parents, we sometimes have to make difficult decisions for our children that we may later regret, but you just make the decision and hope that you are well-informed and have done all the proper research before doing so. It is a true Catch-22 for parents in this position. Thanks for commenting.

Eddie

The most likely contenders for this option should it materialise, are those who have lost hearing after a hearing start. My cochlear hairs went, so it is relevant to me, It would lack any relevance to born deaf or those similar, I cannot see where they connect ?

This is about a 'possible' restoration of nerve endings lost, in essence those who want it have an inalianeable right so to choose. It is only an issue with those who feel any option but being deaf is wrong, it may be for them, but it isn't for anyone,and the choice to refuse such an option would still be open to them.

Usually such damage to the cochlear hairs is predominantly with much older and acquired deaf, HoH, and deafened, and not children. We should be careful not to join in the hysteria everytime some research is mooted, as with genetics and similar, it is all talk at present, and all research, there are no options at present to choose. Debates usually centre on 'What If ?'

I saw no real mention that this sort of research was aimed at children at all. Those that have had CI's etc, the research and any option, is meaningless anyway.

I'm not saying it was geared towards children, I'm saying that is always an argument raised when discussions like this come up. Google Cochlear Implants and deaf reactions, and check out some of the extremely passionate feelings on both sides of the issue.

I'm in the same boat as you, so this would be a POTENTIAL benefit to me if it were successful, but it is not something I would consider, simply because I am content with the way I am now. I DO want to point out one statement you made that is somewhat wrong. You said "Usually such damage to the cochlear hairs is predominantly with much older and acquired deaf, HoH, and deafened, and not children." Actually, children and teens are considered to be one of the fastest growing areas when it comes to loss of hearing, due to the impact of loud music from Ipods and other environmental noise concerns.

Thanks for commenting!

Eddie

Eddie,

I am kinda glad that you did the posting of this recent online journalistic story on the possibility of restoring someone's hearing status.

I was going to post this one on my blog entry, but you got it first! :)

You and others would be really surprised that I would not oppose such scientific possibilities of restoring the hearing status without any harmful pursuits, ex. invasive cochlear implant surgery on deaf babies and youngsters without their consents and cause the possible long-term health and mental and emotional and societal problems.

Of course, deaf people could be considered "extinction" in next 50 years and end up on the museum exhibit - "Deaf People Extinct Since 2058".

That would be really nice if you get the part in the next sequel to the Hollywood's "Museum at the Night" film series playing the deaf militant coming to life and object to the science of undeafening many deaf people to the ideals of human perfectionism and eradicate the virbant and proud deaf culture and way of life, blah....

Ben Stiller character would say "Dang, how true ....." Just a wishful thinking!

I am still opposed to any hearing individuals to impose their beliefs and wishes upon deaf people to be like them.

I am in real hurry since I am in Miami Beach (FL) right now. Before closing this comment log.

I never intend to imply that you advocate the RWC system, but I point out to the weakness of proposed legislative language. That is all!

I also never except anyone deaf to enact any destructive behavior or criminal act like distrupting the sound system of movie theatre. Just rheotrically speaking.

President Ronald Reagan did say "I just signed the legislation to give the authorization of bombing Russia" without being realized that the radio mike was still on. Reagan simply kidded about it, but infuriated many people and make them still believe in the "warmongering" label put by President Carter during the 1980 presidential campaign.

We sometimes have to resort to psychological and strategic tactics of making our opponent feel shaky and nervous and concerned.

We have to play real smart and effective without getting dumb and ineffective!

Thanks for the posting, Eddie. One more thing -

Why the National Academy of Science get real obessed with the cure of deafness during the deep economic recession?

There are other many important scientific and health issues to be concerned and explored, not the minor flaws in us, deaf people.

RLM

RLM:

I understand, and as I had told you before, I had already caught the weakness in the language and am planning to address it in committee hearings and discussion with lawmakers. You said you "warned me and warned me", when actually you only talked about lobbyists trying to stop it one time. I do appreciate the support, truly. But enough with the weakness in the language of the bill, it will be fixed. I've moved on about it, no big deal.

Now, make no mistake, I don't think they are obsessed with curing deafness. I think the scientific community is focused on MANY issues all at once, and this blog being on a deaf blog aggregator, and that aggregator being a central point for many people to turn to, results in us being bombarded sometimes with only news like this. Looking around in the other news, I see plenty of articles about research into artificial blood platelets for use in high trauma environments, research into helping those paralyzed walk again, and so forth.

Thanks for commenting and enjoy the warm weather in Florida!

Eddie

Heh, certainly. I am in full support of such medical discovery and how it can be put to good use. I made additional comment about this hoping that Obama will increase medical funding in the medical field of hearing loss.
http://dcrepublicans.blogspot.com/2009/01/hope-and-change-curing-hearing-loss.html

I am for it though it's a personal decision either for the person himself (e.g. adult) or by hearing parents of a deaf/hh child. The same idea that I'd be advocating for medical discovery and cure for blindness. I can't be two-faced about this supporting one and not the other.

Whoops...that was me, mcconnell. Sorry.

Anonymous,

FYI, I OPPOSE ANY KIND OF FEDERAL OR GOVERNMENT FUNDINGS FOR THE STUDY OF HEARING RESTORATION.

President Obama and the U.S. Congress should immediately cut off any kind of fundings for this hearing restoration scientific research due to the shaky global economy.

We should prioritize the government spending on all necessities, ex. foods, job creations and defense, NOT PREOCCUPY WITH HUMAN PHYSICAL FLAWS.

Without any human flaws, what the world would look like??? Too boring and scary.

Human imperfection help us to appreciate the diversity of human race!

Robert L. Mason - any quotes of mine are copyright and have to ask me for my permission without quoting it as your own. Comprendo?

Research on the restoration of hearing loss will continue. That's the stark reality.

Check this out. Copy and paste it to the URL address bar.
http://www.ifrahl.org/projects/Deafness%20Research%20Foundation%20Position.pdf

First off, there shouldn't be ANY bailouts at all. Congress (that is the Democrats) are using money not for job creation and such but as one huge pork barrel feeding bonanza.

Regardless, federal or private funding will help continue the research. It won't be long til babies born deaf be treated and cured for the hearing loss much to the joy of hearing parents. At least in this case, the use of our own brain to treat hearing loss certainly does sound very, very promising and if proven successful would be the quickest route to treat and cure hearing loss.

Again, this was mcconnell. Didn't mean to be anonymous in here.

McConnell:

Anonymity is allowed here if you wish, I appreciate your comments.

Eddie

I know. But I don't wish to be anonymous. Just need to remember to post my name.

Here's praying that a cure for hearing loss comes much more sooner and not later. Most of the 30 people with hearing loss will surely appreciate seeing that advances in medicine continues to benefit them.

mcconnell

It is regrettable there are people so opposed to alleviations or restorations of hearing research, they would advocate a denial of others to choose, since this is in effect what they are doing. I would rather see these people not being annonymous about their view too, because we get suspicous they want to inflame.

Despite Mishka's heart-felt plea of 'We are deaf, we are one', it seems there are those who are determined to oppose any form of help for others. Mostly those that choose would be those disabled by their loss, LOSS is the true definition of disability in the 'deaf' sense.

That is losing something you once had. If deaf people went blind, they would move heaven and their deaf earth to push for sight restoration I am sure, and I would support that too, even if they chose not to have any sort of 'hearing option', because that is their right.

Sadly it seems there are those who think they must oppose every deaf person's right if it means there may be some hearing benefits, because that undermines them, surely this is not a case of bashing deaf people and culture, but simply responding to a stated need and desire by a fairly large sector of them ? and a clear sign (No pun intended), they feel very insecure.

It isn't just research or the state saying deafness should be addressed, but rank and file deaf and HI people, who want what they lost, I think this is a natural want, again, few if any of us will get it anyway in our time, do not take away their hope with hostility, we are all deaf if we want to be one, then acceptances of rights, have to be acknowledged too.

Be happy in what suits you, do not be unhappy because others have a different view, about their lives. Yo have to walk in their shoes to know where they have had to tread. Just as they are now, walking in yours.

Maybe if you were deaf you would understand.im sick of being treated like a second class citizen!!

I'm not exactly sure who you are directing this comment towards? Me? I'm deaf, so I doubt it is me. The last commenter? While they may not be "Deaf", they have a hearing loss and were simply saying that opposing research into hearing loss shouldn't be stopped because SOME people WANT to hear again, even with assistance.

So please clarify whom you were talking to when you said "Maybe if you were deaf you would understand".

Thanks,
Eddie