OBJECTIVE: To explore the ethics of parental refusal of auditory-oral hearing rehabilitation. STUDY DESIGN: Case study with medical ethical discussion and review. METHODS: Two young brothers present with severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss. The parents, both of whom have normal hearing and work as sign language interpreters, have decided to raise their children with American Sign Language as their only form of communication. They have chosen not to pursue cochlear implantation nor support the use of hearing aids. DISCUSSION: This case raises significant questions concerning whether hearing rehabilitation should be mandated, and if there are circumstances in which parental preferences should be questioned or overridden with regard to this issue. In addition, legal concerns may be raised regarding the possible need to file a report with Child Protective Services. Although similar cases involving the Deaf community have historically favored parental rights to forego hearing rehabilitation with either cochlear implantation or hearing aids, we explore whether conclusions should be different because the parents in this case are not hearing impaired. CONCLUSIONS: The ethics of parental rights to refuse hearing rehabilitation are complex and strikingly context-dependent. A comprehensive appreciation of the medical, practical, and legal issues is crucial prior to intervening in such challenging situations.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the ethics of parental refusal of auditory-oral hearing rehabilitation. STUDY DESIGN: Case study with medical ethical discussion and review. METHODS: Two young brothers present with severe-to-profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss. The parents, both of whom have normal hearing and work as sign language interpreters, have decided to raise their children with American Sign Language as their only form of communication. They have chosen not to pursue cochlear implantation nor support the use of hearing aids. DISCUSSION: This case raises significant questions concerning whether hearing rehabilitation should be mandated, and if there are circumstances in which parental preferences should be questioned or overridden with regard to this issue. In addition, legal concerns may be raised regarding the possible need to file a report with Child Protective Services. Although similar cases involving the Deaf community have historically favored parental rights to forego hearing rehabilitation with either cochlear implantation or hearing aids, we explore whether conclusions should be different because the parents in this case are not hearing impaired. CONCLUSIONS: The ethics of parental rights to refuse hearing rehabilitation are complex and strikingly context-dependent. A comprehensive appreciation of the medical, practical, and legal issues is crucial prior to intervening in such challenging situations.
Authors: Richard J Vivero; Kenneth Fan; Simon Angeli; Thomas J Balkany; Xue Z Liu Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: John K Niparko; Emily A Tobey; Donna J Thal; Laurie S Eisenberg; Nae-Yuh Wang; Alexandra L Quittner; Nancy E Fink Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: T A Zwolan; C M Ashbaugh; A Alarfaj; P R Kileny; H A Arts; H K El-Kashlan; S A Telian Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.311