Literature DB >> 27761875

Saving Deaf Children? Screening for Hearing loss as a Public-interest Case.

Sigrid Bosteels1, Michel Vandenbroeck2, Geert Van Hove3.   

Abstract

New-born screening programs for congenital disorders and chronic disease are expanding worldwide and children "at risk" are identified by nationwide tracking systems at the earliest possible stage. These practices are never neutral and raise important social and ethical questions. An emergent concern is that a reflexive professionalism should interrogate the ever earlier interference in children's lives. The Flemish community of Belgium was among the first to generalize the screening for hearing loss in young children and is an interesting case to study the public justification of early interventions for families with deaf children. This article uses a critical lens to study the archive of the government child healthcare organization in Flanders in order to uncover underlying constructions of childhood, deafness, and preventive health. We focus on two interrelated themes. The first is the notion of exclusion of the human factor through the mediation of technology. The second is the idea of deafness as endangering a healthy development, an impairment that can nevertheless be treated if detected early enough. It is argued that, since deafness cannot be viewed as a life-threatening condition, the public interest which is implicitly defended is not the rescue of deaf children rather the exclusion of otherness.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Childhood deafness; Early intervention; Health technology; Medicalization of childhood; Newborn screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27761875     DOI: 10.1007/s11673-016-9752-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bioeth Inq        ISSN: 1176-7529            Impact factor:   1.352


  17 in total

1.  Parents of deaf children with cochlear implants: a study of technology and community.

Authors:  Laura Mauldin
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2011-10-25

Review 2.  The sociology of medical screening: past, present and future.

Authors:  Natalie Armstrong; Helen Eborall
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2012-02

3.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

4.  Organisation of a universal newborn hearing screening programme in Flanders.

Authors:  E Van Kerschaver; A N Boudewyns; L Stappaerts; F L Wuyts; P H Van de Heyning
Journal:  B-ENT       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 0.082

5.  First information parents receive after UNHS detection of their baby's hearing loss.

Authors:  Liesbeth Matthijs; Gerrit Loots; Kimberley Mouvet; Mieke Van Herreweghe; Stefan Hardonk; Geert Van Hove; Martine Van Puyvelde; Greg Leigh
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2012-09-08

6.  Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life.

Authors:  R Crawford
Journal:  Int J Health Serv       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 1.663

7.  Enhancement technology and outcomes: what professionals and researchers can learn from those skeptical about cochlear implants.

Authors:  Patrick Kermit
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2012-12

8.  Choosing for the child with cochlear implants: a note of precaution.

Authors:  Patrick Kermit
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2010-05

9.  Newborn screening expands: recommendations for pediatricians and medical homes--implications for the system.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 10.  Neonatal hearing screening: to do or not to do.

Authors:  Joseph E Kerschner
Journal:  Pediatr Clin North Am       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.278

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Ninth Circle: Who and What Do We Trust In Today's World?

Authors:  Michael Ashby
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.352

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.