Ethics and Deafness

In 2004, a conference was held in Sydney, Australia,entitled Perspectives on Ethics and Deafness. Thequestions underlying the conference were intriguing:What are the ‘‘ethical issues’’ that pertain to deafness?To what extent are such issues culturally relative? Aredeaf and hearing individuals bound by the same ethicalstandards with regard to personal and professionalrelationships involving deaf people? How are ethicaldecisions concerning deaf children viewed differentlydepending on the hearing status of their parents?The conference program provided a clear responseto the first issue. Predictably, perhaps, there wereethical issues identified in areas such as medical andtechnological interventions with deaf children, geneticscreening and manipulation, respect and support forlinguistic diversity, educational placements, inter-preting, and so on. As these issues were presented,discussed, and debated over the three days of theconference, the question of ethical standards becameof much greater interest. The issue of ‘‘perspective’’became a clear issue in itself.The perspectives represented at the conferencewere many and varied. The meeting included deafand hearing people from a of range of backgroundsincluding members of the Deaf community, educators,linguists, interpreters, social workers, psychologists,doctors of a variety of specialities including cochlearimplant surgery, ethicists, geneticists, lawyers, parentsof deaf children, and others broadly interested inissues relating to deafness and how they may beviewed through the prism of ethical standards.Notably, many of the professional groups representedhave written Codes of Ethics to inform or guideprofessional behavior. Some of the presentationsrelated to the formulation or application of thosecodes, while discussion sometimes questioned theextent to which such Codes are actually followed... orshould be. The breadth of debate revealed greatdiversity of views and positions, even within themembership of professional groups with codifiedethical standards.Essentially all of the views presented were arguedfrom the standpoint of what is ‘‘right.’’ This is notsurprising, because the very concept of acting ethicallycan be seen as a matter of doing the ‘‘right’’ thing. If weaccept that being ethical means doing what is right,then we need some definition of ‘‘right.’’ Sucha definition in any particular circumstance, however,is clearly a matter of perspective. The existence ofmultiple perspectives—professional, organizational,and cultural, to name a few—leads to the potentialfor great variability and likely disagreement about sucha definition. In particular, such multiple perspectivesmay lead to conflict between personal ethics and thosethat may be determined as standards by a professionalor other organization (particularly a cultural group).They become cloudy when individuals from outside of

Perspective (graphical) · Psychoanalysis · Hearing Impairment and Communication · Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare · Psychology

• Mothers of Deaf Children in the 21st Century. Dynamic Positioning Between the Medical and Cultural–Linguistic Discourses

  Liesbeth Matthijs, Stefan Hardonk et al.•The Journal of Deaf Studies and…•2017

  Add to list