deaf and hard of hearing

deaf and hard of hearing


 Deaf or deaf: the question is cultural
 by: Ibrahimewaters
I bring these very clear words to say that I see no reason for controversy with those who represent the Association and work, I think ...

Published: Thursday 3.7.2014 at 21:32 Follow Sordionline on
3,858 Number of visits No comment
Category: Deaf report
With this letter we definitively close the diatribe raised by the president of the Aguav Association on the subject of deafness. An intervention that aims to reflect on the scientific and cultural evolution of the different skills. A contribution that, in our opinion, seeks to clarify beyond the legitimate and comprehensible emotion of those who live the matter in the first person.
Any other contribution will be forwarded directly to the Aguav

bionic-ear

Dear Editor, I read with some discomfort the letters on the problem of the deaf, the practices to be taken to make their lives better.
It would be spontaneous to evoke the common saying that is used when a speech is so focused on their point of view that they can not "hear", that is to listen and understand the other.
I have read that there are those who would like to "fix the deaf" like broken machines, without respecting their personality. An accusation that I find outdated if it is addressed to those who deal with these problems seriously.
In fact, President Tiziana Basso Roi was clear: "Unfortunately, there are some cases where no serious cure is possible for serious associated diseases. ONLY IN THESE CASES we believe that it is not only a duty, but D'OBLIGO to support the child with sign language, his only chance to communicate with the world. In any case, it being understood that we believe that feeling is a joy so great that it can not be precluded to any child, caring is always an individual choice. "

I quote these very clear words to say that I see no reason for controversy with those who represent the Association and work, I believe with greater competence than us, to help people who need care or support.
Perhaps the misunderstanding, as always, is born of language.
The introduction - no more recently - of expressions as "disabled" instead of "handicapped" or "disabled" and "deaf / blind" instead of "blind and deaf" that had the purpose to erase any connotation negative in personal terms contained in the concept of 'lack' has instead generated new misunderstandings and hypocrisies.
Perhaps it is worth remembering that these new expressions were not born from nothing, but are the daughters of the profound transformation, a real cultural and scientific revolution, which involved the definition and policies of intervention towards disability and disability.
It is worth remembering the path of this change, starting from the limiting factors of the previous approach to the problem, which had also settled in our "old" language.
So we can read on wikipedia (under the heading 'disability') that the old definition of disability "had over the years showed a number of limitations.

He did not consider that disability is a dynamic concept, as it can also be only temporary.
It was difficult to establish a level beyond which a person can be considered disabled (considering that a person can also be disabled without being disabled).
the "disability / handicap" scheme considered only pathological factors, while a determining role in limiting or facilitating the autonomy of the subject is played by environmental factors. "
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabilità

So we have come to the new classification, no longer negative but positive, as Classification of health, (ICF: International Classification of Functioning) that defines the state of health of people rather than the limitations, declaring that the individual "Healthy" is identified as "individual in a state of psychophysical wellbeing" overturning, in fact, the conception of health status and considering social factors no less relevant than organic ones (and vice versa) in order to determine the condition of health of each person .
In practice, the search for a non-existent 'normality' is abandoned, but the possibility of a condition of psychic and physical well-being to which ALL is entitled is affirmed.

Given this perhaps, with a little 'good will and listening skills, we can overcome the misunderstandings that emerge in the debate on Varesenews.
cordial greetings