Cochlear implants are very instrumental in ear care. These developments are enabled by advances in technology; hence, allowing medics to offer the world of sound, music, and speech to people who would otherwise spend their entire or large part of their lives in soundless cocoons. As research indicates, the United States has had more than 30,000 cochlear implants on people across all age groups since 1999 (Ear Surgery Information Center, 2016). However, this eminent success in cochlear implant surgery has not really watered down the discourse surrounding the effects and implications of cochlear implants. Particularly, there has been cases of people condemning the cochlear implants for a wide array of reasons (Ear Surgery Information Center, 2016). The reasons include failure to recognize sounds after the implants and the rare facial nerve problems. However, those opposed to the idea of cochlear implants fail to understand and appreciate the fact that there are many people benefitting from this new technology and that the failed attempts in cochlear transplants represent only a small number that can be considered statistically insignificant (Coez et al, 2014). Based on this brief introduction on the cochlear implants discourse, this research paper argues that the cochlear implants complications in children and in adults are statistically insignificant and that the benefits of the surgical procedure by far outweigh the risk; hence, the need to not only continue supporting the procedures but also to consider means of improving the process. In this discussion, the research paper will provide the reader with adequate information on the procedural approaches, the benefits, and the risks associated with cochlear implants in a bid to convince the reader that the process is more beneficial with the benefits outweighing the risks associated with it.
For those without hearing problems, living in the world with sound, music, and speech may be taken for granted until such a person gets involved in a traumatizing event that leads to the loss of hearing capabilities. On many occasions, people will not realize the value of something until it is lost. It informs the idea of why the persons with post-lingual deafness would search for help in the most uncommon areas and ways. Considering this scenario, it ought to be understood that seeking help for hearing problems is considered a life and death issue by some people especially those who lose the hearing capabilities to traumatizing happenings. The traditional hearing aids may be ineffective where the cochlea and the inner year are heavily damaged and if the cochlear implant can help the situation, thin it pays to consider providing the help. Statistically, most people who suffer from post-lingual deafness are people involved in military activities and this occurs especially when there are explosions. If such explosions result from enemy attacks and there were heavy losses of troops the deafness may be the worst reminder of such a situation and this is why a good number of the post-lingual deaf receive the cochlear implants. Going by this case, dealing with the trauma itself requires the person to get hearing support in order for the therapist and the patient to be able to effectively extend support to the patient. Failure to support the patent’s hearing may as well lead to other deaths resulting PTSD related suicides. In other words, the cochlear implants for the traumatized post-lingual deaf does not only provide hearing support but also saves lives by preventing several trauma related deaths (FDA, 2016).
The second focus group for the cochlea implants are children who suffer from partial or permanent deafness before language development. To start with, nobody would want to have their child being deaf and it is for this reason that such a parent would definitely consider seeking cochlear implants support for their child. This is because such a parent would understand the much that the child would miss out on if they do not get the chance to get hearing support. The disadvantages include having limited access to proper learning lessons including on the simple features of learning such as language. These people would never be able to talk for they cannot hear and even attending school and learning becomes a far-fetched dream. Consequently, the parent would do anything in their capacity to ensure that the child gets help to enable them to hear. According to the understanding of the discourse on the cochlear implant complications concerns, majority of those opposed to the idea fail to recognize the pain that the parents of partially of fully deaf children go through and this may as well crowd the judgment on whether they should support the cochlear transplants (FDA, 2016).
The third reason as to why the world ought to continue supporting the cochlear implants is the fact that this is a new technology that gives hearing support to cases that the doctors originally diagnoses as permanent deafness. In other words, the new technology provides solutions to a community of people that would otherwise be rendered helpless hence, this provides a new paradigm shift in the ear care industry. Opposing advances in the development of the cochlear implant technology will be considerably retrogressive. This is because there are already several people enjoying the fact that the cochlea implants are positively changing their lives (Ochsner, Spöhrer, & Stock, 2015). Secondly, evidence indicates that while the opponents to the issue of cochlear implants are focused on banning the procedure there are people keenly focused on improving both the devices as well as the surgical procedure and sooner or later, these will continue improving lives. A good example of developments include the fact that in the modern day procedures every device gets tunes to the hearing needs of every single patient on whom the device is implanted. Considering these changes, there should be no case in which a person opposes the technology that seeks to improve the lives of the people across the world. Instead, these people ought to be considering how they can contribute to the improvement of the procedures and the device. Additionally, the focus on the technology must be addressed from the perspective of how it has transformed the lives of more than 30,000 patients (FDA, 2016).
The advantages of the cochlear implants as presented above can never be overemphasized. However, there is the need to focus on the other side of the arguments that focuses on the reasons as to why cochlear implants should not be permitted. The cochlear implants may come with a few complications and risks that raise concerns among many commentators. The first problem with the cochlear implants is the fact that at times the procedure may not yield the intended results in terms of hearing. For instance, a person suffering to ear problems may be treated with cochlear implants and instead of the transplant resulting in the healing of the ear problems; it may result in not positive results. Notably, this is one of the most common and major complications associated with cochlear implants especially among those with permanent disability. What this means is that as much as much as the medics are focused on helping the patient, the procedures may not always yield the preferred results and the patient may not hear anything despite the implant. While focusing on the few cases that result in the problem of hearing not being solved, it is always important to focus on empirical evidence in support of arguments. For instance, the readers of this article may need to consider the number of patients who did not benefit from the technology, especially with regard to the 30,000patients to whom the services have been handles in the past. Notably, the number of patients whose implants fail to work would be empirically and scientifically insignificant to warrant a decision to end the conduct of cochlear implants (Cochlear, 2015).
The second major problem associated with the cochlear implants encompasses the problems of facial nerve stimulation. In other words, the operation affects the facial nerves hence necessitating the need for the patient to get access to further treatment. Most importantly, the need for the new treatment procedures depends on how close the patient was to the cause of the injury among other such factors. While injuries on the facial nerves are not a converted to an important activity for the period of the operation, the process in which the patients are handled by the health fraternity. When the hearing problems involve their children has been resulting in positive implications with the very first implicating creating awareness of the fact that cochlear implants can cause several complications including the failed facial nerves for the patients. Secondly, it brings to the light the implications of having cochlear implants as especially considering the fact that the problems help in the highlighting of the few cases in which the implants take place. Consequently, the other fewer and smaller problems associated with cochlear implants are also illuminated and it becomes exceedingly easy for the problems to be referred to a medical facility when the need to do so arises (Cochlear, 2015).
The other complication associated with cochlear implants involves the issue of infections. At times, the body of the patient gets affected by the device implanted hence causing more infections. These infections can be effectively handles using medication within the first three weeks from the implant. However, there are times when the handling of these infections becomes difficult hence leading to other secondary complication especially in relation to nerve infections and nerve failures especially for the facial nerves. The nerve problems raise major questions especially among those involved in the surgical process considering the fact that the nerve failure may mean that the patients do not feel their faces or anything about their faces. Nerve failures could lead to other complications including reverting the hearing benefits gained form the device hence making the concern of nerve failures to be one of the major concerns when discussing the issue of cochlear implants (Holden et al, 2013). In other words, the nerve failures stand out as one of the major reasons as to why the cochlear implants are heavily opposed and this happens majorly in the backdrop of the fact that the facial nerve failures may also lead to complications in other parts of the body. What those opposed to the cochlear implant procedure do not understand however, is the fact that the developments and advancements in technology help in ensuring that the success rate of the procedures is at the highest level. This means that the procedures can now be conducted without the possibility of the patient contracting the facial nerves failure problems and the infections from which the nerve failure problems may result. Further, early arresting of the infections related to causing the nerve failure problems ensures that the medical officers conducting the operation keep the complications at bay.
The last major concern as related to the cochlear implants is the fact that some patients do not survive the surgical process. On many occasions, the procedures are not in any way to procedural failures or else the negligence of the medical staff. Rather, the loss of life to cochlear implants may result from other factors such as infections affecting the patient after the operation. In other cases the patient could be suffering from a condition not known to the medical officers and with the operation, it leads to the worsening of the condition and the loss of the patient. The loss of the patient and the development of facial nerve failures are two of the most important complications that the patient may be worried. However, the interest with which these factors are regarded raises empirical questions. This is because the rates at which these misfortunes take place are far below the 0.5% mark (Ochsner, Spöhrer, & Stock, 2015). This means that the chances of losing one’s life out of the operation fall below 1% hence the risk is considerably low. This value is continuously improving but it is important to note that like in every other medical procedure, the medics cannot ascertain the patients of successful operations simply because there are those factors that run beyond the abilities of the medics. Overall, the prevalence of these complications should be a major reason as to why people should consider undergoing the cochlear implants. This is because the prevalence of these complications are still extremely low and this can be interpreted to mean that undergoing the procedure is safe for the patient.
The discussion above indicate the benefits and the risks associated with the cochlear implants. The cochlear implants benefit both adults and children. However, children learn faster on how to use the devices and as a consequence it is more preferable to implant the device in a child than in an elderly person. The benefits of this action include offering a child with access to the world of sound, music, and speech (Zeng & Fay, 2013). It also saves lives especially among those people with post-lingual deafness and where the deafness was caused by traumatic events such as explosions in times of war or even accidents. Additionally, the cochlear implant helps in improving life and livelihoods especially among children. This is based on the fact that providing the services to a child has the potential of long-term results as compared to providing the service to an elderly or otherwise older person. These and many more reasons indicate with certainty why one ought to consider getting the cochlear implant (Cochlear, 2015).
Despite the many benefits associated with cochlear implant as indicated above, this research paper found that there are a few risks associated with taking the cochlear implant procedures. They include the fact that there is the risk of death, the risk of infections, and the risk of facial nerves failures that may even lead to a reversal of the benefits associated with the cochlear implant. These few risks present some of the reasons as to why many people may shy away from accepting the procedure. However, relying on these mishaps and complications in making the decision on whether to accept the procedure may be considerably misleading. This is because while many people consider only the fact that the procedure poses the threats as mentioned herein, they do not put into account the statistical possibility of the occurrences of the risks mentioned herein and without this, it is not possible to make the right decision. For instance, research indicates that the possibility of any of the three risks herein mentioned stands at an average of 1% meaning that out of every 99 operations, the risk can only be identified in one person. It is based on the simple reason that more than 30,000 patients in the US have benefitted from this new technology and as more technological advances come in, one should expect more beneficiaries. Lastly, it is also important to note that while the risks exist, the escalation of the risks as indicated by research takes place only when the person on whom it is installed mismanages the device. Consequently, this places the importance of following instructions and guidance on how the device operate son the table and the person will then be able to benefit from the device. This argument then shifts the burden of the risks from the medical staff to the patients as long as the medical professionals follow the rightful steps in dealing with the condition and in dealing providing proper instructions to the patient on how the device is used.
References
Cochlear. (2015). Cochlear Implants as a Hearing Loss Treatment | Cochlear™ India. Retrieved from http://www.cochlear.com/wps/wcm/connect/in/home/understand/hearing-and-hl/hl-treatments/cochlear-implant
Coez, A., Zilbovicius, M., Ferrary, E., Bouccara, D., Mosnier, I., Ambert-Dahan, E., & Sterkers, O. (2014). Brain voice processing with bilateral cochlear implants: a positron emission tomography study. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 271(12), 3187-3193.
Ear Surgery Information Center. (2016). Cochlear Implants - Ear Surgery Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.earsurgery.org/surgery/cochlear-implants/
FDA. (2016). Before, During, & After Implant Surgery. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/CochlearImplants/ucm062899.htm
FDA. (2016). Benefits and Risks of Cochlear Implants. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/CochlearImplants/ucm062843.htm
Harris, M. S., Kronenberger, W. G., Gao, S., Hoen, H. M., Miyamoto, R. T., & Pisoni, D. B. (2013). Verbal short-term memory development and spoken language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing,34(2), 179.
Holden, L. K., Finley, C. C., Firszt, J. B., Holden, T. A., Brenner, C., Potts, L. G., & Skinner, M. W. (2013). Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear and hearing, 34(3), 342.
Ochsner, B., Spöhrer, M., & Stock, R. (2015). Human, non-human, and beyond: cochlear implants in socio-technological environments. NanoEthics,9(3), 237-250.
Vanderbilt Health. (2016). Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center - What are the potential benefits of cochlear implants? - Vanderbilt Health Nashville, TN. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilthealth.com/billwilkerson/28091
Zeng, F. G., & Fay, R. R. (Eds.). (2013). Cochlear implants: Auditory prostheses and electric hearing (Vol. 20). Springer Science & Business Media.
