Let me state at the outset that I come to this film with a different viewpoint than most people. I can understand, to a degree, what it is to be an "other", as I am disabled (I have Cerebral Palsy and I use crutches), though the advocates of the concept of a "deaf culture" would probably say that the two situations aren't at all analogous, as their world view largely rests on the presumption that deafness isn't a "disability", but rather provides a sense of community to them. I beg to differ with that position, as they are limited by the inability to hear, whether they like that truth or not. While there is a modicum of accuracy in the proposition that it is the hearing who create some of those limitations, it must also be understood that the world will be designed to the specifications of the majority and the majority can hear. The whole conceit of there being a "deaf culture" in the first place is simply a shield against acknowledging that their deafness is a hindrance to them in a world managed, by and large, for those who can hear. What's happened is that an artificial and insular bubble has been created so that those who created it can pretend that they aren't disadvantaged or limited at all. This documentary is very instructive on this premise, as I will show in my comments below. As I have to use the documentary to illustrate my point, there will be spoilers:
Throughout this documentary, the advocates of the importance of maintaining "deaf culture" maintain a hostility towards anyone seeking to do or say anything which they perceive as being in any way an indication that deafness is not a desirable characteristic. The father whose daughter is at the center of one of the two debates openly says that he was happy when he found out his daughter was deaf, because she was just like him. He is opposed to the CI procedure almost every moment from the beginning and he seems more resigned than accepting when his wife says she thinks their daughter should have the operation. When the final decision not to have his daughter undergo the CI procedure is made, he takes the step of moving to a largely deaf community which is truly a kind of enclave, an escape from a hearing world he'd rather shun than deal with.
I find it most fascinating that when Heather says she wants the procedure, whenever she's asked why, she has any number of reasons. As things progress and her parents clearly and vehemently argue against their daughter getting the implant, you can see the reaction of her parents is not lost on their daughter. There's a conversation between the mother (who was at first interested in the procedure, but starts turning against the idea when she learns that her daughter will be encouraged to drop using sign in favor of using speech-the mother then worries that she'll drop out of the "deaf culture" in doing so) and her daughter where the daughter says, after her mother asks her for her feelings on having an implant, that she doesn't want one. When asked for reasons,the daughter gives none, just restates that she doesn't want one. Having gotten the answer she wanted, the mother doesn't press, instead suggesting that it was her decision, after all, at which point the daughter looks at her and makes it clear that she understood that her parents had made the decision (which, of course, they did) and the mother infers that it was a mutual decision.
All through this, those deaf people who are unhappy with any suggestion that the CI procedure could be a positive thing react as though it was a personal affront, as if the person making the suggestion didn't think that they were "good enough". One woman, a grandmother to the baby whose parents opted to have a CI done, openly laments being made fun of by a once deaf and now hearing grandchild. Can anyone tell me that a person can make that kind of a statement and still claim with a straight face (and be believable) that they only have the child's best interests at heart? Let me also state, for the record, that I don't know if I would opt for the CI procedure for myself, though for different reasons-it's a major invasive procedure and I'd have to weigh the risks independently.
I probably wouldn't be making a comment on this had it not been glaringly obvious that most of the adults behaved more like children than the children did. The parents of the two children who were the focus of the debate are, after all, the parents and have the right (but also the obligation) to make the decisions respectively, but I would have been far more sympathetic to the parents of Heather when they were complaining that everyone was trying to gang up on them for their decision not to go with an implant for their daughter (the scene with the mother bursting into tears near the end) had they and the other proponents of "deaf culture" not been ganging up on the parents who opted to have the CI procedure for their son. They expected to be accorded a respect for their decision which did not see fit to extend and they were far more vehement in their comments to the other parents in opposition than the other couple was to them. Any courtesy you demand for yourself you should immediately give to others without any hesitation or qualification.
Thought-provoking and generally excellent documentary and well worth seeing. Recommended.