Text service for Deaf people to contact the police

When working with Deaf people in my interpreting job I often do home visits etc...quite a number of times there has been questions raised as to how Deaf people will contact emergency departments such as the Police....

Well local residents in Northumbria now have this opportunity by sms directly.....

Tegan Chapman reports on how this can be done...

"LOCAL deaf, hearing and speech impaired residents will now be able to contact police via text messaging. Mobile solutions specialist Dialogue Communications has provided a unique messaging service for Northumbria Police, and Northumbria Police is amongst the first to adopt this service. Using Dialogue's web-based portal, Northumbria Police has set up this mobile facility, which will allow the hard of hearing to contact the police easily.

Deaf people will no longer have to rely on someone else to report non-emergencies for them and can now text a predefined mobile number which will be directly sent to the police control room and regularly checked. Superintendent Derek Scott, of Northumbria Police explains: "We hope the service will prove to be an effective means of reporting non-emergency incidents in our local area.The mobile technology which is available to emergency services these days is rapidly expanding and we wanted to make the most of this. This demonstrates our commitment to providing the best service possible to all sections of the community.

"However, we would want to remind users that in an emergency situation they need to be able to contact the police via 999 if an immediate response is required."

The two-way SMS is a simple to use service whereby a text message is sent, it is then converted into an email and delivered to the police communications centre.The caller then receives a return SMS within seconds to say their text has been passed to the police, who will reply to this enquiry within 24 hours, with a reminder if this is an emergency you must dial 999. Any further communication can be made via email, which is automatically converted to a text message and sent to the caller. This latest service is yet another way of utilising Dialogue's community text offering.Guillaume Peersman, managing director of Dialogue UK said: "It is services like two-way messaging which can really prove beneficial to local communities."Our mobile applications offer local services a new dimension, which perhaps they hadn't considered, and because of the constantly increasing number of mobile users, it only makes sense to utilise the available technology in a positive way."

With offices in London and Sheffield, Dialogue Communications is one of the UK's fastest growing mobile service providers for interactive mobile solutions and SMS aggregation."

This is great for the Deaf community and I look forward to seeing more departments and emergency services using this technology. It needs to be remembered as well that the companies who receive the original text message from a Deaf user has had some Deaf awareness training as this will help them when understanding the grammatical differences between BSL and English. This is often apparent when reading English written by a Deaf person who is profoundly deaf and uses BSL as their first language

Hearing no problem for deaf juror- the difference between 2 countries

It looked like your basic drug-related murder.

One guy showed up at a corner at Atlantic Station last March allegedly looking to sell a kilo of cocaine. Another guy showed up allegedly looking to buy it. The guy who was supposed to have the drugs didn't have them. An argument ensued. One guy then shot and killed the other guy.

Last week, in Fulton County Superior Court, a jury convicted Marland Moore, 30, of the murder of Rodney Cunningham, 28. Moore was sentenced to life in prison.

What stood out for many about the trial was one of the jurors. He was deaf. Though a deaf juror is not unprecedented, it is rare, according to jury experts and advocates for the hearing impaired, and it was a first for the veteran judge, the attorneys and the other jurors. Two interpreters translated the proceedings into sign language.

"I thought it was a special thing for the judicial system and for the community," said Senior Judge Stephanie Manis, who has served on the Superior Court bench since 1995.

It was particularly special for Keith Davis, 46, who had been summoned for jury duty twice before but never selected. While the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in the courtroom against people with hearing loss, Davis believed his deafness contributed to his not being chosen as a juror in the past, including once in Minnesota.

"I feel I'm an American citizen and I should be able to be on a jury like everyone else," said Davis, who lives in Alpharetta and works two jobs, as a mail clerk and package handler. "I think fair is fair." 'I wanted to participate'

While serving justice, the four-day trial also served to erase what many inside the courtroom worried, at least privately, what the limits might be for someone with a disability like deafness. His involvement became one more step, Davis said, in dismantling faulty preconceptions.

"Before the end of the first day, everyone forgot he was deaf," said Toria Tolley, the jury forewoman and a former CNN anchor who is now a communications coach in Alpharetta. "You don't realize what a great communicator a deaf person can be. For a deaf person, he was one of the best talkers."

Davis was born in Massachusetts, the only one in his family of five kids who couldn't hear. He attended a school for the deaf that at the time did not teach sign language, but instead taught its students to lip read and use their voices. Davis didn't learn sign language until he was 19.
"He's probably more comfortable talking than signing," said longtime friend Michael Whaley. "And he talks a lot."

When Davis received his most recent jury summons, he notified the court in advance that he was deaf so that an interpreter would be present during the lawyers' questioning.
Seated among the other prospective jurors, Davis was stunned by the excuses people came up with to be dismissed.
"I wanted to participate," he said. "I wanted to see what it was really like. To see a real trial, not just watch one on TV."

Senior assistant district attorney Eleanor Ross said she and her co-counsel were impressed by Davis' warmth — he talked about his dogs and how he took them to the park —and his thoughtfulness.

"He made me think he would stop and think about what was being discussed instead of just going along with everybody else," Ross said. "The case was complicated. There were some issues."

The few adjustments made for the trial included moving some equipment so sightlines for Davis and the interpreters wouldn't be blocked. The interpreters were sworn in as officers of the court and alternated signing about every 20 minutes. They also looked over exhibits and witness lists before they were presented.

Tolley said the interpreters, rather than being a distraction, became a kind of enhancement for the other jurors.
"I found myself looking over at his interpreters," she said. "They kind of clarified things for us as well."
"I remember at first looking over at [Davis], thinking, 'Is he getting all this?' " Tolley added. "But not only was he getting all the verbal, he was obviously getting a lot from the witnesses that wasn't verbal. People that have full hearing, we sometimes rely on our ears when we need to rely on our sight. If the volume were turned down, what would you notice? He took in a lot."

Just how much Davis took in became clear during the jury's two-hour deliberations. Tolley said Davis asked more questions than any other juror. He made sure every aspect of the trial was thoroughly discussed before a verdict was reached.
"We knew when we left [the jury room] that our verdict was above and beyond any doubt whatsoever, and a lot of it had to do with Keith's questions," Tolley said.

Matter of ignorance

That observation comes as no surprise to people in the deaf community, but getting on a jury can still be difficult, especially in smaller, rural jurisdictions, advocates for the hearing impaired say.
A 2007 survey of 1,400 state courts by the Center for Jury Studies found 38 percent had sign language interpreters available and 31 percent were outfitted with assisted listening devices. In areas with more than half a million people, like Fulton County, the number that provided interpreters jumped to 88 percent.

But Thomas Galey, executive director of the Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired, said ignorance of what deaf people can do — anything except hear — continues to hinder them being chosen for juries.

Davis said whatever ignorance people in the courtroom might have had before the trial was gone by the time it ended.
"People didn't treat me any differently. They didn't feel sorry for me or have sympathy for me," he said. "For many of them, I was the first deaf person they may have come in contact with. When everybody left, we felt like family.
"I'm glad I did it," Davis added. "I'm proud."


This is not the same for England

Although this is going back a long time, in 1999,the case against a Deaf person wanting to be involved like anyone else still shows that we are behind and are not yet fully inclusive.

UK Deaf juror rules 'to be reviewed'

Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that the law could be changed to make it easier for deaf people to perform jury service.

The announcement follows the outcry over the failure of an appeal by a profoundly deaf man against a court's decision banning him from sitting as a juror.

Jeff McWhinney, chief executive of the British Deaf Association, was told on Tuesday that the current law did not allow a 13th person - in this case a sign language interpreter - to be present in a jury room during deliberations.

However, at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Mr Blair, said this rule would be reviewed by Home Secretary Jack Straw. Responding after the issue was raised by Labour MP Tony Clarke, he said: "It should be possible for all people to take part in jury service.

"And of course it's a very great public service when people do take part in jury service and we should everything we can to encourage them."

The matter first rose in April 1999 when Mr McWhinney, from Blackheath, south east London, was summoned to jury service at Woolwich Crown Court. He was then contacted by court staff and informed that he was being automatically excused because of his disability.

That decision was upheld by Shirley Anwyl QC who ruled that a 13th person - a sign language interpreter - in the jury room would amount to an "incurable irregularity".

She said: "My understanding of the law is that there is no law which permits either me or any other judge of the Crown Court to authorise the attendance of a 13th person in the jury room."

The head of a charity for the deaf has said he will continue to fight a ruling stopping him from sitting on a UK jury, despite his failure to overturn it in court.

Judge Shirley Anwyl QC told London's Woolwich Crown Court the attendance of such an individual would amount to an "incurable irregularity".

She told 39-year-old Mr McWhinney, whom she praised as an "intelligent, hard-working, responsible man who has made a great contribution to life", that until Parliament changed the law there was nothing she or any other circuit judge could do.

Mr McWhinney told the BBC that although he had failed in his bid he believed the case amounted to a "big step forward". His solicitor Douglas Silas said: "Mr McWhinney and the British Deaf Association do not believe there will be grounds to challenge this decision in the higher court.

"But they intend to present this judgment to the Lord Chancellor at the earliest opportunity."


"They will pursue the matter as far as possible until there is specific guidance or legislation allowing deaf people and their interpreters into the jury room, and to be recognised as full and contributing members and citizens of society."

Judge Anwyl said that in her opinion, deaf people could follow "vocal nuances" of witnesses through an interpreter's mannerisms. There was certainly nothing in law that prevented the presence of a sign language interpreter in the courtroom, she said.

US courts have found the presence of deaf people on juries is "far from being a hindrance", she said, which tends to contradict arguments that their disability would prevent them from following and discussing evidence.

"It may be that deliberations will be longer with a pattern followed of only one person talking at a time ... but that might be no bad thing," she said.

'Same rights'

Judge Anwyl added she was "interested and indeed pleased" that the Lord Chancellor is actively considering changing the law so assistance can be given to any deaf juror.

Mr McWhinney was summoned to do jury service several months ago. On his summons form he was asked to detail if he was disabled and needed additional support.

He declared he was deaf. The bailiff then decided to discharge him on the grounds he would need a sign language interpreter in court and during the jury's deliberations. A BDA spokesman said: "Deaf people should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

"There have been blind jurors and magistrates and before it was argued that they should not serve. Women used not to be allowed to be jurors. Things change."

(www.ajc.com and www.news.bbc.co.uk)

'Creating a deaf child IS immoral and no parent should be allowed to choose this for their child'

As a furious ethical debate rages over Government plans to discard embryos with a 'deafness gene', Hilary Freeman — whose own brother was born profoundly deaf — says such a decision would have robbed him of a rich and fulfilling life.

The day I realised how big an impact my younger brother's disability had on his life is one I'll never forget. It was 1987 and I was 16.

My brother, Jeremy, was 14. I'd just come home from school and was changing out of my school uniform when I heard a horrible, cacophonous noise coming through the wall that separated our bedrooms.

It was a low-pitched, distorted sound, like something emanating from a monster in a horror film.
When I could bear it no longer, I stormed into Jeremy's bedroom and tapped him on the shoulder. "What on earth are you doing?" I shouted over the din.
He smiled at me, oblivious. "I'm playing my record," he said, swaying his hips in an approximation of dancing.

"Rat in my kitchen what am I gonna do..." he chanted, repeatedly. "It's UB40! Don't you like it?"
Grimacing against the noise, I walked over to his turntable and peered at the record revolving on it. I could see that it was indeed the band UB40's current single, Rat In Mi Kitchen.

But instead of playing it at 45 revolutions per minute, the speed at which seven-inch records used to be played, Jeremy was playing it at 33rpm, like a 12-inch. He hadn't noticed anything was wrong because he couldn't hear the record.

I ran back into my bedroom and wept privately, so he would not see my reaction. Like all his friends at school, Jeremy had spent his pocket money on a record player and had begun buying records to play on it, despite the fact that he could not appreciate music, make out lyrics or distinguish between melodies.

He had done it to fit in, because he was a teenage boy who didn't want to be different, and teenage boys like pop music. But Jeremy was different. He was born profoundly deaf, able to hear a few of the loudest sounds.

Nobody is certain why. My mother always believed it might be because he was born a few weeks prematurely. Only last month, after genetic testing - a very new scientific development - we learned that he has a mutated gene, which may have been passed down by ancestors, or which could have become damaged spontaneously at the time of his conception.

Whatever its cause, my brother's deafness came as a huge shock to our parents, who already had one child - me - and weren't aware of any deafness in the family. There was never any doubt that they regarded his deafness as a disability, something to be regretted and overcome, something which would inevitably make his life more difficult and separate him out from the majority of the population.

My parents never once considered Jeremy's deafness to be a good thing, which would make him part of a culture, a distinct ethnic group, with an identity and language which should be celebrated. If my parents could have prevented Jeremy's deafness, they would surely have done so. They most certainly would not have actively chosen this fate for their only son.

While parents can screen out deaf embryos to make sure their child isn't born deaf, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, scheduled to go through the Commons this spring, will make it impossible for people undergoing IVF to ensure that their children are deaf. Some deaf people think this is unjust and discriminatory.

The couple fighting for the right to have a child who could be deaf celebrated when their first child was born deaf and now want another deaf child to complete their family. They claim they're not disabled, but part of a linguistic minority and they're proud of their language - sign language - and their deaf community.

I think it's wonderful that deaf people feel a sense of community and that sign language allows them to communicate and express themselves fully. But that doesn't make up for the fact that their hearing is absent. Human beings are meant to have five senses. Never having, or losing, one of them is a disability, however much you learn to get around it by developing aids or new languages. Hearing tests have become extremely sophisticated in the past 30 years, but when my brother was born they were rather crude, so it was not until he was eight months old - and had missed out on a good deal of his early language development - that he was officially diagnosed. But the fact that something was wrong had become clear many months earlier.
It was my late grandmother who first pointed out that my brother didn't respond when she sang to him, and that he didn't notice the crash of saucepan lids in the kitchen.

Once he had been diagnosed, my parents took the decision very early on to teach Jeremy to learn to speak and lip-read, rather than to learn, and rely on, sign language. They did this because they did not want to isolate him, and learning to "sign" would cut him off from communication with the majority of the population - his family, included. At that time, it would also have meant sending him away to a residential school.

However difficult it would be, they dearly wanted him to go to a mainstream school and mix with hearing children, so when he grew up he could work with and mix with hearing adults. This meant that for most of his childhood, Jeremy would have twice or thrice-weekly speech therapy lessons. His first word, "apple", at age two and a half, was cause for tears and a huge celebration.

One of my earliest memories is playing quietly in the corner with my dolls while the speech therapist sat at the kitchen table, holding up picture cards and repeating "ball", "dog" and "cat" over and over again until Jeremy could make some approximation of the words. If he got a word right, he expected us all to applaud him.

Many people don't think of deafness as a severe disability because it is an invisible one.
People who are deaf don't look different. But that doesn't make being deaf any less disabling. If you're profoundly deaf, distinguishing isolated voices in a crowd is impossible. Phone conversations are an ordeal. You can't pick up inflections or nuances like sarcasm in people's voices. You can't hear the doorbell - we had one which made the lights flash on and off - or the fire alarm. Being deaf often means enduring constant background tinnitus - ringing, buzzing, clicking or roaring in the ears - which is both distracting and painful. Jeremy stopped wearing one of his hearing aids because of this discomfort.

When strangers can't make themselves understood, they treat a deaf person as if they're stupid.
Many deaf people, like Jeremy, have speech impediments because they can't hear the sound of their own voice or pronounce certain sounds. People aren't always kind, or patient.
It is for all these reasons that I find the idea of deliberately choosing to have a deaf child so abhorrent. To me, it's almost tantamount to child abuse. If we were talking about parents who were born without limbs demanding the right to give birth to a child without arms and legs, we would all be repulsed. But is this so different?

The limbless could argue that wheelchairs give them mobility, just as sign language offers a deaf person a means of communication, and they could say that they feel a sense of community with other people who use wheelchairs. That doesn't make it right to impose limblessness - or deafness - on a child who has no say in the matter.

Whether they like it or not, the deaf community does not exist in isolation; there is no deaf independent state. Deaf people have to mix with hearing people at times, and most hearing people do not use sign language. In fact, sign language is not a universal language, so a deaf visitor to Greece, for example, will not be able to converse with a deaf Greek person.

I remember shielding Jeremy from ignorant and unkind remarks when we were out playing in the local park. I often acted as his interpreter, too, when people didn't understand what he was saying. Sometimes I even had to translate for our parents. For some reason, I always understood what he was trying to say. But I'm ashamed to admit that I did also occasionally take advantage, whispering secrets or bitchy comments to my friends under my breath because I knew he wouldn't be able to hear.

As a teenager, I once sneaked a boyfriend into my room while our parents were away, aware that Jeremy would have no idea he was there. I sneaked him out again at 6am, before Jeremy woke up.

Jeremy's deafness had a big impact on my family life. My parents now admit that I probably didn't get as much attention as he did, although I never felt neglected. I was a bright and sociable child who did well at school and had lots of friends, so I was often left to my own devices.
But I did resent the fact that, as the "disabled" child, my brother got away with murder.
If I swore, I'd be banished to my room. If he swore, he'd almost be congratulated for picking up the word! It would be fair to say that in many ways he was spoilt.

My mother, a social worker, had intended to go back to work once we were both at school, but Jeremy's deafness meant she didn't return to full-time work until he was 16. It would simply have been impossible, what with the after-school speech therapy appointments and the frequent hospital visits for hearing aid fittings. She acknowledges that her career suffered as a result.
Our father was a professor of law at University College London and while we certainly never went without, Jeremy's disability was a drain on the family's finances.

At that time, the NHS did a poor job of providing suitable hearing aids, so my parents had to buy them privately. As Jeremy grew, new moulds needed to be fitted and paid for every six weeks. Decent speech therapy didn't come cheap either. It meant that we couldn't afford to move to a better area, and childhood holidays were usually a week self-catering in Wales or Scotland.
Throughout his childhood, my parents worried about Jeremy's future career prospects.
They encouraged him to play sports, as this was a way he could excel despite being deaf, and he became a decent cricketer, who is now an MCC accredited coach. Thankfully the sheer force of his stubborn, determined and practical personality meant his deafness was less of a disability to him than it may be to others. Through his will to succeed and hard work, he did well at school and made it to university, achieving an HND in business studies.

He says that while his deafness has at times been frustrating, he's always been determined not to let it become a barrier to success. The invention of the internet and email revolutionised his life and his ability to work, as it did for many deaf people. He is now a successful businessman, running two online retail companies and a third business designing websites.
It's difficult to imagine that he would have achieved all this had he not grown up in the hearing world. Socially, things were more difficult. Jeremy says he was never bullied, but he did have problems relating to people, particularly when he started university. Imagine, if you will, trying to make friends in a busy student union bar when you can't hear a word anybody is saying. He has, however, always had a few close friends who have looked out for him. Girlfriends were thin on the ground. For a long time, I remember that he was jealous of my relationships and, as a result, almost gleeful when I broke up with my first love. He admits believing he would never meet anybody himself. At my wedding in 1998, he broke down in tears. Thinking that he'd never get to enjoy his own big day, or find love, I cried too.

These fears were unfounded. Within 18 months, Jeremy would also be married. A friend introduced him to Ravit, a lovely woman, who just happened to be deaf. She, too, had grown up in the hearing world and had similar experiences and values. Four and a half years ago, Ravit gave birth to their first child, a girl who they named Chantelle. Our family's delight at her birth was marred only by the news that history had repeated itself: Chantelle was born partially deaf.
Three years later, Jeremy and Ravit had another child, a boy called Eytan. Like Jeremy, he was born profoundly deaf, with virtually no hearing at all.

Later this month, Eytan will undergo a cochlear implant operation to fit two electronic devices between his ears and his brain, which will artificially give him some hearing. It's a major - and still fairly new - operation that is not without risks, but it will give Eytan the best chance of a full and normal life, allowing him to learn to speak and communicate.

Many people in the deaf community are up in arms about the growing popularity of cochlear implants, which they see as unnecessary and invasive. But my brother and his wife don't agree and believe it's the best chance Eytan has to lead a full life without the disadvantages they have suffered. Recently Jeremy and Ravit, now both 34, have learned that because they both carry a mutated gene, any children they ever conceive will be deaf. This is not something that pleases them. They would dearly love it if they and their children could hear.

"Our lives would be so much easier," says Jeremy.
As a sister, and now a proud auntie to two beautiful deaf children, I can only concur.

(this was originally cited by Hilary Freeman http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ )

This couple want a Deaf child- should we try and stop them?

From embryo selection to abortion, fertility treatment to stem cell research, medical advances have created a furious ethical debate. Now MPs must decide how far science should be allowed to go. Gaby Hinsliff and Robin McKie report (www.guardian.co.uk)



Like any other three-year-old child, Molly has brought joy to her parents. Bright-eyed and cheerful, Molly is also deaf - and that is an issue which vexes her parents, though not for the obvious reasons. Paula Garfield, a theatre director, and her partner, Tomato Lichy, an artist and designer, are also deaf and had hoped to have a child who could not hear.

'We celebrated when we found out about Molly's deafness,' says Lichy. 'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'

Now the couple are hoping to have a second child, one they also wish to be deaf - and that desire has brought them into a sharp confrontation with Parliament. The government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill, scheduled to go through the Commons this spring, will block any attempt by couples like Garfield and Lichy to use modern medical techniques to ensure their children are deaf. The bill is a jumbo-sized piece of legislation intended to pull together all aspects of reproductive science in Britain and pave the way for UK scientists to lead the field in embryology. But in trying to do so, the civil servants drafting the bill have provoked a great deal of unrest.

'Paula is now in her early 40s,' says Lichy. 'Our first daughter was born naturally, but due to Paula's age, we may need IVF for the second.' The trouble is that, according to clause 14/4/9 of the bill, the selection of a hearing child through IVF is permitted, but embryos found to have deafness genes will be automatically discarded. 'This sends out a clear and direct message that the government thinks deaf people are better off not being born,' says Steve Emery, a sign-language expert at Heriot-Watt University.

This point is backed by Lichy. 'It is a cornerstone of modern society and law that deaf and hearing people have equal rights. If hearing people were to have the right to throw away a deaf embryo, then we as deaf people should also have the right to throw away a hearing embryo.'
Garfield and Lichy say they will continue to try for a second baby naturally and will be happy if it is able to hear. Yet their affront over the blocking of their use of IVF is intense. 'I find this shocking, detestable and utterly inhuman,' says Lichy. 'I'm a governor at a school for deaf children. When I visit, I see a class of 30 deaf children, all happily signing to each other, running about and creating chaos. Some will be artists, some will be accountants, some may go to Oxbridge, following the path that several of my deaf friends have already beaten. If they had been conceived via IVF, and detected as deaf at that stage, then all would have been aborted before birth.'

The government is unlikely to change its mind over this issue, it appears. Nevertheless, it illustrates the intense feelings that surround the embryology bill. Its passage through the Commons is set to be one of the most passionately debated in recent years. Designed to update the HFE Act of 1990, which in turn updated the Abortion Act of 1976, the new bill has been drafted to ensure the law is compatible with modern medical practice. Given the issues - from abortion to hybrid embryos - it covers, the bill was always going to stir controversy.
This point is demonstrated, somewhat unexpectedly, at Dr Warren Hern's clinic in Boulder, Colorado. Hern is one of a handful of specialists worldwide willing to perform abortions beyond 24 weeks' gestation, the legal cut-off point in most of Europe for terminating a pregnancy. And he is increasingly seeing British women for terminations that would be against the law in their home country, despite the fact that British providers - nervous of entering a legal grey area - refuse to refer them to him.

'They find me on the internet. The consequences of the refusal to refer is that they are further along, higher risk and higher cost (when I do see them),' Hern told The Observer. 'This is cruel and unusual punishment for women who need this service in issues of foetal abnormality.'

Depending on the bill's passage, his clinic could soon become a lot busier, however. Tory backbencher and former nurse Nadine Dorries is to table an amendment to the bill which would reduce the upper limit for abortions in Britain from 24 to 20 weeks: David Cameron has pledged to support it. Dorries argues there is evidence that babies above this age are sentient - capable of feeling pain - although the scientific evidence is hotly contested.
Dorries first thought there was no chance of changing the law but is now more confident: 'I only have to walk through the House of Commons and MPs say: "I am with you on 20 weeks, I don't want to go any lower, don't want to ban abortion, but I'm with you."'

Pro-choice campaigners, however, argue that the 2 per cent of abortions carried out every year after 20 weeks often involve severe abnormalities discovered only at the 20-week scan, or drastic changes in personal circumstances such as a woman being abandoned by the father. There are also frightened teenagers unable to accept they were pregnant or seek help early enough. Changing the law, they argue, would simply drive these women - if they could afford it - to fly somewhere like Colorado. 'People find ways,' says Louise Hutchins of the pro-choice pressure group Abortion Rights.

The Commons debate will concentrate on viability, the age at which a baby is considered to have a good chance of survival outside the womb. Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo, who will steer the bill in the Commons, will tell MPs the medical consensus remains that babies cannot be considered viable below 24 weeks, which should remain the legal limit.

'The care of premature babies is clearly improving but it hasn't improved to the point where you can move the point of viability,' she told The Observer. 'There just is a certain time limit when things like lungs are formed. Clearly if the science changes we would have to make that clear to Parliament, but it hasn't.' MPs will have a free vote on abortion, a traditional issue of conscience but Labour's chief whip has rebuffed pleas from anti-abortion MPs to be given the same freedom over other controversial parts of the bill, from provisions on stem-cell therapy to animal-human hybrids.

A further issue provoking controversy has been the decision to include clauses that would require the use of all tissue used to create lines of stem cells to have the explicit consent of its donor, while another clause would block the use of any tissue from children, even if their parents give consent. This has caused considerable concern because scientists take DNA from tissue of individuals with genetic conditions, insert this into a human or animal egg cell and then create stem cells, which can be grown in laboratories. These cell lines have the same genetic defects as the patient. New therapies can then be tested on them.

The new bill, as it stands, would have a devastating impact on this kind of medical research, as leading UK scientists - including three Nobel prize winners, Sir Martin Evans, Sir Paul Nurse, and Sir John Sulston - recently warned. The law would be retrospective, so cell lines on which scientists are now working would have to be thrown out. In addition, in the case of tissue taken from children, there is the problem that many of them have conditions that mean they will not reach adulthood and, therefore, could never give consent for taking their tissue at a later date.
The issues vex scientists. To date, however, the government has refused to back down, further inflaming debate. How the bill will finally emerge from the ensuing negotiations is difficult to determine. One option being discussed is for chief whip Geoff Hoon to impose a 'soft whip', meaning Catholic cabinet ministers such as Ruth Kelly and Paul Murphy can be conveniently absent from the vote over issues conecrning abortion, rather than having to choose between their government and their consciences.

But Gordon Brown is said to be heavily personally committed to the bill, and to the cause of medical research. His second son Fraser has cystic fibrosis - one of the conditions that could ultimately be cured by stem cell therapy.

Experience of a Cochlear Implant

Josh Swiller was 22 and profoundly deaf when he applied to the Peace Corps in search of adventure. And indeed, adventure he found. His experiences in Zambia are eloquently recounted in his hard-to-put-down memoir of deafness and Africa, “The Unheard” (Holt, 2007).

But how could someone so hard of hearing get into the Peace Corps, let alone learn a foreign language and communicate in it? Mr. Swiller told me he had no problem with the interview, which was conducted one-on-one in a quiet room, enabling him to hear and to read lips. Through the devoted efforts of an audiologist and his mother, he could speak nearly as well as a normal-hearing person. And he did not have a problem learning the language of Zambia.

“I was so used to paying close attention when other people spoke,” Mr. Swiller recalled in an interview. “I was used to asking people to repeat themselves.”

He added: “Being deaf and having three brothers, one of whom is also deaf, I learned how to communicate without language. I could conduct conversations when I understood only a few words in each sentence.”

That was remarkable in itself. But far more remarkable is that the interview with me was conducted over the telephone, something Mr. Swiller, 37, could not have done three years ago. In 2005, he and his brother underwent life-changing surgery, substituting a cochlear implant for the hearing aids that were no longer working for them.

“Thirty years of amplified sound had worn out our ears,” he explained. “In most people with sensorineural hearing loss, their hearing gets worse with time and they need stronger and stronger amplification. We started getting terrible headaches all the time, and I finally had to stop using the aids altogether.”

Opened a ‘Whole New World’

During those two soundless years, Mr. Swiller, who was fluent in sign language, attended the Lexington School for the Deaf, in Jackson Heights, Queens, and the League for the Hard of Hearing, in Manhattan, and earned a master’s degree in social work. He now works part-time as a hospice social worker, a job he could not have held before the implant because it involves talking to sick people and lots of time on the telephone. His brother, now married and a real estate entrepreneur, does much of his work through conference calls.

“The implant opened up a whole new world for me,” a world that now includes a normal-hearing girlfriend who mumbles, Mr. Swiller said, laughing.

With the implant, Mr. Swiller’s hearing went from 25 percent to 100 percent. The deafness inherited by Mr. Swiller, his brother and one of their first cousins is caused by an autosomal recessive mutation in a gene called connexion 26, the most common cause of sensorineural deafness in children.

Sensorineural hearing loss affects one to three of every thousand children born in developed countries, according to a report in the Dec. 6 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Hearing aids are helpful when the deficit is mild to moderate, but are less effective or ineffective when hearing loss is severe.

Candidates for cochlear implants have severe sensorineural hearing loss in both ears but still have a healthy auditory nerve. A tiny microphone worn behind the ear picks up and amplifies noises filtered through a sound processor that gives priority to speech. The resulting signals are sent electromagnetically to a receiver and stimulator implanted under the skin. The signals are converted to electrical impulses and sent to the brain via the auditory nerve.

At least one company, Otologics, has developed a cochlear implant that is placed entirely under the skin, but it is not yet approved for use in the United States. Mr. Swiller sees some advantages to the external receiver, which, for example, is easily removed for showering or swimming. “One of my favorite things is the ability to turn it off,” he said. “On the subway, it’s off.”

Mr. Swiller explained that the device also has built-in flexibility with four different programs, each with its own volume and sensitivity control: “In addition to the base program, one makes speech frequencies louder, which is useful at a lecture or a meeting at work; another turns off all the microphones except the one picking up the voice of the person I’m looking at, which makes it easier to hear in a noisy environment; and a fourth cuts the microphone pickup to a three-to-four-foot radius.”

“My hearing is so many light-years better than I ever could have imagined — it’s a miracle,” Mr. Swiller said. “Before the implant, I couldn’t talk on the phone, I couldn’t have a conversation. It was very frustrating to be in the world and not in the world, watching people talking and not being able to follow what they were saying.”

Not an Easy Decision

Some deaf people are opposed to cochlear implants, because they regard the world of the deaf as a community, which they believe that implants threaten. They also point out that the devices are still being perfected.

Nonetheless, Mr. Swiller says based on his experience, “a small child with severe hearing loss should be implanted as soon as possible. Sign language can be learned down the road, but not English. It’s a no-brainer to me if you want the child to succeed in a hearing world.”

Mr. Swiller recalled meeting a deaf high school girl who received the implants at age 2. He said she was doing well academically, captain of her basketball team and confident in social situations. Because of cochlear implants, he said, deaf schools around the country are rapidly losing enrollment.

Before his surgery, Mr. Swiller did a lot of homework. He read “Rebuilt,” a book by Michael Chorost about his experience with an implant. He also attended a support group at the League for the Hard of Hearing where people with implants spoke positively about them. Still, after much testing for eligibility and deciding to get the implant, Mr. Swiller said he had to wait several months to be sure he would not change his mind. Then a month of healing followed the surgery before the device was turned on.

“The first week was a real disappointment,” Mr. Swiller recalled. “All I heard was nonsense. My brain was like a muscle that needed to be strengthened and increase its tolerance for this new stimulus.”

“The first sound I heard was ‘sh’ — I’d never heard that or ‘s’ before,” he continued. “Then one day, I passed someone on the street talking on a cellphone, and I heard everything she said crystal clear. That had never happened before — hearing something when I was not paying attention to the sound. I can now hear conversations from another room; before I couldn’t hear distant speech at all.”

Mr. Swiller’s surgeon, Dr. J. Thomas Roland Jr., co-director of the cochlear implant center at New York University, said in an interview that universal screening of newborns had made it possible to detect deafness by one month of age, making cochlear implantation in infants one of the latest trends. Other trends are getting implants in both ears and implanting older adults — including those over 70 — for whom hearing aids are no longer adequate.

(orginal source written by Jane E Brody www.nytimes.com)

Deaf Oscar winning actress states " Be What You Want"

Oscar-winning deaf actress Marlee Matlin told a Tilson Auditorium audience on Monday there is only one thing a deaf person is unable to do.
"The only thing deaf people can't do is hear," she said. "Deafness only cuts you off from people if you let it."

Nearly 900 people filled the auditorium to see Matlin, who was the final speaker in the University Speaker Series for this year.
Matlin, who has been deaf since she was 18 months old, signed her entire speech, and her interpreter Jack Jason translated verbally for the audience.
Matlin has received many honors, including an Oscar for Best Actress for her role in "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986. She has had recurring roles on "The West Wing" and "My Name is Earl," and she plays opposite Jennifer Beals in the Shotime series "The L Word."

Matlin first spoke of the many misconceptions people have about deaf people. Using her sense of humor, she compared her life from the 1970s to her life now.

"I used to see myself as Marcia Brady who just happened to be deaf," she said. Then referring to her current state of motherhood, she said. "Now I'm Alice the maid."

Matlin said she had two main goals in life: to write a book saying it's okay to be deaf and to make it in Hollywood. She has achieved both of those goals.

As a deaf person, Matlin had a difficult time making it in Hollywood. She spoke of how brutal directors in Hollywood were to her.

"To them, I was handicapped, and I was beginning to believe it myself," she said. "Hollywood is just like high school-but with more money."

Matlin spoke of her biggest inspiration and mentor, Henry Winkler, known for his role as Fonzie on "Happy Days." He did not excel in school, but he was successful at acting. He gave her words of inspiration when she was just a girl.

"He said to me, in the most Fonzie-like way, 'You can be whatever you want to be. Just believe it in your heart, and all your dreams will come true,'" Matlin said.

Although she has had to overcome many obstacles in her lifetime, Matlin has a positive viewpoint of life now.

"We can achieve much more in life if we focus on our abilities rather than our perceived disabilities," she said.

Since Matlin was often discouraged when she was younger, she wants deaf people to be encouraged at a young age.

"Courage plus dreams equals success-that equation should be taught in every institution of learning," Matlin said.

After Matlin gave her speech, members of the audience were encouraged to come forward to the stage and ask her questions. When asked about what kind of legacy she wants to leave, Matlin was confident in her response.

"I want to be remembered as one of the craziest people they've ever met," she said.

One audience member asked what Matlin thought about making sign language an available foreign language at ISU.

"I'll talk to the provost," she said, only halfway joking. Although Matlin is deaf, that does not prevent her from speaking her mind, especially when it comes to deaf rights.

"Silence is the last thing you will ever hear from me," she said.

Mark Edwards, director of communication and marketing at ISU, was delighted to have Matlin speak at ISU.

"ISU and Terre Haute are most fortunate that she has agreed to share her life and dedication to community service firsthand," he said. "It's not every day that one has the opportunity to meet someone of her stature in person. That's part of the ISU experience."

Linda Crossett, director of community and professional programs at ISU, was pleased with how the audience responded to the program.

"We hope that the audience saw how Marlee was able to fulfill her dream without letting her disability get in the way," Crossett said.

Matlin will appear on the ABC dance competition "Dancing with the Stars" beginning March 17. She said she is very excited about her appearance, and she even struck a few poses as a preview for the audience. She said that no special adjustments will be made for her in the competition, in terms of the volume of the music. Edwards said Matlin was chosen to be in the speaker series because she appeals to people of all ages. He was also pleased with the program.

"If everyone leaves at the end of the evening with a better appreciation and understanding for the experience, we've accomplished something special as an institution, haven't we?" he said.

(as seen on Indiana Statesman)