re: cochlear implants. Funny you should say that. Thirty years ago my wife and I discovered that the light of our life, one-year-old David, was deaf. I remember discussing it with an older surgeon at the hospital where I worked. He laid it on the line: A deaf child is more handicapped than a blind one because it cripples his ability to learn. Research confirmed it: a deaf child would typically grow up to have a third-grade education and work in a laundry - something confirmed by memories of my neighbor at the trailer park where I lived when I was in medical school. He was deaf, about forty years old, and except for a combination of odd sounds and hand gestures was completely nonverbal - and worked in a laundry.
Hearing aids were of no benefit to our son. My wife and I began the arduous process of learning American Sign Language - and we struggled. It was totally inadequate to convey the ideas and concepts that are so beautifully expressed by the English language; for example there is no way of saying, "It looks like you have picked up a little weight." The ASL expression is, "You're fat."
But during those classes, the instructor mentioned that she knew a family 'way back in the booger-woods of West Virginia who had a deaf daughter with this thing called a "cochlear implant." Out of desperation I looked up their phone number. It was truly a bolt from the blue. Her mother was an absolute ball-o-fire, a local schoolteacher and Tiger Mom of the first order. A quick hop later, our son in tow, we talked with this family about this "CI" device. Thirty years later, I remember it vividly: Mom yelling up the stairs, "Rishona!" And from upstairs came the response: "What?" "Come down here." "OK." My God; those words still make me choke up. Mom's parting words were: "A cochlear implant will change your child from a deaf child to a hearing one."
*******************
Ableism. The Internet was just coming of age, and I had joined a newsgroup (remember those?) called, "Beyond Hearing," searching for anything - anywhere - to help me help my son. I thought everyone on the group would be delighted with my discovery, but I was met with complete, unbridled hostility, culminating with the comment from the newsgroup owner that "Deafness is not a disability; our members commonly intermarry, hoping to CREATE A DEAF CHILD. You just want to destroy the deaf culture."
I lost my mind. I replied, "Did you just say that you wanted to create a disabled child?"
And yes, I want to destroy the deaf culture. And the blind culture. And the cancer culture. And the childhood heart disease culture. All of it. And if you don't think deafness is a disability, I'll send you my address. We can meet and stand in the center of the Interstate with our backs to traffic. By God, we'll see who is disabled."
As I said, that was thirty years ago. David had his surgery, learned to talk, went to regular school, and graduated college. As for this abelist nonsense; starting that stuff with me is a very low-return enterprise. I've been to Canaan and I have no patience with such.
Thank you for your story. If people want help, for whatever reason, it should be available and if they don't, that's fine too. Everyone should accept each others choices and experiences. It's called not judging and if we realized that we are literally all limbs of the same tree we would stop judging and instead accept, support, learn from, and love others instead of judging them.
I have been wearing hearing aids since 2014. I needed them in 1978. I am thankful that I can now fully engage in conversations and not put myself in danger when I am out in the world.
As a lifelong math geek and electronic guy, I see the CI as one of medicine's Great Leaps Forward. Since the eardrum can only do one thing - move in or out - what you have is essentially one wire carrying data. But that single wave is the sum of all the different frequencies that strike it, and after running that wave through an amplifier - a protein called prestin that changes shape with every tiny vibration, amplifying that vibration 200 times, the native ear performs a Fourier transform - essentially calculus - splitting that one wave into literally thousands of its constituent frequencies and feeding each one to a different nerve fiber. The CI must do all that, too, and has gone from a cigarette-pack sized device to one that fits behind the ear.
I had the privilege of meeting the engineer who invented the whole design in cooperation with an Australian doctor. The two of them worked for decades and never let up. I, my son, and many others owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be adequately repaid.
The world is full of irrational crazies and those who say don't cure the handicapped are crazy. They won't debate you but they will yell at you and call you names.
The moron P/C call the deaf "audially challenged". I say they are full of shit. The deaf call themselves "deaf". The blind call themselves "blind".
I know that from experience. My father was deaf and he called himself deaf. I had a good friend who was blind. Guess what he called himself? You guessed it, blind!
These left wing loons are dangerous and they disgust me. These are people who would complain if they were hanged with a new rope.
My father was lucky. In the 1930s they invented hearing aids and he could hear with them.
Lori, I am in that same boat with you! Except hearing aids only allow me to understand about 2/3 of spoken words. And it is getting progressively worse! But at MY age, 72, the solution of cochlear implants would be a solution of diminishing returns. By the time I would have the surgery, and learned and adapted to the implants, I would be near end of life. I'll just cobble along for now...
I dunno, Mr Moore. Back when I was only 72 I questioned my dentist about the economic wisdom, at my age, of an implant vs cheaper fixes. Cut to the chase, I went with the implant. Never regretted it. (Granted I know nothing of cochlear implants, particularly the non-economic issues that you raise.) Be well.
Thank you for sharing your story. I have one of my own.
At 2 years old, just as he was starting to talk, my younger brother contracted bacterial meningitis and ended up in the pediatric ICU for two months. His neurologist described my brother as his “sickest patient who lived”. He lost his hearing and much of his cognitive development.
My brother received a cochlear implant a couple years later, and used it faithfully for many years as he attended local public schools. Our entire family learned some sign language, but we generally preferred spoken communication and hoped the implant would be sufficient for communication. However, in high school my brother attended a state-sponsored academy for deaf and blind children and gradually stopped using the implant as he integrated fully into the Deaf community.
A few years ago he married his childhood sweetheart, who is congenitally deaf. They now have a beautiful daughter with normal hearing, and recently he has expressed an interest in restarting speech therapy with the implant. That option is not available to his wife though, so I wonder how she feels about it. They live a happy and normal middle-class American lifestyle, without hearing.
Personally, I feel conflicted. I have some guilt about never fully learning sign language so I can communicate with my brother, but I also wonder what could have been if he’d continued using the implant. His best friend, also a cochlear implant recipient, delivered an eloquent speech at the wedding and seems at ease among both hearing and the Deaf.
We were told by the audiologist in Richmond that the surgery was the tiniest part of the process. Speech therapy was more important than anything, and since he was already getting what he needed by pointing and grunting, if we let him give into normal laziness, the implant would fail. He was already two years behind when the device was placed.
I give his mother credit for working with him, as well as the speech therapist. When he was about four, she told me, "David could be the poster child for the cochlear implant. I am used to dealing with hearing-aid kids; I have never had a patient with an implant. He is progressing so quickly. I realized today that if I close my eyes, I can't tell his speech from that of a normal child. I hate to see him go, but I have nothing further to offer him."
There was another child in his class, Kendra - daughter of a single mother from the projects. Since welfare would implant her for free, and she was so tough to deal with for the mom, who was "dating" all the time and didn't want to give up her freedom, she decided to have the child implanted.
It was the perfect study: subject and control. The little girl never got much therapy or special attention. The last I heard from her, she was herself a single mom - and deaf as a post.
Exactly. My one up-close-and-(more or less)-personal association was with a deaf community in a large city through friendship with a young man who had a vocation to work with deaf persons at large. After attending a few community functions, I commented upon how self-sufficient the group was as a whole... my guide pointed out that what I had experienced was, uh, (what would now be called) a privileged group. He wasn't keen on exposing any other kind... this back in 1977.
Our case is much more similar to yours than the latter one you mentioned--no shortage of love and support in my family. However, I believe the overall neurological damage from the illness also worked to stunt my brother’s speech development, so he never acquired natural-sounding speech.
I’m a retired speech pathologist and completed my undergraduate and graduate training in the mid-70’s, when cochlear implants were in their infancy.
There was a training program for deaf kids called, IIRC, “total language.” It discarded ASL and substituted a signing program called Seeing Essential English. Unlike ASL -- which is basically its own language -- SEE used signs to copy standard English, such as adding word endings such as “ing” or “-ed,” etc. SEE also followed English syntax (grammar) rules.
Along with this signing program, kids were taught to verbally speak as best as possible. The whole idea was to allow them access into the hearing world and society.
It died on the vine, killed by the militant “Deaf” community.
“It was totally inadequate to convey the ideas and concepts that are so beautifully expressed by the English language; for example there is no way of saying, ‘It looks like you have picked up a little weight.’ The ASL expression is, ‘You're fat.’”
I didn’t know this, but it explains a lot to me. Except for those who went deaf in their old age, all the deaf people I’ve met have been very blunt, with little to no sense of how to phrase things sensitively. It’s off-putting to other people, who already find it awkward or difficult communicating with deaf people.
I remember when “retarded” first became the verboten “R-word” that it was hilariously ironic. How was a retarded person going to be offended or have hurt feelings unless someone carefully explained and instructed them to be offended?
Sticks and stones. What a bunch of weaklings we’ve raised.
Thank you for this powerful story. I am so happy for your child and family. I’ve read in the past about this stance in the deaf community and it’s always sounded more defensive and defiant than proud to me. Another point that doesn’t seem to be made is that life is plenty hard when everything works. Not every child is fortunate enough to have the supportive and resourceful family needed to combat the downsides that come with any medical challenge.
Helen Keller was once asked if she could choose to have either sight or hearing, which would she choose. She said hearing, because deafness cuts one off from humanity far more than blindness. This was a time when people had more common sense I guess.
Outstanding. You went where even a so-unpopular kid as I was reluctant to go. Economics. The the overwhelming cost benefit of (ie) modern cataract surgery vs accommodating blindness. Let she who can afford to go against that do so. And leave the rest of us alone.
Yes! Inability to hear has an impact on processing skills in the brain. It is detrimental to one's life and limits what one can do because the brain won't develop or will lose some functioning.
There is so much I can write about this but I will keep it brief.
My wife is deaf. Born with profound hearing loss, she started with hearing aids. She never learned to sign but learned to speak by Helen Beebe. As she grew older her hearing decayed. She eventually got cochlear implants.
My wife has a PhD in English and teaches at a major University, and teaches all students. She teaches writing which means her language centers of her brain are highly developed. She is published. Oxford University press came to her to ask her for a piece, and it was not about deafness. It was about a poet.
Everything you wrote about the advantages of cochlear implants is true. She loves them. She can be herself and grow and love. We have two children. She can hear them. Both of them are learning to play instruments. She can hear them.
Mainstream learning, learning to speak, and Cochlear implants didn’t take away any culture. They opened the door to her. They enable her to be herself.
Oh, please. If certain people choose to remain blind or deaf (or Deaf), that’s their choice, and it should be respected.
But don’t ever, ever decide you have the right to impose your choice on others who share your condition — others who might want a life that offers a wider range of experiences, and who have no desire to be boxed in by heedless zealots.
If you're of age, do what the hell you want. If you're not, then don't think that others will let your parents make each and every decision regardless of the consequences. Want to send Little Johnny to Catholic school or part his hair on the left? Fine. Want to cut off his tallywhacker and call him Susie? I'll have something to say about that.
My thought exactly. What I find most troubling is the efforts to redefine society around these "cultures." Beyond medical associations, we have the government, the educational establishment, and elite culture pushing an agenda. Who ever imagined mainstream use of such terms as differently-abled, healthy at any weight, cis-gender, gender assigned at birth, natal males/females, etc?
I would also argue that if there is a 'fix' for a disability and you choose not to get it, perhaps you also shouldn't expect people to cater to it.
I suspect that a big part of this anti-ableist movement (like many modern movements) only exists in modern times in societies that can enable that behavior.
So it's ok to live with a ... condition .... that requires extraordinary societal support, and reject society's offers to remediate that condition in a reasonable way?
Ah, the "judge and be not judged" attitude. While rejecting the commandments of religion, modern philosophy has shifted to the view that it is impossible make an objective evaluation about what is good for a person. We can just shrug and say "whatever you do... take drugs,... have unprotected sex,... gouge out your eyes.... your choice... who am I to say that you're harming yourself."
Only a well-educated modern would hold this attitude verbally.
("Verbally", because they'll seldom act with this same attitude with friends and family, except within certain guardrails). Kinda like luxury-beliefs.
I had cataract surgery when I was 40. The surgeon said that he normally tells people that they end up with eye sight of a healthy 65 year old. My reply was that I'd rather have that than what I currently had.
It is life-changing and life enhancing. The colours. The individual leaves. Being able to watch raindrops fall or snowflakes. Magical.
Without it, I would have blind and unable to drive, unable to read, hugely dependant on other people. The quality of my life has been tremendously improved by this simple operation.
One of my eyes is set long, the other eye set to reading. My brain figures it out. I don't have to wear glasses except for driving as I like binocular vision for that.
Other people might make other choices but I have no regrets and would make the same choice again.
It is wrong to deny people that choice. The gift of sight is something I am and remain profoundly grateful to modern medicine for.
What Levenson is doing is tremendous and I hope he helps many more people.
I am 56 and just had cataract surgery on both eyes. The left was so bad and when it was done I realized my "good" right eye was anything but. I should not have been driving, let's just say. My job revolves around reading documents which was becoming incredibly difficult. And my favorite pastime, reading for pleasure, was as difficult and brought no pleasure (seriously it is my most favorite thing so this was awful). NOW I can see! Colors! Clarity! My kids! Books! Computer! Reams of records (yay?)! LIFE CHANGING. I cannot imagine not having the chance to have this done and I cannot fathom shaming anyone. That's just ridiculous to put it mildly. The fact that Levenson found this inexpensive method and is willing to perform it should be celebrated and supported/publicized/donated to anything that keeps him going to help others. And I agree, Michelle, the key word here is choice. Everyone should have a choice whether it is regarding a medical procedure or schooling or myriad other things too many to name. Why do some want to curtail others' choices? Gah!
I agree it is something to be celebrated and it is cruel to think that people are trying to seeking to deny its life altering possibilities to others under the guise of 'Ableism'. Taken to its extreme, they would not have any modern medicine.
I do understand the apprehension. I put it off. I knew it was coming from the time my ophthalmologist saw the plaques when I was 9. Once it was done, I thought -- people need to know how life changing this is.
Mine have been done for nearly 20 years now. The ophthalmologist who did my 2nd eye my have been one of the ones who pioneered the technique Levenson uses -- he froze the eye ball and performed the operation in five minutes. My first eye was done by a NZ ophthalmologist who had come to the NE of England specifically to learn the technique. He was the one who advised me on the setting one eye long and the other short. He used a local to numb and took about 20 minutes. The difference in recovery was astonishing.
I think people have to keep making the case that -- this sort of surgery benefits. It allows for independence. It enhances life and it is a century away from the technique my g grandmother endured where she could not move her head for a month. Early on set cataracts go back at least seven generations in my family.
I do hope Levenson's charity keeps growing. He is one of the good guys, the helpers of mankind.
People can choose to live how they want to live, disability or not. However, I strongly suspect that when any of the misguided people asserting "ablism" (what a stupid, ignorant term) against Dr Levinson and MrBeast begin to go blind from a curable disease/condition, they'll anxiously reach out to experts who can relieve them of their "disability". David Williams, Ophthalmologist and Retina Surgeon
You’re absolutely right. When it’s all vague and high-sounding you can spout all kinds of nonsense. Then when it hits home personally these fantasies vanish and you want what we all want - the best possible option to help.
Seems to me they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If it’s ableist to cure blindness or deafness isn’t it ableist to enable someone to change their gender via surgery or medicine? Shouldn’t they just have to learn to accept the body they were born in?
And that points closer and loser to the end goal...a goal I don't think they even realize they are pointing to. That goal being that everyone should be able to tell the whole world how to treat them at all times. And when two people want the world to change in opposing ways, we use the intersectional oppression matrix to determine who wins.
I live less than an hour from the NIH and their Children's Inn. My grandmother volunteered there for years. Families come from all over the world with rare and debilitating conditions and diseases. They come to the NIH to participate in studies and to explore treatment options. These poor kids are in many cases very uncomfortable and in need to serious help, that they can only get from a specialized team they are not living 'normal' lives in many cases. It should be the mission of NIH to treat and cure them of their disabilities. Furthermore, my niece has a cochlear implant. She's 11. She was born totally deaf because my sister contracted a dangerous virus while pregnant. My niece has been able to go to public school and enjoy music and lead a totally normal life and she can hear 'like everyone else.' I don't see how this is a bad thing. I think there is a difference perhaps in physical vs. Mental disabilities and maybe that's the nuance. I love that the world is beginning to embrace neurodiversity and people with Downs Syndrome, and recognizing how much independence can be achieved even with these limitations. I think this 'ableism' argument like everything else is going a bridge too far now.
Why do you think mental disabilities shouldn't be cured? If you had a kid with Down's syndrome, and there was some sort of cure, you'd rather that be celebrated instead of cured? You think non-verbal or low-verbal kids with autism wouldn't want to be cured? Maybe we should start taking away all the ADD medication, anxiety pills, and every other mental health treatment. What about therapy, maybe that needs to go the way of the dodo too so we can more fully embrace neurodiversity. Heck, let's just encourage people with agoraphobia to stay in their homes instead of trying to help them get over it.
"Ableism" and "neurodiversity" are the ultimate ivory towers of "privilege". It's morphed from "don't bully people for things they can't change, and make accommodations for them to live better lives" (obviously positive) to "stop encouraging people to improve things they *can* change" (extremely negative and dangerous -- or "toxic" to use the parlance of our times).
(I have a disability I'd rather not discuss here, but let's just say I'd be sickened if I went to a health professional and they had this attitude... guess that's the future of the world, though)
Outstanding; you saved me from a bit of typing and expanded my thinking as well -- you "noticed" my grand daughter. "Ablism" is one totally toxic, first-world-originated neologism that should totally have its head held uder water until it stops moving.
I couldn't stop laughing at this video. No matter how hard the journalist tried, Mr. Poilievre wouldn't take the bait. He let the reporter continue to dig himself a deeper hole.
I didn’t read Jordyn’s comment the way you did as a need to celebrate cognitive disabilities rather than cure them. Not 20 years ago, many people terminated pregnancies based on a Downs diagnosis and there were often looks of pity or an avoidance of eye contact when seeing these children out in public. The inclusivity movement has had a positive impact on people’s perceptions of these disabilities and created an awareness that these lives are beautiful and just as worthy of life as others. Until there is a cure, this is not celebrating or leaning into disability as much as it is accepting what cannot be changed and making the most out of that life.
That is exactly what I meant. I'm only 35 but I've seen the tremendous difference between what I remember as a school aged child and what my young children have now. There is a greater kindness maybe, or a more tolerant sensiblilty for the kids who have mental/cognitive disabilities. I also know from firsthand experience, you can't order pregnancy like a menu, even with all the genetic testing and all the best prenatal care, things happen and sometimes your child has a disability you did not anticipate. That is tremendously challenging. For some parents I know they are afraid of aging because they wonder who will take care of there disabled child and work so hard to give them as much agency and independence as possible, but if course that's limited to their abilities. I was just saying that I think, I hope, the world is more forgiving on the mentally disabled, than they were 50 years ago.
I am a disabled therapist. There are a few clients who throw out the word “abelism” as they willing jump in the hole of judgement and self marginalization. I am certain they don’t even see my obvious disability as I offer to pull them back up with 1 hand. It is very difficult being disabled. But I still think it’s easier than going through the lengthy, expensive obstacle course of a prosthetic. And this is only true for me. I know people who have prosthetics and thrive with them. I think “abelism” is fodder for internet junkies. I will accept help and live a rather happy autonomous life in real time.
To the extent the mission statement reduces emphasis on and effort toward finding and implementing curative therapies for any human suffering or physical inconvenience, such a change is counterproductive and misstates what should be the fundamental mission of all medicine - to end or mitigate human biologic component failures. The notion of "ableism" where the concern is that somehow curing ills and disabilities is harmful to the community of the disabled is ridiculous. First and foremost, the disabled are themselves possessed of agency and can seek or refuse treatment. I add that I believe it is evil to suggest withholding treatment for any malady for which there is therapy available and for which the afflicted wish a cure.
The NIH specifically should reject "ableism" because it implies that available care be withheld because a population of most likely healthy people think they know best what is needed for the afflicted.
Good for MrBeast and Dr. Levenson. If someone didn't want the surgery were they forced to accept it?
I think not.
Now that we have access to a huge population of opinions via the Internet, it's interesting to hear that there are some blind or deaf folks who wouldn't take "the cure".
Apparently there's some who take insult on their behalf when a surgical fix to the issue is celebrated.
I won't try to convince those people to think otherwise. I "see" their point.
One question though:
How many of them have intentionally blinded themselves in solidarity?
No matter how ridiculous the rhetoric so called “advocates” perpetuate, we should all be wary of the very real consequences it has. I underwent reconstructive surgery on both of my feet at the age of 18, my insurance company repeatedly refused to pay for it; claiming my condition was suddenly not a disability (dispute it causing chronic pain and limiting my mobility throughout my childhood). Such a claim was only made possible by activists claiming disabilities should not be cured when possible.
I thankfully was able to fight the insurance company and get my surgery covered, but the experience was deeply frightening and humiliating.
Always remember who such activism is benefiting. It’s not disabled people, it’s the insurance companies who now feel empowered to keep us suffering and removed from society under the guise of “inclusivity” while they limit their costs.
I’ve worn glasses since I was eight because my eyesight is awful. If I sit in the back of a movie theater and take off my glasses, I can’t tell the actors have facial features, even in close-ups. LASIK isn’t an option for me because my corneas are too thin.
When my then-three-year-old needed glasses, I didn’t go weep in a corner, but I wasn’t happy she was “like me,” either. Even if an individual person leads a happy life being blind or deaf, it inarguably makes life more difficult. Why would you ever want that for your kid?!
More Leftist tactics of "divide and conquer"! For Leftism to prosper it HAS to increase the number of "groups/peoples who have a special ax to grind, and then set them to attacking everyone else.
Let the blind remain blind, let the deaf remain deaf! Just do not ask me to accommodate them if their medical state is treatable.
And for the record, I am functionally deaf, but expensive hearing aids allow me to function.
>Some of the people Levenson treated are full of praise for their experience.
Interesting wording. Just "some" of the people are full of praise? I would be willing to bet nearly *all* of the people are full of praise. The only exceptions might be those for whom the surgery had complications or those for whom it just didn't work for whatever reason.
My guess is that Block could only contact and get responses from some of the patients. So she phrased it as “some of the people” because she only had some, not all, on the record.
May have been better wording to say something like "Of those I contacted, everyone was happy". It just makes it sound like the author was either hedging or had some complaints and didn't share them for some reason
I just had cataract surgery, and let me assure everyone, it's an effing miracle. I assumed the surgery would be 15 hours and require specialists flown in from Houston and Geneva. Instead, the operation took less than 15 minutes, and my sight was fully restored almost instantly.
If you want to be blind, go right ahead and be blind. If you think having severely compromised vision contributes to a full, vibrant life, good for you and best of luck.
But don't denounce people who, out of the goodness of their heart, give people back their sight.
Basically what these "anti-Ablists" are saying is that people OUGHT to suffer disabilities. This makes a sick kind of sense in an "intersectional" world where everyone is trying to win the Oppression Olympics.
But from the perspective of trying to minimize human suffering, it is not only lacking in compassion, it is actively hateful of those who want to be healed.
Personally, I group these "anti-Ablists" with the people who want to have functional body parts cut off in order to "live their truth."
You are exactly correct. There are groups of people who view everything through the lens of oppression and believe that you have to give special treatment to those most oppressed.
I have this idea for a fictional society where people have tattoos to represent their various 'oppressions' and the people with the most are put in charge. Every day, this fictional society becomes more and more like real life.
Ironically, he wrote the story in 1961, but later became the very sort of person who would be supporting this intersectional oppression crap (if he hadn't died in 2007).
re: cochlear implants. Funny you should say that. Thirty years ago my wife and I discovered that the light of our life, one-year-old David, was deaf. I remember discussing it with an older surgeon at the hospital where I worked. He laid it on the line: A deaf child is more handicapped than a blind one because it cripples his ability to learn. Research confirmed it: a deaf child would typically grow up to have a third-grade education and work in a laundry - something confirmed by memories of my neighbor at the trailer park where I lived when I was in medical school. He was deaf, about forty years old, and except for a combination of odd sounds and hand gestures was completely nonverbal - and worked in a laundry.
Hearing aids were of no benefit to our son. My wife and I began the arduous process of learning American Sign Language - and we struggled. It was totally inadequate to convey the ideas and concepts that are so beautifully expressed by the English language; for example there is no way of saying, "It looks like you have picked up a little weight." The ASL expression is, "You're fat."
But during those classes, the instructor mentioned that she knew a family 'way back in the booger-woods of West Virginia who had a deaf daughter with this thing called a "cochlear implant." Out of desperation I looked up their phone number. It was truly a bolt from the blue. Her mother was an absolute ball-o-fire, a local schoolteacher and Tiger Mom of the first order. A quick hop later, our son in tow, we talked with this family about this "CI" device. Thirty years later, I remember it vividly: Mom yelling up the stairs, "Rishona!" And from upstairs came the response: "What?" "Come down here." "OK." My God; those words still make me choke up. Mom's parting words were: "A cochlear implant will change your child from a deaf child to a hearing one."
*******************
Ableism. The Internet was just coming of age, and I had joined a newsgroup (remember those?) called, "Beyond Hearing," searching for anything - anywhere - to help me help my son. I thought everyone on the group would be delighted with my discovery, but I was met with complete, unbridled hostility, culminating with the comment from the newsgroup owner that "Deafness is not a disability; our members commonly intermarry, hoping to CREATE A DEAF CHILD. You just want to destroy the deaf culture."
I lost my mind. I replied, "Did you just say that you wanted to create a disabled child?"
And yes, I want to destroy the deaf culture. And the blind culture. And the cancer culture. And the childhood heart disease culture. All of it. And if you don't think deafness is a disability, I'll send you my address. We can meet and stand in the center of the Interstate with our backs to traffic. By God, we'll see who is disabled."
As I said, that was thirty years ago. David had his surgery, learned to talk, went to regular school, and graduated college. As for this abelist nonsense; starting that stuff with me is a very low-return enterprise. I've been to Canaan and I have no patience with such.
Wow. What a powerful response. Thank you so much for your story and your fight for your son and others like him.
Thank you for your story. If people want help, for whatever reason, it should be available and if they don't, that's fine too. Everyone should accept each others choices and experiences. It's called not judging and if we realized that we are literally all limbs of the same tree we would stop judging and instead accept, support, learn from, and love others instead of judging them.
I have been wearing hearing aids since 2014. I needed them in 1978. I am thankful that I can now fully engage in conversations and not put myself in danger when I am out in the world.
As a lifelong math geek and electronic guy, I see the CI as one of medicine's Great Leaps Forward. Since the eardrum can only do one thing - move in or out - what you have is essentially one wire carrying data. But that single wave is the sum of all the different frequencies that strike it, and after running that wave through an amplifier - a protein called prestin that changes shape with every tiny vibration, amplifying that vibration 200 times, the native ear performs a Fourier transform - essentially calculus - splitting that one wave into literally thousands of its constituent frequencies and feeding each one to a different nerve fiber. The CI must do all that, too, and has gone from a cigarette-pack sized device to one that fits behind the ear.
I had the privilege of meeting the engineer who invented the whole design in cooperation with an Australian doctor. The two of them worked for decades and never let up. I, my son, and many others owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be adequately repaid.
The world is full of irrational crazies and those who say don't cure the handicapped are crazy. They won't debate you but they will yell at you and call you names.
The moron P/C call the deaf "audially challenged". I say they are full of shit. The deaf call themselves "deaf". The blind call themselves "blind".
I know that from experience. My father was deaf and he called himself deaf. I had a good friend who was blind. Guess what he called himself? You guessed it, blind!
These left wing loons are dangerous and they disgust me. These are people who would complain if they were hanged with a new rope.
My father was lucky. In the 1930s they invented hearing aids and he could hear with them.
Lori, I am in that same boat with you! Except hearing aids only allow me to understand about 2/3 of spoken words. And it is getting progressively worse! But at MY age, 72, the solution of cochlear implants would be a solution of diminishing returns. By the time I would have the surgery, and learned and adapted to the implants, I would be near end of life. I'll just cobble along for now...
I dunno, Mr Moore. Back when I was only 72 I questioned my dentist about the economic wisdom, at my age, of an implant vs cheaper fixes. Cut to the chase, I went with the implant. Never regretted it. (Granted I know nothing of cochlear implants, particularly the non-economic issues that you raise.) Be well.
Don't short change yourself. You may live another 20 years.
Thank you for sharing your story. I have one of my own.
At 2 years old, just as he was starting to talk, my younger brother contracted bacterial meningitis and ended up in the pediatric ICU for two months. His neurologist described my brother as his “sickest patient who lived”. He lost his hearing and much of his cognitive development.
My brother received a cochlear implant a couple years later, and used it faithfully for many years as he attended local public schools. Our entire family learned some sign language, but we generally preferred spoken communication and hoped the implant would be sufficient for communication. However, in high school my brother attended a state-sponsored academy for deaf and blind children and gradually stopped using the implant as he integrated fully into the Deaf community.
A few years ago he married his childhood sweetheart, who is congenitally deaf. They now have a beautiful daughter with normal hearing, and recently he has expressed an interest in restarting speech therapy with the implant. That option is not available to his wife though, so I wonder how she feels about it. They live a happy and normal middle-class American lifestyle, without hearing.
Personally, I feel conflicted. I have some guilt about never fully learning sign language so I can communicate with my brother, but I also wonder what could have been if he’d continued using the implant. His best friend, also a cochlear implant recipient, delivered an eloquent speech at the wedding and seems at ease among both hearing and the Deaf.
We were told by the audiologist in Richmond that the surgery was the tiniest part of the process. Speech therapy was more important than anything, and since he was already getting what he needed by pointing and grunting, if we let him give into normal laziness, the implant would fail. He was already two years behind when the device was placed.
I give his mother credit for working with him, as well as the speech therapist. When he was about four, she told me, "David could be the poster child for the cochlear implant. I am used to dealing with hearing-aid kids; I have never had a patient with an implant. He is progressing so quickly. I realized today that if I close my eyes, I can't tell his speech from that of a normal child. I hate to see him go, but I have nothing further to offer him."
There was another child in his class, Kendra - daughter of a single mother from the projects. Since welfare would implant her for free, and she was so tough to deal with for the mom, who was "dating" all the time and didn't want to give up her freedom, she decided to have the child implanted.
It was the perfect study: subject and control. The little girl never got much therapy or special attention. The last I heard from her, she was herself a single mom - and deaf as a post.
Exactly. My one up-close-and-(more or less)-personal association was with a deaf community in a large city through friendship with a young man who had a vocation to work with deaf persons at large. After attending a few community functions, I commented upon how self-sufficient the group was as a whole... my guide pointed out that what I had experienced was, uh, (what would now be called) a privileged group. He wasn't keen on exposing any other kind... this back in 1977.
Our case is much more similar to yours than the latter one you mentioned--no shortage of love and support in my family. However, I believe the overall neurological damage from the illness also worked to stunt my brother’s speech development, so he never acquired natural-sounding speech.
I’m a retired speech pathologist and completed my undergraduate and graduate training in the mid-70’s, when cochlear implants were in their infancy.
There was a training program for deaf kids called, IIRC, “total language.” It discarded ASL and substituted a signing program called Seeing Essential English. Unlike ASL -- which is basically its own language -- SEE used signs to copy standard English, such as adding word endings such as “ing” or “-ed,” etc. SEE also followed English syntax (grammar) rules.
Along with this signing program, kids were taught to verbally speak as best as possible. The whole idea was to allow them access into the hearing world and society.
It died on the vine, killed by the militant “Deaf” community.
“It was totally inadequate to convey the ideas and concepts that are so beautifully expressed by the English language; for example there is no way of saying, ‘It looks like you have picked up a little weight.’ The ASL expression is, ‘You're fat.’”
I didn’t know this, but it explains a lot to me. Except for those who went deaf in their old age, all the deaf people I’ve met have been very blunt, with little to no sense of how to phrase things sensitively. It’s off-putting to other people, who already find it awkward or difficult communicating with deaf people.
Yep. You might say they're disabled.
No Jim, they are physically challenged. Geez!
Calling the crippled, physically challenged doesn't make the crippled leap out of their wheel chairs and shout, "I'm cured!"
PC assholes!
I remember when “retarded” first became the verboten “R-word” that it was hilariously ironic. How was a retarded person going to be offended or have hurt feelings unless someone carefully explained and instructed them to be offended?
Sticks and stones. What a bunch of weaklings we’ve raised.
Reminds me of the old joke about the faith healer, the guy with a lisp, and the old lady on crutches.
Thank you for this powerful story. I am so happy for your child and family. I’ve read in the past about this stance in the deaf community and it’s always sounded more defensive and defiant than proud to me. Another point that doesn’t seem to be made is that life is plenty hard when everything works. Not every child is fortunate enough to have the supportive and resourceful family needed to combat the downsides that come with any medical challenge.
Helen Keller was once asked if she could choose to have either sight or hearing, which would she choose. She said hearing, because deafness cuts one off from humanity far more than blindness. This was a time when people had more common sense I guess.
Outstanding. You went where even a so-unpopular kid as I was reluctant to go. Economics. The the overwhelming cost benefit of (ie) modern cataract surgery vs accommodating blindness. Let she who can afford to go against that do so. And leave the rest of us alone.
Yes! Inability to hear has an impact on processing skills in the brain. It is detrimental to one's life and limits what one can do because the brain won't develop or will lose some functioning.
There is so much I can write about this but I will keep it brief.
My wife is deaf. Born with profound hearing loss, she started with hearing aids. She never learned to sign but learned to speak by Helen Beebe. As she grew older her hearing decayed. She eventually got cochlear implants.
My wife has a PhD in English and teaches at a major University, and teaches all students. She teaches writing which means her language centers of her brain are highly developed. She is published. Oxford University press came to her to ask her for a piece, and it was not about deafness. It was about a poet.
Everything you wrote about the advantages of cochlear implants is true. She loves them. She can be herself and grow and love. We have two children. She can hear them. Both of them are learning to play instruments. She can hear them.
Mainstream learning, learning to speak, and Cochlear implants didn’t take away any culture. They opened the door to her. They enable her to be herself.
Your child was blessed to have parents with common sense.
Well said.
Amen.
Oh, please. If certain people choose to remain blind or deaf (or Deaf), that’s their choice, and it should be respected.
But don’t ever, ever decide you have the right to impose your choice on others who share your condition — others who might want a life that offers a wider range of experiences, and who have no desire to be boxed in by heedless zealots.
If you're of age, do what the hell you want. If you're not, then don't think that others will let your parents make each and every decision regardless of the consequences. Want to send Little Johnny to Catholic school or part his hair on the left? Fine. Want to cut off his tallywhacker and call him Susie? I'll have something to say about that.
"Disability, some professionals now argue, no longer needs to be cured. Rather, it should be embraced and celebrated"
How much you wanna bet these same assholes are promoting mutilation of young boys and girls to "cure" their disability of having the wrong body parts?
Make me King and I'll cut off those surgeons' hands. Maybe that's why they won't make me king. Yes, I'm sure that's it...
My thought exactly. What I find most troubling is the efforts to redefine society around these "cultures." Beyond medical associations, we have the government, the educational establishment, and elite culture pushing an agenda. Who ever imagined mainstream use of such terms as differently-abled, healthy at any weight, cis-gender, gender assigned at birth, natal males/females, etc?
I would also argue that if there is a 'fix' for a disability and you choose not to get it, perhaps you also shouldn't expect people to cater to it.
I suspect that a big part of this anti-ableist movement (like many modern movements) only exists in modern times in societies that can enable that behavior.
My thought also.
I suppose this assumes we can define what a normal, healthy able-bodied human is ... are we still allowed to do that?
Sure...but if it happens to go against the narrative, you will be punished for it.
So it's ok to live with a ... condition .... that requires extraordinary societal support, and reject society's offers to remediate that condition in a reasonable way?
Ah, the "judge and be not judged" attitude. While rejecting the commandments of religion, modern philosophy has shifted to the view that it is impossible make an objective evaluation about what is good for a person. We can just shrug and say "whatever you do... take drugs,... have unprotected sex,... gouge out your eyes.... your choice... who am I to say that you're harming yourself."
Only a well-educated modern would hold this attitude verbally.
("Verbally", because they'll seldom act with this same attitude with friends and family, except within certain guardrails). Kinda like luxury-beliefs.
I had cataract surgery when I was 40. The surgeon said that he normally tells people that they end up with eye sight of a healthy 65 year old. My reply was that I'd rather have that than what I currently had.
It is life-changing and life enhancing. The colours. The individual leaves. Being able to watch raindrops fall or snowflakes. Magical.
Without it, I would have blind and unable to drive, unable to read, hugely dependant on other people. The quality of my life has been tremendously improved by this simple operation.
One of my eyes is set long, the other eye set to reading. My brain figures it out. I don't have to wear glasses except for driving as I like binocular vision for that.
Other people might make other choices but I have no regrets and would make the same choice again.
It is wrong to deny people that choice. The gift of sight is something I am and remain profoundly grateful to modern medicine for.
What Levenson is doing is tremendous and I hope he helps many more people.
I am 56 and just had cataract surgery on both eyes. The left was so bad and when it was done I realized my "good" right eye was anything but. I should not have been driving, let's just say. My job revolves around reading documents which was becoming incredibly difficult. And my favorite pastime, reading for pleasure, was as difficult and brought no pleasure (seriously it is my most favorite thing so this was awful). NOW I can see! Colors! Clarity! My kids! Books! Computer! Reams of records (yay?)! LIFE CHANGING. I cannot imagine not having the chance to have this done and I cannot fathom shaming anyone. That's just ridiculous to put it mildly. The fact that Levenson found this inexpensive method and is willing to perform it should be celebrated and supported/publicized/donated to anything that keeps him going to help others. And I agree, Michelle, the key word here is choice. Everyone should have a choice whether it is regarding a medical procedure or schooling or myriad other things too many to name. Why do some want to curtail others' choices? Gah!
I agree it is something to be celebrated and it is cruel to think that people are trying to seeking to deny its life altering possibilities to others under the guise of 'Ableism'. Taken to its extreme, they would not have any modern medicine.
I do understand the apprehension. I put it off. I knew it was coming from the time my ophthalmologist saw the plaques when I was 9. Once it was done, I thought -- people need to know how life changing this is.
Mine have been done for nearly 20 years now. The ophthalmologist who did my 2nd eye my have been one of the ones who pioneered the technique Levenson uses -- he froze the eye ball and performed the operation in five minutes. My first eye was done by a NZ ophthalmologist who had come to the NE of England specifically to learn the technique. He was the one who advised me on the setting one eye long and the other short. He used a local to numb and took about 20 minutes. The difference in recovery was astonishing.
I think people have to keep making the case that -- this sort of surgery benefits. It allows for independence. It enhances life and it is a century away from the technique my g grandmother endured where she could not move her head for a month. Early on set cataracts go back at least seven generations in my family.
I do hope Levenson's charity keeps growing. He is one of the good guys, the helpers of mankind.
People can choose to live how they want to live, disability or not. However, I strongly suspect that when any of the misguided people asserting "ablism" (what a stupid, ignorant term) against Dr Levinson and MrBeast begin to go blind from a curable disease/condition, they'll anxiously reach out to experts who can relieve them of their "disability". David Williams, Ophthalmologist and Retina Surgeon
It's almost as if Dr. Levenson forced elective cataract surgery on his patients. /sarcasm
You’re absolutely right. When it’s all vague and high-sounding you can spout all kinds of nonsense. Then when it hits home personally these fantasies vanish and you want what we all want - the best possible option to help.
These nut cases who push don't cure people nothing ever satisfies them. They would complain if they were hanged with a new rope.
Seems to me they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If it’s ableist to cure blindness or deafness isn’t it ableist to enable someone to change their gender via surgery or medicine? Shouldn’t they just have to learn to accept the body they were born in?
And that points closer and loser to the end goal...a goal I don't think they even realize they are pointing to. That goal being that everyone should be able to tell the whole world how to treat them at all times. And when two people want the world to change in opposing ways, we use the intersectional oppression matrix to determine who wins.
I live less than an hour from the NIH and their Children's Inn. My grandmother volunteered there for years. Families come from all over the world with rare and debilitating conditions and diseases. They come to the NIH to participate in studies and to explore treatment options. These poor kids are in many cases very uncomfortable and in need to serious help, that they can only get from a specialized team they are not living 'normal' lives in many cases. It should be the mission of NIH to treat and cure them of their disabilities. Furthermore, my niece has a cochlear implant. She's 11. She was born totally deaf because my sister contracted a dangerous virus while pregnant. My niece has been able to go to public school and enjoy music and lead a totally normal life and she can hear 'like everyone else.' I don't see how this is a bad thing. I think there is a difference perhaps in physical vs. Mental disabilities and maybe that's the nuance. I love that the world is beginning to embrace neurodiversity and people with Downs Syndrome, and recognizing how much independence can be achieved even with these limitations. I think this 'ableism' argument like everything else is going a bridge too far now.
Why do you think mental disabilities shouldn't be cured? If you had a kid with Down's syndrome, and there was some sort of cure, you'd rather that be celebrated instead of cured? You think non-verbal or low-verbal kids with autism wouldn't want to be cured? Maybe we should start taking away all the ADD medication, anxiety pills, and every other mental health treatment. What about therapy, maybe that needs to go the way of the dodo too so we can more fully embrace neurodiversity. Heck, let's just encourage people with agoraphobia to stay in their homes instead of trying to help them get over it.
"Ableism" and "neurodiversity" are the ultimate ivory towers of "privilege". It's morphed from "don't bully people for things they can't change, and make accommodations for them to live better lives" (obviously positive) to "stop encouraging people to improve things they *can* change" (extremely negative and dangerous -- or "toxic" to use the parlance of our times).
(I have a disability I'd rather not discuss here, but let's just say I'd be sickened if I went to a health professional and they had this attitude... guess that's the future of the world, though)
Outstanding; you saved me from a bit of typing and expanded my thinking as well -- you "noticed" my grand daughter. "Ablism" is one totally toxic, first-world-originated neologism that should totally have its head held uder water until it stops moving.
There is a great clip of a Canadian candidate for Prime Minister absolutely destroying a Woke "journalist." Let me see if I can find it........
Here you go: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1714276316382683511
THAT is how you handle these people. The back of your hand.
That man (Pierre Poilievre) is a revelation. I wish he were running here. Common sense - what a revolutionary idea.
I couldn't stop laughing at this video. No matter how hard the journalist tried, Mr. Poilievre wouldn't take the bait. He let the reporter continue to dig himself a deeper hole.
I have to say: watching that clip is the most fun you can have with your pants on. Or, at my age, even with them off.
maybe he could coach Ron De Santis on how to be more appealing??
Ron DeSantis is a man that you have to look a his accomplishments and judge vs the stiff that he becomes at debates. Awesome governor!
I didn’t read Jordyn’s comment the way you did as a need to celebrate cognitive disabilities rather than cure them. Not 20 years ago, many people terminated pregnancies based on a Downs diagnosis and there were often looks of pity or an avoidance of eye contact when seeing these children out in public. The inclusivity movement has had a positive impact on people’s perceptions of these disabilities and created an awareness that these lives are beautiful and just as worthy of life as others. Until there is a cure, this is not celebrating or leaning into disability as much as it is accepting what cannot be changed and making the most out of that life.
That is exactly what I meant. I'm only 35 but I've seen the tremendous difference between what I remember as a school aged child and what my young children have now. There is a greater kindness maybe, or a more tolerant sensiblilty for the kids who have mental/cognitive disabilities. I also know from firsthand experience, you can't order pregnancy like a menu, even with all the genetic testing and all the best prenatal care, things happen and sometimes your child has a disability you did not anticipate. That is tremendously challenging. For some parents I know they are afraid of aging because they wonder who will take care of there disabled child and work so hard to give them as much agency and independence as possible, but if course that's limited to their abilities. I was just saying that I think, I hope, the world is more forgiving on the mentally disabled, than they were 50 years ago.
let me help, at this point in time certain elements of society need to be told to EAT SH$&.
I am a disabled therapist. There are a few clients who throw out the word “abelism” as they willing jump in the hole of judgement and self marginalization. I am certain they don’t even see my obvious disability as I offer to pull them back up with 1 hand. It is very difficult being disabled. But I still think it’s easier than going through the lengthy, expensive obstacle course of a prosthetic. And this is only true for me. I know people who have prosthetics and thrive with them. I think “abelism” is fodder for internet junkies. I will accept help and live a rather happy autonomous life in real time.
My reply to NIH:
To the extent the mission statement reduces emphasis on and effort toward finding and implementing curative therapies for any human suffering or physical inconvenience, such a change is counterproductive and misstates what should be the fundamental mission of all medicine - to end or mitigate human biologic component failures. The notion of "ableism" where the concern is that somehow curing ills and disabilities is harmful to the community of the disabled is ridiculous. First and foremost, the disabled are themselves possessed of agency and can seek or refuse treatment. I add that I believe it is evil to suggest withholding treatment for any malady for which there is therapy available and for which the afflicted wish a cure.
The NIH specifically should reject "ableism" because it implies that available care be withheld because a population of most likely healthy people think they know best what is needed for the afflicted.
Mic drop
I hope you really enter this in their website ( using the link in article). It’s excellent!
I copy/pasted from here to the NIH submission site. If you liked it, I encourage you to do the same.
I did. What you see is copy-paste from my entry there.
Good for MrBeast and Dr. Levenson. If someone didn't want the surgery were they forced to accept it?
I think not.
Now that we have access to a huge population of opinions via the Internet, it's interesting to hear that there are some blind or deaf folks who wouldn't take "the cure".
Apparently there's some who take insult on their behalf when a surgical fix to the issue is celebrated.
I won't try to convince those people to think otherwise. I "see" their point.
One question though:
How many of them have intentionally blinded themselves in solidarity?
Or how many don't expect parts of the world to add things like braille or closed captioning to help deal with their disability?
No matter how ridiculous the rhetoric so called “advocates” perpetuate, we should all be wary of the very real consequences it has. I underwent reconstructive surgery on both of my feet at the age of 18, my insurance company repeatedly refused to pay for it; claiming my condition was suddenly not a disability (dispute it causing chronic pain and limiting my mobility throughout my childhood). Such a claim was only made possible by activists claiming disabilities should not be cured when possible.
I thankfully was able to fight the insurance company and get my surgery covered, but the experience was deeply frightening and humiliating.
Always remember who such activism is benefiting. It’s not disabled people, it’s the insurance companies who now feel empowered to keep us suffering and removed from society under the guise of “inclusivity” while they limit their costs.
Oh, that’s horrible. I’m glad you got surgery, and I’m sorry you couldn’t get it sooner.
Thanks Mara, I truly think people don’t understand what this movement is enabling insurance companies to do. It’s infuriating!
I’ve worn glasses since I was eight because my eyesight is awful. If I sit in the back of a movie theater and take off my glasses, I can’t tell the actors have facial features, even in close-ups. LASIK isn’t an option for me because my corneas are too thin.
When my then-three-year-old needed glasses, I didn’t go weep in a corner, but I wasn’t happy she was “like me,” either. Even if an individual person leads a happy life being blind or deaf, it inarguably makes life more difficult. Why would you ever want that for your kid?!
More Leftist tactics of "divide and conquer"! For Leftism to prosper it HAS to increase the number of "groups/peoples who have a special ax to grind, and then set them to attacking everyone else.
Let the blind remain blind, let the deaf remain deaf! Just do not ask me to accommodate them if their medical state is treatable.
And for the record, I am functionally deaf, but expensive hearing aids allow me to function.
>Some of the people Levenson treated are full of praise for their experience.
Interesting wording. Just "some" of the people are full of praise? I would be willing to bet nearly *all* of the people are full of praise. The only exceptions might be those for whom the surgery had complications or those for whom it just didn't work for whatever reason.
My guess is that Block could only contact and get responses from some of the patients. So she phrased it as “some of the people” because she only had some, not all, on the record.
May have been better wording to say something like "Of those I contacted, everyone was happy". It just makes it sound like the author was either hedging or had some complaints and didn't share them for some reason
A fair and good point.
Exactly. I'd like to see a survey of a population drawn from those who have Taken the Cure, by whatever definition.
I just had cataract surgery, and let me assure everyone, it's an effing miracle. I assumed the surgery would be 15 hours and require specialists flown in from Houston and Geneva. Instead, the operation took less than 15 minutes, and my sight was fully restored almost instantly.
If you want to be blind, go right ahead and be blind. If you think having severely compromised vision contributes to a full, vibrant life, good for you and best of luck.
But don't denounce people who, out of the goodness of their heart, give people back their sight.
Basically what these "anti-Ablists" are saying is that people OUGHT to suffer disabilities. This makes a sick kind of sense in an "intersectional" world where everyone is trying to win the Oppression Olympics.
But from the perspective of trying to minimize human suffering, it is not only lacking in compassion, it is actively hateful of those who want to be healed.
Personally, I group these "anti-Ablists" with the people who want to have functional body parts cut off in order to "live their truth."
You are exactly correct. There are groups of people who view everything through the lens of oppression and believe that you have to give special treatment to those most oppressed.
I have this idea for a fictional society where people have tattoos to represent their various 'oppressions' and the people with the most are put in charge. Every day, this fictional society becomes more and more like real life.
This is a trailer for a short film called 2081, which is based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergerson": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL9zg7-rzPc
Ironically, he wrote the story in 1961, but later became the very sort of person who would be supporting this intersectional oppression crap (if he hadn't died in 2007).