Audience description post: Deafness is not a Disability

Audience description post: Deafness is not a Disability

                The initial audience members for this persuasive open letter are the audiologists and doctors that insist that deafness is an issue that needs to be treated by medical intervention.  These individuals are not locally confined and are highly educated.  Some of these medical professionals may even be deaf or hard of hearing themselves. Interestingly, females make up a large percentage of this profession: http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/2014-Audiology-Survey-Number-Type-Responses.pdf. However, my secondary (but still intended audience) is the general public that may see a digital copy of this letter posted on popular social media sites.  Ideally, this letter will have enough quantitative and substantial evidence to be published in the ‘News’ section of Science Magazine but will carry enough emotional weight that it may tug at the heartstrings of such female audiologist who has recently had a child.

1.       Shared Principles

a.       Medical/scientific background

b.      Acceptance of evidence based research

c.       Understanding of Hippocratic oath

d.      Passion for helping people

2.       Differentiating Principles

a.       Deafness as a disability vs deafness as a linguistic minority

b.      Deafness as a cultural identifier vs deafness as an issue that needs to be fixed

Because the argument, “Deafness is not a Disability” will be made as a suggestion for a shift in perspective as opposed to an abrupt accusation of the ‘right vs. wrong’ way to look at things, I do not think that any of the differentiating principles are insurmountable. In addition, the scientific audience, by definition must always be willing to consider alternate theories.  Science is much more about proving many things wrong than proving one thing correct.  Evidence works to prove that the null hypothesis is incorrect rather than prove that the hypothesis is correct.  This point is where I will find common ground with the scientific/medical reader; by identifying and citing concrete evidence that supports the notion that deafness=disability is wrong (morally/in violation of proper upbringing and development and therefore a violation of the Hippocratic oath) I can indirectly suggest that the novel idea (Deafness is a linguistic minority) should be accepted.

However, the same logic goes either way; I must also be willing to accept any evidence that may directly conflict with my principles.  I would not consider this granting compromise but rather understanding how science based arguments work.  Keeping this in mind, I will begin my essay by acknowledging the literature that directly opposes my own principles: similar to how a scientific article about a new drug may cite data from existing medications to make a point.