Discourses Of Prejudice In The professions: The Case Of Sign Languages

There is no evidence that learning a natural human language is cognitively harmful to children. To the contrary, multilingualism has been argued to be beneficial to all. Nevertheless, many professionals advise the parents of deaf children that their children should not learn a sign language during their early years, despite strong evidence across many research disciplines that sign languages are natural human languages. Their recommendations are based on a combination of misperceptions about (1) the difficulty of learning a sign language, (2) the effects of bilingualism, and particularly bimodalism, (3) the bona fide status of languages that lack a written form, (4) the effects of a sign language on acquiring literacy, (5) the ability of technologies to address the needs of deaf children and (6) the effects that use of a sign language will have on family cohesion. We expose these misperceptions as based in prejudice and urge institutions involved in educating professionals concerned with the healthcare, raising and educating of deaf children to include appropriate information about first language acquisition and the importance of a sign language for deaf children. We further urge such professionals to advise the parents of deaf children properly, which means to strongly advise the introduction of a sign language as soon as hearing loss is detected

Ensuring Language Acquisition For Deaf Children: What Linguists Can Do

Parents of small deaf children need guidance on constructing home and school environments that affect normal language acquisition. They often turn to physicians and spiritual leaders and, increasingly, the internet. These sources can be underinformed about crucial issues, such as matters of brain plasticity connected to the risk of linguistic deprivation, and delay or disruption in the development of cognitive skills interwoven with linguistic ability. We have formed a team of specialists in education, linguistics, pediatric medicine, and psychology, and at times specialists in theology and in law have joined our group. We argue that deaf children should be taught a sign language in the early years. This does not preclude oral-aural training and assistive technology. With a strong first language (a sign language), the child can become bilingual (with the written form of the ambient spoken language and, perhaps, the spoken form), accruing the benefits of bilingualism. We have published in medical journals, addressing primary care physicians, in a journal with a spiritual-leader readership, and in a health-law journal. Articles in progress address medical educators and practitioners. Team members present findings at conferences, work on lobbying and legislative efforts with the National Association of the Deaf, and spread the word at conferences of target audiences. We share our work in Word format, so that anyone can easily appropriate it for our common interests. One of our articles has been downloaded over 27,000 times (as of April 2014), and we are asked to consult with committees in other countries as they draft national policies

Avoiding Linguistic Neglect Of Deaf Children

Deaf children who are not provided with a sign language early in their development are at risk of linguistic deprivation; they may never be fluent in any language, and they may have deficits in cognitive activities that rely on a firm foundation in a first language. These children are socially and emotionally isolated. Deafness makes a child vulnerable to abuse, and linguistic deprivation compounds the abuse because the child is less able to report it. Parents rely on professionals as guides in making responsible choices in raising and educating their deaf children. But lack of expertise on language acquisition and overreliance on access to speech often result in professionals not recommending that the child be taught a sign language or, worse, that the child be denied sign language. We recommend action that those in the social welfare services can implement immediately to help protect the health of deaf children

What Medical Education Can Do To Ensure Robust Language Development In Deaf Children

The typical medical education curriculum does not address language development for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. However, this issue is medical because of the frequency with which DHH children as a population face health complications due to linguistic deprivation. The critical period for language development is early; if a child does not acquire an intact language before age five, the child is unlikely to ever have native-like use of any language. Such linguistic deprivation carries risks of cognitive delay and psycho-social health difficulties. Spoken language is inaccessible for many DHH children despite assistive-technology developments. But sign languages, because they are visual, are accessible to most DHH children. To ensure language development, DHH children should have exposure to a sign language in their early years, starting at birth. If they also receive successful training in processing and producing a spoken language, they will have the many benefits of bimodal bilingualism. Undergraduate medical education curricula should include information about early language acquisition so that physicians can advise families of deaf newborns and newly deafened young children how to protect their cognitive health. Graduate medical education in primary care, pediatrics, and otolaryngology should include extensive information about amplification/cochlear implants, language modality, and the latest research/practices to promote the development and education of DHH children. Training in how to establish connections with local authorities and services that can support parents and child should be included as well. Further, students need to learn how to work with sign language interpreters in caring for DHH patients. We offer suggestions as to how medical curricula can be appropriately enriched and point to existing programs and initiatives that can serve as resources

Academic attainment in deaf and hard-of-hearing students in distance education

This study compared outcomes in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and nondisabled students taking courses by distance learning with the UK Open University in 2012. DHH students who had no additional disabilities were more likely to complete their courses than nondisabled students, and they were just as likely to pass the courses that they completed and to obtain good grades on the courses that they passed. DHH students who had additional disabilities were less likely to complete their courses, less likely to pass the courses that they completed, and less likely to obtain good grades on the courses that they pass than were nondisabled students. It is concluded that hearing loss per se has no effect on academic attainment, but that additional disabilities may have an impact on DHH students’ academic performance

Examining the Relationship Between Genetic Counselors’ Attitudes Toward Deaf People and the Genetic Counseling Session

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors’ attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in ‘other’ settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors’ attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions are provided

Parents' views on care of their very premature babies in neonatal intensive care units: a qualitative study

Background The admission of a very premature infant to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is often a difficult time for parents. This paper explores parents’ views and experiences of the care for their very premature baby on NICU. Methods Parents were eligible if they had a baby born before 32 weeks gestation and cared for in a NICU, and spoke English well. 32 mothers and 7 fathers were interviewed to explore their experiences of preterm birth. Although parents’ evaluation of care in the NICU was not the aim of these interviews, all parents spoke spontaneously and at length on this topic. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Overall, parents were satisfied with the care on the neonatal unit. Three major themes determining satisfaction with neonatal care emerged: 1) parents’ involvement; including looking after their own baby, the challenges of expressing breast milk, and easy access to their baby; 2) staff competence and efficiency; including communication, experience and confidence, information and explanation; and 3) interpersonal relationships with staff; including sensitive and emotional support, reassurance and encouragement, feeling like an individual. Conclusions Determinants of positive experiences of care were generally consistent with previous research. Specifically, provision of information, support for parents and increasing their involvement in the care of their baby were highlighted by parents as important in their experience of care

Keratinocytes as Depository of Ammonium-Inducible Glutamine Synthetase: Age- and Anatomy-Dependent Distribution in Human and Rat Skin

In inner organs, glutamine contributes to proliferation, detoxification and establishment of a mechanical barrier, i.e., functions essential for skin, as well. However, the age-dependent and regional peculiarities of distribution of glutamine synthetase (GS), an enzyme responsible for generation of glutamine, and factors regulating its enzymatic activity in mammalian skin remain undisclosed. To explore this, GS localization was investigated using immunohistochemistry and double-labeling of young and adult human and rat skin sections as well as skin cells in culture. In human and rat skin GS was almost completely co-localized with astrocyte-specific proteins (e.g. GFAP). While GS staining was pronounced in all layers of the epidermis of young human skin, staining was reduced and more differentiated among different layers with age. In stratum basale and in stratum spinosum GS was co-localized with the adherens junction component ß-catenin. Inhibition of, glycogen synthase kinase 3β in cultured keratinocytes and HaCaT cells, however, did not support a direct role of ß-catenin in regulation of GS. Enzymatic and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction studies revealed an unusual mode of regulation of this enzyme in keratinocytes, i.e., GS activity, but not expression, was enhanced about 8–10 fold when the cells were exposed to ammonium ions. Prominent posttranscriptional up-regulation of GS activity in keratinocytes by ammonium ions in conjunction with widespread distribution of GS immunoreactivity throughout the epidermis allows considering the skin as a large reservoir of latent GS. Such a depository of glutamine-generating enzyme seems essential for continuous renewal of epidermal permeability barrier and during pathological processes accompanied by hyperammonemia

The HELLP syndrome: Clinical issues and management. A Review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The HELLP syndrome is a serious complication in pregnancy characterized by haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelet count occurring in 0.5 to 0.9% of all pregnancies and in 10–20% of cases with severe preeclampsia. The present review highlights occurrence, diagnosis, complications, surveillance, corticosteroid treatment, mode of delivery and risk of recurrence.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical reports and reviews published between 2000 and 2008 were screened using Pub Med and Cochrane databases.</p> <p>Results and conclusion</p> <p>About 70% of the cases develop before delivery, the majority between the 27th and 37th gestational weeks; the remainder within 48 hours after delivery. The HELLP syndrome may be complete or incomplete. In the Tennessee Classification System diagnostic criteria for HELLP are haemolysis with increased LDH (> 600 U/L), AST (≥ 70 U/L), and platelets < 100·10⁹/L. The Mississippi Triple-class HELLP System further classifies the disorder by the nadir platelet counts. The syndrome is a progressive condition and serious complications are frequent. Conservative treatment (≥ 48 hours) is controversial but may be considered in selected cases < 34 weeks' gestation. Delivery is indicated if the HELLP syndrome occurs after the 34th gestational week or the foetal and/or maternal conditions deteriorate. Vaginal delivery is preferable. If the cervix is unfavourable, it is reasonable to induce cervical ripening and then labour. In gestational ages between 24 and 34 weeks most authors prefer a single course of corticosteroid therapy for foetal lung maturation, either 2 doses of 12 mg betamethasone 24 hours apart or 6 mg or dexamethasone 12 hours apart before delivery. Standard corticosteroid treatment is, however, of uncertain clinical value in the maternal HELLP syndrome. High-dose treatment and repeated doses should be avoided for fear of long-term adverse effects on the foetal brain. Before 34 weeks' gestation, delivery should be performed if the maternal condition worsens or signs of intrauterine foetal distress occur. Blood pressure should be kept below 155/105 mmHg. Close surveillance of the mother should be continued for at least 48 hours after delivery.</p