The value of deaf culture: Should states have the right to mandate placement of cochlear implants?

Current Surgery

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 600-601

  Gaines, Robin A ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD PARENT RELATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CULTURAL FACTOR; FOSTER CARE; GOVERNMENT; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; NOTE; SURGICAL RISK;

EID: 0344121254     PISSN: 01497944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-7944(03)00117-X     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Robinson v. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service 01-0702-00 NA, 2002
2. Daviton-Scindra J. Expression. Available at: www. traingosorry.com
3. de Graaf R. Bijl R. Geestelijke gezondheid van doven. Psychische problematiek en zorggebruik van dove en ernstig slechthorende volwassenen (Psychological Well-being of deaf and severe hard-of-hearing Adults) 1998 Trimbos-instituutUtrecht
4. Cochlear implants. NIH Consensus Statement. 1988;7:1-25
5. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. Nucleus 24 Auditory Brainstem Implant System. Rockville, MD: FDA; March 27, 2001. PMA P000015
6. Cheng A. Rubin H. Powe N. Mellon N. Francis H. Niparko J. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children JAMA 284 2000 850-856