Awareness isn't working....

ATR has long advocated that since disabled and deaf people were given major inclusion and access laws, we have less now than before they were enacted. It is as if once laws were on the statute, we stopped making sure they worked properly. 

At core, was the disability organisations over-focus on the individual, as averse to the collective approach. Once we pushed the individual right, we abandoned the collective rights of others. Removal of legal aid ensured only a very few disabled could take areas to court and force them to obey the laws we all fought for. 

The Deaf area ignored this, and campaigned solely for themselves, with recent successes via a BSL Act, which wasn't needed in Wales, because the local government there had accepted the inclusion law day one, they also blurred the definitions between the individual and the collective, by using a master-stroke that was so simple, the systems never saw it coming, they just capitalised a single letter (d, to D), then, all, became one.  A minority became the majority by default, a sensory loss became a way of life and a right, and a cure or alleviation, cultural genocide. Unfortunately it also created divisions, by Db, language, and way of social life, defeating own inclusion policies.  

It labelled most with deafness and hearing loss, with a culture they never had, and a communication format they never used, which caused many to actually LOSE support, because systems had bought into the hype of the minority, and re-applied it wrongly, all emphasis was on support they didn't use or want.

Support and funding went to the minority instead.  The rest of the UK government/business has clearly not accepted or endorsed, access and inclusion laws. Even when going to court, no precedent is being set so other disabled unable to speak for themselves,  could benefit, the individual being paramount, meant all have to go to court one at a time to get needs met. The disabled/deaf communities just lobby for another Act or law.  Grassroots find legal action is impossible. HM Government had removed free legal aid.

The biggest issue we face today is a total lack of real awareness, and the state dismantling the welfare state, and attacking the most vulnerable.  Despite various charities and others going it alone, they all appear to have failed, and by own admissions, as campaigns complain society (Whoever they are), are not aware of what they need to do, but still taken £M's in funding with them, with nil, to show for it, least of all awareness. 

Others quickly realised there was a profit to be made from us, non-disabled people set up courses online, many with zero awareness or qualifications themselves, via training, and 'lessons' in awareness, etc, and they now run most of not it all. Just sub-standard and biased/poor awareness tips. Disabled/deaf became a commodity to be exploited, and others got the work and got paid for it and still do.  Charity became corporate, a business, and the bottom and their relentless line was to keep us all reliant, if not on the state, on charity itself.  The state helped them along, by offering less and less support themselves, so many had to rely on charity.

Funding has not produced awareness or any advances.  Given so many random areas joined the awareness bandwagons, setting up 'hubs' as a catch-all, centre for awareness, they endorsed 'political' campaigns and approaches to awareness, campaigning as if access and inclusion laws didn't exist at all, when the reality, was they just didn't work. This was obvious in the 1990s when Disability Act demands were well advanced.  However, Charities reneged on grassroots fearing lack of own support, and persuaded the government to adopt the Act, but agree to water down any effect it might have.

The real aim of charity, was kudos and funding for set ups run by a few, on a computer somewhere.£1000s vanished overnight as no checks were made on them. The systems then proceeded to endorse nothing with us, or to include us, and disabled memberships of leading campaigns became selective and isolated in approach. Deaf do this, Blind do that, mental health do another etc. Nobody seems to understand we cannot succeed this way, united we stand, divided we fall etc... Our biggest enemy y is our own refusal to support each other. cest la vie has made us all reluctant to say 'Look, this isn't working, you going that way, and us going the other, we need to go together.'

AI, is it a threat to deaf & disability access?

Online UK BSL campaigners said yes, because of widespread issues with English and its grammar. Europe says no it doesn't.   Find below examples of huge advantages AI offers.   Accessibility tech hasn't traditionally been popular among developers. In 2022, disability tech companies attracted around £3.2 billion in early-stage investments, which was a fraction of the investment to other areas.

One reason is that disability tech start-ups are often considered too niche to attain business viability -- at least on the scale that venture capital demands. By definition, they are assumed to be building for a minority. However, some start-ups in the space have also begun serving the wider population — and throwing in some AI always helps.  Both cases are a balancing act: The wider business case needs to make sense without losing sight of the start-up's mission statement. AI, meanwhile, needs to be leveraged in a non-gimmicky way to pass the due diligence sniff test.

Some accessibility-focused start-ups understand these necessities, and their strategies are worth a look. Here are four European start-ups doing just that. 

Visualfy

Visualfy leverages AI to improve the lives of people with hearing loss. The Spanish start-up is focused on safety and autonomy -- this includes a sound recognition AI that recognizes fire alarms and the sound of a baby crying at home. "AI is crucial for our business," CEO Manel Alcaide told TechCrunch last month.  The firm offers consumers an app that also serves as a companion to Visualfy Home, its hardware suite consisting of three detectors and a main device. It also entered the public sector with Visualfy Places -- it’s no coincidence the start-up recently raised funding from Spain's national state-owned railway company, Renfe.  One reason Visualfy is gaining traction on the B2B side is that public venues are required to provide accessibility, especially when health and safety are on the line.

In an interview, Alcaide explained that the devices and PA systems Visualfy will install in places like stadiums could also monitor air quality and other metrics. In the EU, meeting these other goals could help companies get subsidies while doing the right thing for deaf people.  The latter is still very much top of mind for Visualfy, which is set up as a B Corp and employs both hearing and non-hearing people. Incorporating deaf individuals at all steps is a moral stance — "nothing for us without us." But it is also common sense for better design, Alcaide said.

Knisper

People with full hearing disability are a smaller segment of a large and growing group. By 2050, 2.5 billion people are projected to have some degree of hearing loss. Due to a mix of reasons, including stigma and cost, many won't wear hearing aids. That's the audience Dutch B2B start-up Audus Technologies is targeting with its product, Knisper.  Knisper uses AI to make speech more intelligible in environments such as cinemas, museums, public transportation and work calls. In practice, this means splitting the audio and mixing it back into a clearer track. It does so without increasing background volume noise (something not every hearing aid company can say), which makes it comfortable for anyone to listen to, even without hearing loss.

A former ENT doctor, Audus founder Marciano Ferrier explained that this wasn't possible to achieve with similar results before AI. Knisper was trained on thousands of videos in multiple languages, with variations such as background noise and distorted speech. This took work, but Audus is now leaving the development stage and focusing on adoption, managing director Joost Taverne told TechCrunch in February. "We are already working with a number of museums, including the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston," said Taverne, a former MP and diplomat who spent time in the U.S. "We also do audiobooks with a Dutch publishing house, where we make the audio book of Anne Frank's diary accessible for people with hearing loss. And we now have the solution for the workspace."

B2B go-to-market is not an easy route, so it makes sense for Audus to focus on clients like museums. They are often noisy, which can make audio guides hard for anyone to hear. Using Knisper's technology to make them more intelligible brings benefits to the general public, not just those with hearing loss, which makes adoption easier.

Whispp

Dutch startup Whispp also focuses on speech, but from a different angle. As TechCrunch reported from CES earlier this year, its technology converts whispered speech into a natural voice in real time. Whispp brings electronic larynx voice boxes into this millennium Whispp's core target audience is "a currently underserved group of worldwide 300 million people with voice disabilities who lost their voice but still have good articulation," its site explains. For instance, individuals with voice disorders that only leave them able to whisper or use their esophageal voice; or who stutter, like CEO Joris Castermans. He knows all too well how his speech is less affected when whispering.

For those with reduced articulation due to ALS, MS, Parkinson's or strokes, there are already solutions like text-to-speech apps -- but these have downsides such as high latency. For people who are still able to articulate, that can be too much of a tradeoff.  Thanks to audio-to-audio AI, Whispp is able to provide them with a voice that can be produced in real time, is language agnostic and sounds real and natural. If users are able to provide a sample, it can even sound like their own voice.

Since there's no text in the middle, Whispp is also more secure than alternatives, Castermans told TechCrunch. This could open up use cases for non-silent patients who need to have confidential conversations, he said. How much users without voice issues would be willing to pay for Whispp's technology is unclear, but it also has several monetization routes to explore with its core audience, such as the subscription it charges for its voice calling app.

Acapela

Acapela Group, which was bought by Swedish tech accessibility company Tobii Dynavox for €9.8 million in 2022, has been in the text-to-speech space for several decades, but it is only recently that AI changed the picture for voice cloning. The results are much better and the process is faster too. This will lower the bar for voice banking, and although not everyone will do it yet, there may be demand for individuals who know they are at risk of losing their voice after getting diagnosed with certain conditions.

Acapela doesn't charge for the initial phase of the service, which consists of recording 50 sentences. It is only when and if they need to install the voices on their devices that users have to buy it, either directly through Acapela or via a third party (partner, reseller, a national health insurance program or other). Besides the new potential unlocked by AI, the above examples show some routes that start-up's are exploring to expand beyond a core target of users with disabilities.  Part of the thinking is that a larger addressable market can increase their prospective revenue and spread out the costs. But for their customers and partners, it is also a way to stay true to the definition of accessibility as "the quality of being able to be entered or used by everyone, including people who have a disability." 

CODA's picking up the support tab?

The whole truth, and nothing but?   The degree of ignorance around BSL usage and support just enables more campaigns, but doesn't explain anything in any real depth. Anecdotal evidence say shortages are NOT the main issue, but, deaf parents preferring their family support them, its 'on tap' and immediate. (One statistic suggests 68% of deaf have rarely if ever uses BSL interpreter support.)  Other issues are that only 1% of deaf sign users are proficient in BSL themselves, not having taken any exams to attain BSL level competences, neither have their children.

ATR draws attention to a 12yr old campaign it ran via the BDA, insisting that NHS GP's and medical staff stop immediately, asking deaf people to bring their children with them to translate, and to respect the law that demands they provide BSL help and professional/neutral support.  The BDA refused to support that request, insisting deaf people had a right to use whatever support they wanted, despite this killing demand, and, putting Deaf patients at risk via family support that lacked training, and were in essence speaking FOR their parents.

As ATR pointed out this meant children as young as 8-10yrs of age were expected to translate for the NHS and explain diagnosis to them, even regarding bad news like cancer, or sensitive areas like sexual education.  ATR complained to Social Services, who explained it was ILLEGAL for deaf parents or families to use ANY child under 16 tears of age, it was deemed abuse.  ATR said even IF they are of that age, the NHS had no way of knowing if the translations provided by family, were accurate or not or subject to bias by CODA's, e.g. how to tell your Dad 'They say you have terminal Cancer', or, 'You have a sexually transmitted disease'  Cases emerged some parents simply weren't told by CODA's because 'They won't understand..'

ATR stepped up a campaign at the NHS directly suggesting, that in the event of a diagnosis not understood by a patients and subsequently got very ill or worse, the NHS said 'Deaf chose family support, the onus is not then on the NHS to be legally  responsible, the NHS has respected deaf choice..' We tried approaching NHS insurance companies, who were unhelpful, because deaf choice passed responsibility to others, and saved the NHS costs hiring a professional Interpreter. Nothing short of a total ban on any amateur BSl support will create any demand.  It has to be said 80% of BSL interpreters do NOT have a medical expertise either, there is a total lack of specialisation in BSL work, with 999 and legal systems etc, it is basically, he said, she said, they said, and hoping at least someone follows everything.  

It is not enough to use medical jargon at people and assume the terp understands it all, or the patient does.  Even social services itself using trained BSL terps to assist, can opt out of issues emerging when misunderstandings reveal themselves, and SS/BSL terps CANNOT be taken to court to testify on who said what, BSL interpreters say NOBODY can guarantee a deaf person follows everything, so a court lists it as 'hearsay' thus inadmissible.  Deaf have NO real cover in reality, unless video recordings are taken in addition to BSL interpretation, but again, systems have another opt out on data protection grounds and privacy.

A shortage of BSL terps is nobody's fault at present, until systems enact the law and only allow professional support provision, that forces demand.   Compromise would be family/friends there to act as 'personal support' but not in any translation role, this offers the best solution, and enables the deaf more likely to be making own decisions, and not allowing others to do it for them.  You cannot be sure in certain sensitive subjects family will not provide bias into the proceedings. Expecting a child to make those decisions is outrageous, deaf need to stop doing it.

NEWS ITEM:

Children are having to translate doctors’ diagnoses to their deaf parents because there’s not enough sign language interpreters, a City Hall Conservative has claimed. Andrew Boff, a Tory member of the London Assembly, branded the situation ‘ridiculous’ and said there was an urgent need for better sign language services.

Mr Boff made the comments at a London mayoral hustings in Westminster hosted by deaf and disabled people’s charity, Inclusion London, on Tuesday (April 9). He was responding to a question from an audience member about what Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall would do to support the British Sign Language (BSL) charter - a list of pledges that aim to improve the rights of deaf people.

Mr Boff said: “There are not enough interpreters. We [have] had situations where young people are being asked, children are being asked, to interpret for their parents when receiving information about diagnoses from doctors. I mean this is a ridiculous situation to be in. We need more interpreters.”

A 2015 City Hall report authored by Mr Boff noted there were less than 1,000 registered BSL interpreters in the UK. The report blamed the shortage of interpreters on the cost and length of training. It said that interpreters often had to study for seven or eight years before becoming fully qualified. A reduction in council grants meant students were increasingly having to seek sponsorship from employers, the report added.

Rachel Blake, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Cities of London and Westminster and a Tower Hamlets councillor, said Mayor of London Sadiq Khan had already signed the BSL charter and was consulting with deaf people. Zoë Garbett, Green Party candidate for mayor of London, said she fully supported the BSL charter and said City Hall politicians needed to be held accountable to make sure they were meeting the pledges within it.

Get a CI, you know it makes sense.

To be fair, not if you are white either!   Few people who are eligible for a cochlear implant actually get one.  Cost is the primary issue.  The total average cost of a cochlear implant for one ear, including the surgery, is £22,919 and for two ears, it is £37,904.  In perspective,  the cost of supporting a person with profound deafness in the UK can be significant, with estimates ranging from £15,000 to £30,000 per year or more. On balance, it makes more financial sense to implant all the deaf.

This cost may be covered by various sources, including the National Health Service (NHS), local government social care services, and private funding or insurance.  Cochlear implants have successfully improved hearing loss for decades, but few people who qualify for an implant actually get it. Even in countries with universal health care, the adoption rates are dismal.  Researchers are finding further disparities for marginalized communities, especially for Black and Asian patients, according to a recent study of British hospitals published last week.

This study assessed referral patterns for cochlear implantation among UK adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The study found that many eligible patients were not being appropriately referred for assessment, with disparities in access based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Patients residing in more deprived areas, living in London, males, and older individuals were less likely to be referred for assessment. 

Ethnic minorities, particularly Asians and Black individuals were also less likely to be informed of their eligibility. The study highlighted the need for targeted efforts to improve referral rates among underrepresented groups and address disparities in patient management. Further research is required to understand and address these inequalities and improve informed decision-making among healthcare providers and patients.

Health support for digital Luddites...

Apparently, we needn't hold our breath, there isn't any. As a deafened person who doesn't have a mobile phone, I can share their pain, but I gave up when I realized online access, isn't, and is designed as a deterrence, not a supportive system, so demanded face-to-face again. Forget 111 sign health and that stuff, strictly for the BSL birds.

A recent survey conducted by Healthwatch, has, highlighted that digital barriers are making it difficult for people to access healthcare services. The survey revealed that elderly individuals, those with sight or hearing impairments, and non-regular internet users are facing challenges in booking appointments online or over the phone.

These barriers are causing some individuals to give up on seeking care, said Hannah Davies, the CEO of Healthwatch. Digital healthcare saw a significant shift during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some benefited from improved access, others, like Gemma O'Connell, who has deaf parents, struggled with the new digital approach. Angie Pullen, another respondent, expressed concerns about vulnerable individuals being unable to access GP services due to digital difficulties.

Dr. Richard Vautrey, a senior doctor, acknowledged the benefits of digital systems in healthcare. However, he emphasized the importance of ensuring accessibility for all patients. He highlighted the need for various avenues such as online, telephone, and face-to-face consultations to accommodate different patient needs.

Overall, the Healthwatch survey results indicate that the transition to digital healthcare is creating obstacles for certain individuals, ultimately hindering timely access to essential care services.

Nine Stats.

 9 Statistics many deaf and HI activists may prefer to ignore.

(1)   Statistics from (Sign Health, a leading charity for deaf people in the UK), the annual cost of providing British Sign Language (BSL) services to the UK is estimated to be around £93 million per year. This cost includes professional interpreters, technology, education and training, as well as support services for the Deaf community.

(2)   According to a report by the UK charity Action on Hearing Loss, hearing loss in the UK costs an estimated £30.71 billion per year. This includes costs related to healthcare, social care, productivity loss, and welfare support for individuals with hearing loss.

(3)    Approximately 2 million people with hearing loss rely on hearing aids in the UK, and 3 million others who need them won't wear them.

(4)    A survey conducted by Action on Hearing Loss in the UK in 2019, suggest that approximately 1.7 million people with hearing loss rely on mobile phone apps to assist them with communication.

(5)    Official statistics from the UK's National Health Service (NHS), state, there are approximately 11 million people with hearing loss in the UK. This includes individuals of all ages who are registered with the NHS for support and assistance with their hearing loss.  It is not stated how many are defined as, or needing help and support.

(6)    No specific data available on the exact number of people with hearing loss who are identified as 'good' lip-readers in the UK. Lip-reading abilities can vary greatly among individuals with hearing loss, and it is estimated that only a minor percentage of the population have strong lip-reading skills. Lip-reading is only effective to a certain extent and should not be solely relied upon as a communication method for those with hearing loss.

(7)     As of 2021, there are 55 deaf clubs in the UK. No statistic records numbers of membership.  deaf clubs are located across various regions in the UK, with concentrations mainly, in cities such as London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham.

(8)     As of 2021, there are no specific statistics available regarding the number of hearing impaired clubs in the UK, or ones that do not use signing as a primary form of communication. These types of clubs may vary in size and scope, ranging from local community groups to national organizations.

(9)    While progress has been made in promoting inclusion and accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the UK through various campaigns and initiatives, there is still much work to be done to ensure they have equal access to services, opportunities, and support. No major successes have been highlighted in surveys so far.

The Third Degree.

Third space theory

E. Soja (1996) proposed a different way of thinking about space and spatiality. First and second spaces are two different, and possibly conflicting, spatial groupings where people interact physically and socially: such as home (everyday knowledge) and school (academic knowledge). 

Third spaces are the in-between, or hybrid, spaces, where the first and second spaces work together to generate a new third space. ‘Soja is anxious to avoid the common dualities of the social and the individual, culture/nature, production/reproduction, the real versus the imagined, (which pervade geographical analysis, arguing “there is always another way”

In short, deaf child campaigners want access to the deaf club, culture, language, community, in addition to Home (Space 1), education (Space 2), however with often no peers or mentors to interact with in mainstream, not really going to happen is it.  Isn't it just making a point mainstream isn't inclusive as activism sees it.  Deaf schools have gone we have to move on, and INCLUDE deaf people (Whether they want it or not!).

Who needs to Campaign, we don't!

The NADP National Association of Deafened People replied to our questions:

ATR:  'Why is there little campaigning being done at all by acquired deaf and others with hearing loss?  BSL campaigns are running at 31 this month already, even about world hearing (?!), whilst hearing loss campaigns are in single  figures over the last 12 months, despite the overwhelming majority of sufferers by over 1,000s to 1?'

NADP:  Hello. There is no specific research, but quite a lot 'discussions' related to low level of acquired deafness and hearing loss  campaigning. Many feel, the low level comes from huge diversity of how we communicate.  Born deaf people have 1 single goal - BSL.

ATR:   And the hearing loss sector has none? Maybe the fact there are paid jobs, courses, and funding involved with BSL that makes this rarely used format BY deaf people so attractive to others?  There is not even a valid qualification to lip-read via classes, so that format has something to aspire to.   Is it true, the RNID felt it was becoming impossible to promote hearing loss because the hearing loss campaign terminology was too positive?  That funders are more willing to offer funds if 'support, and Help' was involved, but not for real empowerment, and more medical intervention to address hearing loss and deafness?  The hearing loss area has  adapted technology instead? That is is diversity? Born deaf can't adapt to technology?  It doesn't answer the query as to where £6B a year is allegedly going our way, nobody but charity ever sees. 

I'd rather hoped the NADP would challenge the shambles and bias, that is UK deaf awareness, which is not about us at all, and with the RNID and BDA being the leaders of disinformation, sadly. E.G. 11m DEAF and hard of hearing, is a total lie is it not, even the Pinocchio's at the BDA do not claim those figures. No distinctions are being made between this 'political wing' of deafness, (the 'Deaf'), and the majority, i.e. US, despite distinct cultural, rights campaigning, and language differences.  Hard of hearing and acquired deaf complain the sole support they are being offered is sign language, a format they don't use, and don't need or want, and this is down to misleading support claims by UK leading charities, influencing health and 999 systems via bias.

The fact such charities are their OWN source of statistics, isn't queried, either by the state, or by rank and file, why?  Can the NADP demand that awareness correctly  identifies people accurately?  As this otherwise suggests we are  getting more support than we actually are, and, the wrong sort, as it is for a different sector entirely.   There is NO established NHS hearing loss area in Wales except for a f ew 100 BSL users, and none for 3/400K (RNID own estimates), of those with hearing loss, not even a deaf school exists there..  On the face of it, we are all labelled BSL users.  The ASLI  also clarified that there is no support for lip-readers in Wales, we can't ALL be using apps.

NADP: Thank you for contacting us....................

LEST WE FORGET?

Alzheimer's researchers are working to understand the links between dementia and hearing loss in a project run by the University of Manchester and supported by Alzheimer's Research UK and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. It has been estimated that if mid-life hearing loss can be eliminated then it would lead to a 9% reduction in dementia cases.  Alzheimer's Research UK said: "The team will determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

"This information about the mechanisms behind the link between hearing loss and dementia will help us to understand what the most effective strategies are for reducing dementia risk. It will also assess the potential benefits of hearing aids in reducing the risk of developing dementia, using the same datasets Hearing loss affects over two thirds of people over the age of 65 and the fact that hearing loss is so common means that it could have a large impact on the overall number of people developing dementia, according to Alzheimer's Research UK.

This global project, headed by Dr Piers Dawes at the University of Manchester, will use information from thousands of volunteers from the US, UK and a number of European countries. Each volunteer has provided data for up to 17 years. These data sets are packed with details about participants' hearing, their use of hearing aids, scores from memory and thinking tests, brain scan images, levels of physical and mental activity, and health information. This valuable resource allows the team to explore the connection between hearing loss and the risk of dementia.

The aim is to develop a much deeper understanding of how hearing loss and dementia are linked. Dr Dawes' team want to determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

ATR COMMENT:

Why isn't the research covering the born deaf? The last attempt in 2022, seems a bit random of that area, a video and some photos, and an inability to utilise carers experiences of BSL Alzheimer patients for real-time data.  Researching only 17 years appears to ignore how Alzheimer's affects those born with little hearing.  Are they already suggesting acquired loss is the trigger and not the genetic or inherent loss?  Poor hearing aid responses? Most of those ATR knows suffering Alzheimer were from the deaf school areas and born with little hearting at all, wore no viable hearing aids as such..

Another issue is how testing for potential Alzheimer's is done, currently, it is based on a hearing experience.  An experience that cannot be applied to those without it.  I just wonder how many HEARING can recite the 93 times table?  Or Name the minister for education in the UK? Awareness is a huge issue too, given the deaf and their awareness relates only to the deaf experiences, not the hearing ones. if they consult dedicated charity data sets, they won't get unbiased information that way.  Academic attainment can vary hugely between those who are born deaf, and those who acquire it, which is also relative as to WHEN hearing loss starts to manifest itself.

To be accurate, researchers need the 'before and after' data, is 17 years relative to that?  When researchers are only asking NOW?  Data needs to cover social and societal backgrounds too, and today bears little relation to 17 years ago either.  Also huge advances in hearing aid, and cochlear implants has improved hugely in that time too. Research must be mindful it doesn't 'arm' areas of the 'Deaf' community activisms, with an excuse to express even more 'concern' about deafness itself being addressed properly, given activism has attacked Hearing aid, cochlear implantations, and the use of speech, among other means medical and educational areas have supported or   gone with, even genetic manipulation.

Ditching the politics of deafness and language is obviously why, the research is NOT researching in more depth the born deaf cultural membership? To show balance it must surely?  Or it plays into the Deaf versus deaf thing.

Anything for the Deaf

 

Health massage for signers.