I thank you for your understanding and curiosity as we endure this debate in order to understand each other's views on this issue.

There's one notable difference between wearing glasses to correct poor eyesight and putting an implant on a deaf person. The Deaf community is a distinct culture on its own and has a linguistic identity of its own with a language that is recognized by the federal government and is protected by the American Disabilities Act (in the USA). We recognize it as a difference in human experience, rather than as a disability. We've got national associations, professional lobbying groups, three post-secondary educational institutions, deaf clubs located in every major (and most semi-major) city in the USA and Canada, world federation athletic competitions (there's one in Toronto later this month), and so on.

Think of the Cajuns who were exiled to Louisiana from Acadia. They've got their own distinct dialect, culture and music. At one time, there were attempts made to squash the Cajun culture in schools (not unlike the decades following the 1880 Milan Conference that attempted to ban manual languages for the Deaf), but I believe they're now recognized by the federal government as an ethnic group to be preserved.

I realize there were no implants or anything like that for the Cajuns, but the point is that well-meaning hearing people are usually making the decision for infants to be implanted without taking into consideration the long-term cultural impact of doing so. It's almost like asking a panel of men to solely make decisions on abortion laws without asking a woman for her opinion on the matter.