Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I would like to comment on the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to the opening remarks from Sinn Féin. Her departure from her prepared speech was encouraging and showed a certain amount of emotion and feeling. This was far different from her prepared speech, which was probably written by a faceless civil servant, lacked emotion and contained statistics and so forth. I welcome the fact that she departed from it and that she has indicated a commitment down the road on this issue, although we will argue that is not good enough.

As others have pointed out in this debate, the current practice in this State of implanting just one implant, for those fortunate to be approved for treatment, is out of step with what is regarded as best practice in other countries. The medical evidence is that this does not fully address the hearing problems of the children concerned. It has been found that the provision of only one implant limits a child's ability to distinguish where noises come from. It also fails to address fully their lack of ability to distinguish other voices in busy or noisy places like shopping centres and classrooms. This is similar to the experience of many adults who have hearing difficulties and is obviously not a solution to the problem, which clearly requires that the children concerned are given two implants rather than one.

For those who receive just one implant, the sort of problems I have described regarding their ability to distinguish voices adds considerably to the difficulties that school-going children experience in a classroom setting. If children cannot hear what is going on in a classroom and are unable to hear what a teacher is saying, it will severely impact on their ability to keep up with what is being taught and may lead to educational disadvantage that will persist throughout their schooling. It will also potentially hamper their communication with other pupils and, therefore, have a detrimental impact on their social as well as educational development if they are unable to fully participate in social interaction with their fellow pupils. Of course, this would also have an impact on any children with this issue who may wish to participate in sport, as the failure to fully address the problem through the provision of bilateral implants will affect their ability to hear what is going on within a sporting context.

The testimony of the families of the children concerned makes their plight apparent. On their Facebook page, parents describe their joy and indeed gratitude over their child having received one implant. Some of them describe it as their children's first step into the world of hearing and recognise the huge difference an implant makes to the child's life. However, they also describe their frustration at the problems encountered by the same children because they only have one implant, who therefore still exhibit some confusion in their day to day activities. Their condition, while undoubtedly improved, is not unlike the situation and frustrations encountered by adults who are starting to experience hearing difficulties.

In September 1961, my mother, who was in her mid 30s then, woke up one morning totally deaf. This was during the harvest season and she worked that day and the next without any treatment. Eventually, she ended up in Limerick Regional Hospital and after treatment she regained partial hearing with the help of a hearing aid. What I remember most after that time is the frustration experienced by my mother in trying to pick up what was being said by other people because she had so little hearing. I also remember the frustration experienced by myself, my brother and our family in trying to communicate with her and, sometimes, the lack of tolerance towards my mother in that regard. That was a long time ago, but ironically I wear two hearing aids today. I hope people show me more tolerance than was forthcoming at that time.

A recurring analogy employed by the parents is that addressing the problem through one implant is like addressing blindness by providing one eye. It may be argued by some that the number of children who are affected by this issue is small and, therefore, it is not something that ought to be prioritised. Currently within the State there are in the region of 200 children in this situation. They would benefit greatly from the introduction of a bilateral cochlear implant programme. Because the number of children concerned is small, the cost of ensuring that they all receive bilateral cochlear implants would be relatively small. It would represent only a drop in the ocean in terms of the overall health budget. However, it would be money well spent in addressing the plight of the children concerned and the difficulties faced by those children and their families.

There is an onus on all elected representatives to do the right thing and what we think is best. If we can make life more tolerable for the parents, families and friends of unfortunate children born into this situation by making money available from a budget, this will make a huge difference to their lives. These implants can ensure they develop social interaction skills, give them the opportunity to have a full education and enable them to have a life of communication by sound with their families, friends and everybody else. If we only do this and nothing else, we will be doing a good job as elected representatives. The onus of responsibility lies with all of us, but in particular with the Government. While I accept the sincerity of the Minister of State regarding the plight of these children, there is an onus of responsibility on her and the Government to ensure we address the issue collectively.

I urge everybody to support the principle and the merits of this motion because we on this side of the House are trying to make life better for unfortunate children who have not had a chance. We can give them that chance.

See this speech in context