Danielle----Sr final thesis paper EDDITED FINAL!!!!

Securing Fair Treatment for Deaf Patient 0
Running Head: SECURING FAIR TREATMENT FOR THE DEAF PATIENT
Securing Fair Treatment for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Patient
Danielle Rauch
Northeastern University

Abstract
This paper will provide a clear understanding of some of the struggles which D/
deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals experience in medical settings. These challenges are
not new, as they have occurred for over thirty years. This paper explores how hospitals
do not always have adequate access to important communication services for D/deaf
patients and discusses concern for the implementation of cochlear implants in such
patients. It is evident that there is significant need for doctors and anyone in the medical
field to learn more about the culture and history of D/deaf individuals. This paper
examines the problem of accessibility to proper and feasible communication options for
D/deaf patients, especially in emergencies. Presently, research supports the fact that deaf
patients who go into a hospital are told to wait for an interpreter to come to the hospital
for them, or they are told they can use a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) to communicate
with the doctor or nurse. If neither a VRI nor an interrupter is available for an
appointment, D/deaf patients must resort to writing notes back and forth between health
care providers for service. This is not sufficient, professional, or appropriate
communication for deaf patients. The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the
need for D/deaf and/ or hard-of-hearing patients to be acknowledged and treated with the
same respect as someone who is hearing in all settings, especially medical settings.

Introduction
When people evaluate hospital systems in society, often there are two main
perspectives. The first is that hospitals are generally excellent, helping many people in
need; another thought is that hospitals do not adequately meet the needs of most people
and are greatly insufficient. People who support hospitals may not realize that hospitals
still do not fully serve every type of population, like the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing
community. This is a population that is still fighting for rights, even after the Americans
with Disability Act (ADA) was passed in 1990. This paper dissects and evaluates the
inadequacies of hospitals in America in regards to the treatment of D/deaf and hard-of-
hearing patients. There is great concern within the D/deaf community about how patients
feel they are being treated; many feel neglected or dismissed due to their disability.
Research in this paper includes examination of patients’ rights relating to the laws
concerning hospital protocols. When focusing on the deaf community, it is important to
analyze and evaluate how the hearing and the D/deaf (or hard-of –hearing) worlds
intertwine. Also, it is essential to assess how many hospitals have proper communications
accessibility for the D/deaf and hard–of-hearing community, without these patients
having to fight for suitable accommodations. One need to be look at how medical
technology has help as well as hurt individuals in a community, before assuming it is
good for everyone in the community. “Unlike a new kitchen appliance, new medical
technologies do not come with directions for their use. Rather, the protagonists who put
the technologies on the market and who put them to use in individuals indicate implicitly
or even quite explicitly their views of man’s social existence, that is, their images of
health and normality” (Hintermair and Albertini, pg. 190, 2005). When new medical

technology become available for the public, everyone is exited but they don’t see that at
time the new technology can do more harm then good. With any type of new accesses
there are going to positives and negatives aspects.
The reason this doing this research on securing fair treatment for Deaf patients, is
important is because people generally think that if they are injured, they can go to any
hospital and be properly treated. However, this is not always true. Often, when someone
who is D/deaf or hard-of-hearing goes to the hospital, one has to wait for an interpreter to
come and assist in communication. Sometimes, the doctors and nurses begin without
someone there to explain what is happening to the deaf patient, or staff members think
the D/deaf patient can just read their lips. Hopefully, by exploring patients’ rights,
investigating existing laws concerning these rights, and examining what protocols
hospitals have in place for D/deaf/ hard-of-hearing patients, more people will be aware of
the needs of this community of patients. When hospitals view deaf patients as a
population they need to service, then these patients can receive the same rights as hearing
patients without having to fight for them.
Viewing deaf patients in a hospital setting through the human service macro,
micro, and mezzo lenses is not an easy task. For instance, the micro lens is very simply
the idea of an individual user; however, there is no research on just one D/deaf person’s
experience in a hospital. When a D/deaf or hard-of-hearing patient goes into a hospital,
that person must depend upon someone to be an interpreter for them when a nurse or
doctor is present and communicating. The need for an interpreter or some sort of
translation between doctor/nurse and the patient is personal. The next level, mezzo, is
easier to understand within the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing communities in a hospital

setting because this level involves an approach and way of thinking which is institution-
wide. This level is something that can be done at a major level, such as requiring a
hospital to have staff interpreters on site for incoming D/deaf or hard of hearing patients.
Since each of these levels relate to the deaf and hard-of-hearing community as a whole,
most hospitals can promote a statement which guarantees that they will have some sort of
communication access to interpreting services.
The macro level is quite a challenge since all people are not the same; so, trying
to give a generic policy on the state or even national level is quite difficult. In regards to
communication with D/deaf patients, what occurred in the past anything after the 1990’s
was an evaluation of how doctors communicated with such patients? “Physicians were
asked to estimate the fraction of encounters in which they used each of the following
methods of communication: lip reading, writing, communication through a relative or
friend, sign language interpreter, nonsigning gestures, and no communication” (Ebert and
Heckerling, 1995, Pg. 227-228). By doing this, states attempted to show if doctors used
interpreters or not. The main finding in this research was that doctors and hospitals did
not prioritize the expense for interpreters. “It is clear that the cost of providing
interpreters may not be financed by surcharges to deaf patients or by billing a deaf
patient’s insurance carrier” (Chilton, 1995-1996, Pg. 983). This making trying to find out
who pays in a hospital setting tricky. An analysis of this study indicates great concern
that D/deaf or hard-of-hearing patients may end up getting unnecessarily hurt when there
is no one to provide access to clear, direct, and concise communication for them at
hospitals. However, one positive aspect of this topic is that as more studies are conducted
and more articles are written, more attention will be drawn to how D/deaf and hard-of-

hearing patients are not treated fairly. With increased visibility of this issue, one can hope
that interventions to provide access to adequate communication and care become more
widespread and guaranteed as basic rights.
Statement of Objectives
The strong motivation for doing research concerning fair treatment of D/deaf and
hard-of-hearing patients is that this group of people has minimal representation and
advocacy. Not only is it important to be aware of the concerns of this population, but
also it is also important for people to understand the size of the population in order to
increase awareness. Regarding the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing population, “Nationwide,
about 2.1 percent of all Americans have a hearing problem, while just under 1 percent are
considered deaf” (McDaniels, 2015). While this is a relatively small number of people,
this population deserves to be treated with respect, receiving the same medical care that
someone who hears would receive in similar situations. The point of this research is to
demonstrate how D/deaf and hard-of-hearing people do not receive the same rights.
There are people who are aware of the struggles of the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing
community and are working to make sure these individuals are treated well. One way to
ensure that D/deaf and hard-of-hearing populations receive fair treatment is to increase
awareness of this need in communities. This paper, as well as existing research, will help
provide awareness and advocacy for fair treatment of D/deaf and hard-of-hearing patients
in hospitals. Also, another significant objective of this paper is to make sure that audism
is not still occurring in society. D/deaf and hard- of-hearing people have faced the
oppression of audism for years. “What audism refers to— the discrimination of Deaf

people—is nothing new. The word to describe it, however, is. Whether being denied
rights to own property, to have children, or to drive a car, Deaf people have rarely been
treated with the dignity that should come with being human” (Bauman, Pg. 239, 2004).
D/deaf and hard-of -hearing individuals should be able to receive the same rights and
treatment as someone who hears without feeling they are a burden on hospitals; they
should never feel oppressed.
Literature Review
Fair and adequate treatment of D/deaf and hard-of-hearing patients is an
important topic which needs more attention and action because too many times deaf
patients have not received proper care due to a common mentality of “of out of sight, out
of mind” by hospital staff. What often happens in hospitals is that the D/deaf community
is overlooked, and their treatment does not meet their needs. Literature regarding this
topic can be divided into different time periods; thus, the paper will be structured by these
same time frames: 1980-1999, 2000-2009, and then from 2010-present day. Relating to
the research, there is overwhelming evidence of the need for medical, personal, and
professional support and aid in hospitals for D/deaf and hard-of-hearing patients.
Significant literature concerning the rights and treatment of D/deaf patients in
hospitals is present from 1980-1999. The years from 1980-1990 (period before the
American with Disability Act (ADA) was passed) are vital to study, as they are important
to the history of deaf patients’ struggles in regards to getting medical help. One of the
oldest articles related to this research, “Health Care Delivery for Deaf Patients” by
Dipietro, et al., was written in 1981. While this might be a dated source, it is important to

note that throughout history D/deaf and hard-of-hearing patients have not been treated
with respect. This article indicates that health care in this nation had some significant
issues in the 1980’s which should have been resolved. However, what makes this article
so interesting is the fact that someone noticed that the D/deaf and hard-of hearing
communities were not being treated with respect years ago.
“Even though it is well documented that proficiency of spoken and written
English of prelingually deaf persons is often seriously impaired, 76% of deaf
persons responding to a recent survey reported that writing was the most common
mode of communication used by medical staff in out-patient situations and 83%
reported writing to be the most common mode of communication used in in-
patient situations (Schein and Delk, 1980). Speech was reported as the next most
commonly used mode in both situations. The deaf respondents generally felt they
were understood by medical staff but 36.9% of the respondents only understood
some or very little of what medical staff were attempting to communicate to them
in out- patient situations. In in-patient situations 32.9% of the deaf respondents
only understood some or very little of what medical staff were attempting to
communicate to them. Only 25% of the respondents felt they understood every-
thing in both situations” (DiPietro, Knight, Sams, Pg, 107, 1981)
It is evident that even back in the 1980s, D/deaf patients did not feel their needs were
being met in medical offices. So, even before the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
was passed, it is clear that this community was being oppressed, and people wanted to act
to change this. It is important to note that the ADA was passed in 1990.

From 1990-1999, doctors, as well as hospitals, tried to understand the ADA and
all its various components. One article written in 1999, “Health Care Delivery for Deaf
Patients” by Harmer, reveals the importance of having interpreters present for D/deaf
patients at any kind of medical appointment. This article is significant because it provides
a clear understanding of what it is like for someone who is D/deaf to go to an
appointment and have no idea what is going on. In one section of the article, the authors
reveal how medical personnel can mistakenly believe passing a piece of a paper back and
forth to write and communicate is helpful for deaf patients.
“Thirty-seven percent believed that writing notes or speech reading
offered the best way to communicate with deaf patients. Forty-one percent of
those surveyed said they relied on writing notes for their deaf patients more then
half of the time. Only 19 % regular employed an interpreted. Remaining
physicians used speech reading, gestures, or asked family member to interpret for
the patient “(Harmer, pg. 93, 1999).
In situations where there is insufficient communication regarding medical concerns, a
D/deaf patient often leaves a medical setting more confused about what is going with his
health than before he went to the appointment. Still, a number of medical personnel
believe interpreters are not needed; hopefully, after more research and studies are
conducted, it will be clear how many medical personnel do not use interpreters even after
the ADA was passed. Doctors, nurses, and hospital staff must understand negative
hospital experiences for D/deaf patients, so they know how to successfully address the
concerns and correct the issues in the future in order for D/deaf and hard-of-hearing
patients to receive proper, fair, and comprehensive treatment.

Another major concern regarding medical aid and treatments within the D/deaf
community is the trend of surgery for cochlear implants; this is a surgery to implant a
wire into the cochlea, which sends a signal to a device that a D/deaf or hard-of-hearing
person wears. This, in theory, allows D/deaf patients the ability to hear. From 2000-2009,
technology became more advanced; therefore, medicine and cochlear surgeries should
have produced higher rates of success. Sadly, however, this was not true. As technology
increased, so did the number of parents who wanted their children to hear. Thus, there
was a great increase in the number of cochlear implants surgeries; while there are some
successful cases, there are more failed cases in which the cochlear implant has not
worked. There are approximately 188,000 people who have cochlear implants (NIH,
2015). The most recent article pertaining to this implant research, “Long-Term
Complications after Cochlear Implantations” by Kawano, et al. was published in 2013;
this article explains how giving a deaf child this particular surgery will end up doing
more harm than good. One reason why this could do a lot of harm is because as hearing
individuals we do not know what the Cochlear implants sounds like: we assume it sounds
like our hearing, however science has told us other wise. Not only will it not help the
child hear like someone who is born with hearing it then put the child in a odd subgroup.
The child will not feel like they fit in the Deaf community, since the community is
against cochlear, and they will not fit into the hearing world since they do not “hear” like
we hear. So in the end the child is isolated and has a harder time making friends. Even
though there has been much research published about the positive and negative aspects of
cochlear implants, it is important to know that the concerns about implants did not stop in
2009; the debate about the use of implants is still present today.

The debate about cochlear implants is just one health concern that greatly affects
the D/deaf community. There are people who believe everyone should hear, while there
are some who do not think it matters if people can hear or not, as long as they have access
to communication. Making sure everyone has access to communication is a problem in
medical field. The article, “Open your eyes: Deaf Studies Talking,” by Stein Ohna is
very pertinent in discussing this issue because it addresses how deafness is not a
disability. It also clarifies what it is like to be D/deaf and how being D/deaf does not
mean one cannot accomplish everything one wants to achieve in life. The idea that
deafness is not a disability will continue to be understood more clearly as time goes on if
the general population becomes more aware and informed. People will comprehend and
understand this concept better as increased education on the topic is more accessible for
the general population in university settings, as well as the news or media.
There are increasingly more movements to help deaf patients receive medical help.
In some cases, this help has even included legal steps to ensure patient rights. Many
patients or family members have sued hospitals for not providing an interpreter. If one
wants to file a complaint against a medical profession for not providing equal
communication for the D/deaf patient or Family member can go to the ADA website and
fill out a complaint. With there being a way for D/deaf patients to fill out a paper saying
that the doctor or hospital was not being ADA complaint, maybe with this now being out
there less news articles coming out saying that a Deaf patient is suing an hospitals.
There have also been attempts to aid D/deaf patients throughout the years in
hospitals by providing a machine called a VRI (Video Relay Interpreter), which
translated for patients. The idea for the machine sounds good; however, the machine is

not actually effective because so much of American Sign Language (ASL) depends upon
facial grammar (this is basically syntax for ASL). So, if someone is talking to the screen
and waiting for a response from another, the person who is on the VRI (the interpreter)
may not understand the D/deaf patient or vice versa. The reason why VRI is not the most
helpful option is because the best form of communication for any patients is face-to-face.
When one put a VRI in front of a D/deaf patient after surgery or after one just wakes up,
there is going to be miscommunication that will occur because medical personnel are
asking someone who is D/deaf to use a computer to explain what is going on in one’s
body while one is still under medication. In a newspaper article, “Deaf Patients Sue
Hospital in Maryland Over Remote Interpreting,” by Bethany Broida published in the
Legal Times of Washington D.C. in 2005, the importance of having face-to-face
communication for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community is clearly illustrated. The
reason the woman was suing the hospital was because no one was giving her information
about what was happening in her body. (She ended up having a heart issue.) During her
time at the hospital, no one helped her; this was a very scary experience for the woman.
The doctors at the hospital did attempt to make communication clear and sufficient for
this woman, so like most D/deaf patients she left; she went to another doctor who ended
up telling her what was wrong (Brodia, 2005, pg.2). Maybe with Deaf studies becoming
more available in colleges/university, there will be less cases of family’s having to sue
hospitals to get equal and fair communication.
From 2010 to the present, there has been significant research by “outsiders”
(people not in the Deaf community) trying to understand the community, as many more
people are advocating for the D/deaf. Many are going through interpreting programs,

wanting to learn ASL or wanting to become a teacher for the Deaf. With an increase in
the number of people showing compassion for and interest in the deaf community, much
good will occur. For example, there are some medical schools throughout the country,
such as New York University of Rochester Medical School, which offer classes to learn
about the best ways to treat a D/deaf patient. By taking classes on the history of the
D/deaf community and their needs, one will become aware of the community. There are
also informative books, essays, and articles, such as “Assessing Deaf Cultural
Competency of Physicians and Medical students” by Loang, et al., which people can read
to understand more about the D/deaf culture. Many need to realize that the D/deaf
community is not a group of people who need to be able to “hear” to be successful; they
are just different.
There is nothing wrong with being different; understanding one another and each
other’s differences is how a society grows. The D/deaf community is a group of people
who desire to be treated like everyone else when it comes to life and medicine.
Additionally, it is important to remember that there is no perfect hospital or doctor’s
office which treats the deaf community. There are, however, some doctors and hospitals
that have a better understanding of how to work with and support this community.
Hopefully, the role-reversal research, which was done in Rochester, will help others
understand the importance of awareness by medical field personnel in regards to the
needs of the D/deaf community, as well as realize the steps Boston hospitals are taking to
help the deaf community.
Solution

Though there is not just one, clear-cut answer to resolve the issue regarding
insufficient treatment of D/deaf patients in hospitals, there are ways to help people
become more educated and aware of the Deaf community. As previously mentioned,
there are classes which one can take to become aware of the Deaf community. For
instance, Northeastern University in Boston offers two classes, “Deaf History and
Culture,” as well as,” Deaf and Society.” Other schools around the country which offer
classes about D/deaf communities are: University of Montevallo, University of Arizona,
California State University- Fresno, and California State University-Northridge. If
someone has a desire to know more about the community, one can type into Google
“Universities which offer D/deaf classes,” and one will get a list from Kaplan about
where one can go and take classes.
Additionally, schools attempt to increase student awareness of the D/deaf
community. At Northeastern, two times each year, the university has an event called
Deaf-Deaf World. This is an event that is put on to teach ASL 1 and ASL 2 students what
it is like trying to communicate in a world in which one has very little communication
access (A, Bournazian, personal communication, September 2012). During the event of
Deaf-Deaf World, each student will be given a different task that each needs to do, such
as try to get a hotel room for a night or try to buy something at a store. During this
process, these students must only use ASL; they are not allowed to use their “voice” or
speak. This exercise helps students to understand what it is like for someone who is
D/deaf or hard of hearing to navigate every day life.
Furthermore, people can learn about the D/deaf community through personal
research and reading. There are many articles available, such as, “Role-Reversal Exercise

with Deaf Strong Hospital to Teach Communication Competency and Cultural
Awareness” by Parkhill, et al., which provide insights into how medical personnel, can
understand more about the needs of their D/deaf patients. In this specific article,
scenarios depicted what it is like for doctors, as well as nurses, to experience a role-
reversal with D/deaf patients. These medical personnel pretended they were in a
completely deaf environment, and the only way for them to communicate was via paper
or signing. This gave them a first-hand experience of what it is like to be deaf.
While it might not be feasible for doctors or other hospital staff to take a class or
study in-depth about D/deaf communities, they can take a survey in regards to the D/deaf
community as a starting point for improvement. Hospitals and medical offices might gain
great insight if their personnel fill out a survey regarding knowledge of and common
practices with the D/deaf community (see survey in appendix). As these surveys are
interpreted, medical groups can evaluate how well their staff and organization understand
the needs and concerns of the D/deaf community, as well as how well they are meeting
those needs. A few possible questions on a survey might be, “How does your hospital
work with the deaf community?” “What services or accommodations do you have
available to aid deaf patients? “How many D/deaf or Hard of Hearing patients does your
hospital see?” Once surveys are taken and results are recorded, then medical groups can
evaluate what hospitals and interpreters use when “trying” to interpret a medical
appointment because there is not much data on what hospitals use to work with the
D/deaf population. This is something which the surveys will hopefully help to change.
When one goes on a hospital’s website to view what services or aid that hospital
might provide for the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing communities, one can see that most

hospitals provide an email address and a phone number to call to set up an interpreter.
One will find this information on the interpreting webpage of the hospital. However,
since Deaf communities use a videophone to make phone calls, it would be important to
know if hospitals have videophones for Deaf patients to use. An example of hospital
practices regarding D/deaf patients is Mass General Hospital. If a D/deaf patient goes to
the hospital for an appointment, that patient would need to email the interpreting
department with one’s patient information about the appointment; also, a the D/deaf
patient would just have to assume that there will be some sort of access between the
D/deaf patient and the doctor and/or nurse (Susan Muller-Herhson, Personal
Communication October 2015). While it is good that there is an email address to
schedule an interpreter, there is no way to know if there will be an interpreter there for
the appointments because there is only one person who handles all of these requests.
One thing that has worked for people in the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing
communities is exchanging information about possible and best options for help in
medical settings. This is effective because D/deaf individuals share information with
other D/deaf people about good doctors and effective hospitals. People can share which
hospitals have better interpreters or which hospitals are friendlier to the community.
Publicity and attention to inadequate treatment at hospitals has also brought help
to the D/deaf community when a D/deaf patient sues a hospital for not providing
interpreters or a proper form of communication for the patient. It is awful when one reads
about an area in society which is not helping the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing
communities; it does, however, make people aware of the community or the community’s
needs. An article, “Deaf Patient Sue Hospital in Maryland Over Remote Interpreting” by

Broward Daily Business review, reveals how even today 2015, D/deaf patients can go to
a hospital, and hospitals do not know how to work with patients who are D/deaf and hard
of hearing. The woman in the article talks about is a highly educated woman who is a
professor. It just shows that hospitals should have interpreters on staff to communicate
between someone who is deaf and hearing. Hopefully hospitals will see the need to have
staff interprets on sight, so this way if a D/deaf patient comes in they will have equal
access to communication.
Within the D/deaf community, there is a tremendous sense of pride, which really
helps unify and strengthen individuals in the group. These individuals do not see being
D/deaf as a disability; they just see deafness as part of their lives. When one sits down
and has a conversation with someone who is D/deaf, one realizes that these individuals
are just like everyone else (A, Bournazian, personal communication, April 2015). They
just communicate via sign language instead of through voice. Signing allows those who
are deaf to be just as successful as hearing individuals in the world. It is a good thing
when someone who is D/deaf realizes that the only thing different about the person is the
fact that one cannot hear while many around the person can; if a D/deaf person is
determined to stand up and advocate for themself, this individual will help the medical
community make great strides.
Integrated Practices of Promise and Conclusion
There are clear responses and solutions for the question of how to make sure
D/deaf and hard-of-hearing patients receive the same rights and proper treatment as
everyone else.

A strong possible solution for aiding D/deaf patients involves education in sign
language. If medical personnel learned how to sign a few words for a medical
appointment, it could help D/deaf patients when they initially come into a doctor’s office
or a hospital. For instance, receptionists should learn to sign phrases like, “Hi, what is
your name; who are you here to see; and what time is your appointment?” This could
make the process smoother for someone who is D/deaf. It is not only smoother but more
comfortable; it helps to build trust in a new relationship
Additionally, there needs to be comprehensive assessment of what areas can be
strengthened in hospital budgets in regards to the D/deaf community; one important area
of every budget which needs to be supported is interpreters. Every hospital should have
some sort of budget built in for ASL interpreters, so this way if someone who is D/deaf
goes to a hospital, one can receive proper communication. There are approximately 230
certified ASL interpreters in a 100-mile radius of northeastern Massachusetts; these
hospitals are very fortunate to be able to have such a large number of people who are
certified. (Although, of the 230 people in northeastern Massachusetts, not all of the
interpreters are able to interpret a medical appointment) However, this is not always the
case with some states, which is why it is hard to find interpreters for a medical
appointment in some areas. Interpreters are especially crucial for patients needing surgery
or medication; VRIs are not sufficient for this need. VRIs are not something that should
be used in medical appointments, but they can, however, be used for very short
conversations, such as checking in for an appointment or just seeing how one is feeling. It
should not be used if a doctor is explaining about medications or a surgery.

The reason there is such a crucial need for interpreters is because ASL is its own
language with its own grammar, such as phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics,
which one learns this when someone takes an ASL class. This is why hospitals should
have interpreters on staff. Interpreters have taken a number of classes in: ASL, Deaf
History and Culture, Deaf and Society, as well as classes to learn the correct way to
interpret. After a certain amount of time, interpreters are able to sit for a national
certification to show that they have sufficient understanding of the D/deaf community.
Once they pass the evaluation, then they are certificated interpreters, according to
information one gains from going to classes for becoming an interpreter (D. Cokley,
Personal communication, September 2014).
Once someone completes this process, it means one can be an interpreter;
however, it is important to realize that just because someone is certified, it does not mean
that person is qualified to be a medical interpreter. Having a qualified medical interpreter
on staff is not always easy; there might only be a certain number of qualified medical
interpreters in each state. Currently, according to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
(RID), there is not a medical interpreting certification according to the RID website
(http://www.rid.org). It is extremely important that hospitals have certified and qualified
ASL interpreters on staff in hospitals.
Finally, there is great hope that this research has helped others to see that D/deaf
and hard-of-hearing patients are being treated differently than hearing patients in hospital
settings. Although there are obvious strides to be made in regards to patient care for the
D/deaf community, many new steps are being taken around the nation towards the
attainment of equal rights for this group of people.

References:
Annas, G. (2003). HIPAA Regulations — A New Era Of Medical-Record Privacy? New
England Journal of Medicine, 1486-1490.
Barnett, S. (2002). Communication with Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People. Academic
Medicine, 77(7), 694-700.
Bauman, H. (2003). Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 239-246. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh025
Broida, B. (2005, February 1). Deaf patients sue hospital in Maryland over remote
interpreting. Legal Times of Washington, D.C.
BRUNK, D. (1999). Deaf Patients Pose. Financial Dilemma. Family Practice News.
Collins, M., Hawthorne, M., & El-Hmd, K. (2007). Cochlear implantation in a district
general hospital: Problems and complications in the first five years. The Journal
of Laryngology & Otology J. Laryngol. Otol., 111(04), 325-332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215100137235
Dipietro, L., Knight, C., & Sams, J. (1981). Health Care Delivery for Deaf Patients: The
Provider's Role. American Annals of the Deaf, 126(2), 106-112.
doi:10.1353/aad.2012.1505
Ebert, D., & Heckerling, P. (1999). Communication With Deaf Patients: Knowledge,
Beliefs, and Practices of Physicians. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 273(3), 227-229. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520270061032.
Hintermair, M. (2005). Ethics, Deafness, and New Medical Technologies. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(2), 184-192. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni018

Harmer, L. (1999). Health care delivery and deaf people: Practice, problems, and
recommendations for change. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(3),
73-110.
Hoang, L., LaHousse, S., Nakaji, M., & Sadler, G. (2010). Assessing Deaf Cultural
Competency Of Physicians And Medical Students. Journal of Cancer Education,
175-182. doi:10.1007/s13187-010-0144-4
Ikeya, J., Kawano, A., Nishiyama, N., Kawaguchi, S., Hagiwara, A., & Suzuki, M.
(2013). Long-term complications after cochlear implantation. Auris Nasus Larynx,
40(6), 525-529. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2013.04.012
K. McDaniels, A. (2015, September 13). Deaf patients say it can be difficult to
communicate at hospitals. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved November 2, 2015, from
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/maryland-health/bs-hs-sign-language-
hospital-20150913-story.html
Kehl, K., & Gartner, C. (n.d.). Can You Hear Me Now? The Experience of a Deaf Family
Member Surrounding the Death of Loved Ones. Journal of Pain and Symptom
Management, 24(1), 381-381. doi:10.1177/0269216309348180 pmj.sagepub.com
Kimmel, B. (1989). Providing Equal Access for Deaf Clients. JONA: The Journal of
Nursing Administration, 19(3).
Lotke, M. (1995). She Won't Look at Me. Annals of Internal Medicine Ann Intern Med,
54-54.
Mathews, J. L., Parkhill, A. L., Schlehofer, D. A., Starr, M. J., & Barnett, S. (2011).
Role-reversal exercise with deaf strong hospital to teach communication
competency and cultural awareness. American Journal of Pharmaceutical

Education, 75(3). Retrieved from:
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A355309369&v=2.1
&u=mlin_b_northest&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w&asid=2458ad41ef429e497990d0d
3c35eaec0
NIH Fact Sheets - Cochlear Implants. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2015, from
http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=83
Ohna, S. (2005). Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking. Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, 141-146.
Roberts, C., & Franklin, R. (1983). The Role of the Hearing-Impaired Patient. American
Annals of the Deaf, 128(3), 394-396. doi:10.1353/aad.1983.0003
Smeijers, A., Ens-Dokkum, M., Bogaerde, B., & Oudesluys-Murphy, A. (2011). Clinical
practice. European Journal of Pediatrics Eur J Pediatr, 1359-1363.
doi:10.1007/s00431-011-1530-6
Wagner, J. (2011). What Did You Say? Journal of Legal Medicine, 221-237. doi:
10.1080/01947648.2011.576632

Appendix A:
Survey
1) Where is your hospital located?
2) What services do you have for D/deaf and Hard Of Hearing Patients?
3) If you hospital have staff interprets, how many interpreters does your hospital
have?
4) How does your hospital work with the deaf community?
5) How many D/deaf or Hard of Hearing patients does your hospital see?

Appendix B
Vocabulary
Audism- “Audism: n. The notion that one is super- based on one’s ability to hear or
behave in the manner of one who hears” (Bauman, 2004, Pg. 240)
Deaf- A person who is audiology deaf with no or limited hearing ability and is considered
to be apart of the Deaf community
deaf- Someone who is audiology deaf with no or limited hearing ability, is not
considered to be apart of the community
D/deaf- both groups of people who are audiology deaf and someone who identifies to be
a part of the Deaf community
Hard of Hearing- someone who has limited but can still hear, hearing ability

Danielle----Sr final thesis paper EDDITED FINAL!!!!

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Danielle----Sr final thesis paper EDDITED FINAL!!!!

Similar to Danielle----Sr final thesis paper EDDITED FINAL!!!! (20)

Danielle----Sr final thesis paper EDDITED FINAL!!!!