I disagree that cochlear implants are viewed as a panacea. AG Bell, implant centers and professionals in the field always emphasize that families that pursue this option for children must be prepared for the work that follows to make full use of the technology. I don't understand why some deaf people feel that because individuals and families have pursued the cochlear implant option their choice somehow devalues others' choices for manual communication. If the individual's hearing characteristics are such that they derive minimal benefit from hearing aids and if the implant center determines that the child or adult is a good candidate for a cochlear implant, then AG Bell would urge consideration of an implant as an important opportunity to maximize development of listening and speaking skills. Cochlear implants have been shown to significantly improve a child's success with speech development and listening and hence provide them with access to the larger hearing world.
Cochlear implants provide access both to spoken language and to environmental sounds.
The NAD, too, advocates greater accessibility and a level playing field albeit in a slightly different sense. We do not place our emphasis with any one innovation, preferring instead to focus on utilization of the ever-growing array of technologies that are at our disposal, benefiting deaf and hearing alike. Increased hearing and speech capabilities do not necessarily determine successful interaction with the larger hearing world. Many do so with fewer impediments than deaf persons who communicate solely through oral means.