Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Learns To See Again After 40 Years Of Blindness

Posted by Hemos on from the relearn-it dept.

MonTemplar writes "BBC News Online reports the story of Mike May, from California, who lost one eye and was blinded in the other at the age of three after an accident. Now, doctors have been able to restore the sight to his remaining eye by transplanting corneal and limbal stem cells. The operation, and their subsequent work with Mr May to monitor his recovery, in an attempt to better understand how the brain learns to interpret the signals from the eyes, have been published in the journal Nature Neuroscience. Ironically, being able to see again has meant Mr May has had to re-learn some activities, such as skiing or crossing the road, where he had become proficient when blind."

5 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Similar Concept: by Momomoto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of a documentary that the CBC showed not too far back about Jens Naumann, who was blind due to two separate accidents but regained sight through the use of eyeglasses-mounted cameras. The image from the camera was then processed and routed to his visual cortex via cables.

    --
    "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
  2. Not surprising... by WildFire42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ironically, being able to see again has meant Mr May has had to re-learn some activities, such as skiing or crossing the road, where he had become proficient when blind."

    Interestingly, most blind people don't really consider blindness a "disability" per se, but simply a challengee to get used to. I've met countless people with various types of disabilities that really don't count them as "disabilities". For instance, I've spoken with the Deaf/Hard of Hearing who don't consider themselves "disabled", merely more of a "linguistic minority".

    The problems they run into are simply a lack of equal access that people without a disability (or a severe disability) take for granted. For instance, in that old building that has yet to be renovated, a person with full usage of their legs will have no issue getting up the stairs, but someone who requires the use of a wheelchair, or might be in crutches, or has to use a walker, etc., will find it impossible to get into that building.

    What most people forget, when responding to ADA laws, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, W3C WAI, etc., is that these principles of equal and timely access do not just help those with disabilities, but those without as well.

    For instance, trying to move a big cart full of computer equipment into that building? It sure would be easier with curbcuts, an elevator, and recessed door frames. Trying to access the web via that shiny new PDA you just bought? Too bad the site uses Flash navigation without a text equivalent... ad nauseum

    The fact that this disability was part of his life, means that it wasn't a roadblock for him, merely an alternate route. He simply did things a different way.

    1. Re:Not surprising... by Saganaga · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find the phenomenon of a "Deaf subculture" interesting. Today there are deaf parents with deaf children who are reluctant to have their children outfitted with cochlear implants (which provide rudimentary hearing) because, among other reasons, they are happy with their child being a member of the "deaf community" and fear that having them able to hear will change that.

      But why would parents not allow their child the chance to be able to hear when the chance is offered?

      As a personal example, I stutter. I also have a new daugther born two months ago. Now, say that when she gets older she also starts to stutter. Say also that a new technology or technique is developed that can cure stuttering. Would I even consider not allowing my daughter to have this cure? Even if the cure only worked for children (and so I couldn't use it myself), I would not even hesitate to have my child's disability taken away from her. Why is deafness any different? I think it's become different because deaf people have isolated themselves so much that they have become a subculture, and the idea of losing a child to the mainstream culture overcomes the natural instinct that parents have to give their children the best life possible.

      However, I realize that I may be way off base here. It would be especially interesting to hear from any deaf /.ers who have a personal experience with cochlear implants.

      See this position paper for more background material on a deaf parents' organization's position on cochlear implants.

  3. "Linguistic Minority" = Assholes by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is apparently a huge social taboo in the deaf culture to do anything to try and cure your deafness. An example is this woman who got fired for getting a cochlear implant. This is just fucking dumb. Can you imagine if all the people with amputated legs would hate you if you lost your leg and got a prosthesis?

    Another thing along the same lines, that I can't find with a quick Google, is babies. Apparently this genetically deaf couple decided to get a sperm and egg donation so that their baby would be able to hear. They got ostracized.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:"Linguistic Minority" = Assholes by WildFire42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is apparently a huge social taboo in the deaf culture to do anything to try and cure your deafness.

      I've heard of this, but I've never met anyone who has tried to "repair" hearing damage get this kind of treatment (perhaps because those that have tried have not been Deaf/Hard of Hearing for their entire life or a great part of it). I've also heard of such attitudes occuring in the other disability communities as well.

      I believe this negative attitude towards those that attempt to repair/replace their disabilities through such means stems from two different reasons:

      1. The likelihood that the procedure will fail, make the problem worse, or, in the case of the article above, subject the person to "re-learning how to live". They have lived a great deal of their life with this disability, and it has not hindered them at all, merely given them an alternate view of the world. To change this view, forces the person to change the way they do even simple matters, and can disrupt everything they do.

      2. The disabled community is very tight-knit. They have had to be in past, and many I know have called the last 15 to 20 years the Civil Rights movement for disabilities. Some of these people, can be a little extreme, granted. As I said in my previous post, most of the people in the disabled community don't consider themselves disabled, merely requiring alternate and equal access. When one of the members of their community attempts to remove their disability through surgery or other invasive medical means, it is as though that person is admitting defeat and admitting that they have a severe, crippling debilitation. An example, going back to the Civil Rights Movement analogy, would be a prominent African American pop-star taking on a progressively paler complexion to his skin over a few years (I won't name any names, but his initials are Michael Jackson).

      I would like to point out, that this is not my view, personally, but I'm sure I'll get flamed to hell for it. I understand where the community is coming from, and why they think the way they do. But I sure don't agree with it personally. I feel that if someone wishes to overcome their disability through such a means, then that is their wish, and it is their body to change as they please. If someone else doesn't agree to it, then they have a Constitutional right to that opinion.