Also during this week, we discussed image manipulation through programs such as Photoshop and other older methods that were used prior to computers. We saw the "Top 10 Doctored Pictures" which really opened up my eyes to what the media portrays to us. I know that models and many images used to sell products to consumers are altered, but I didn't think that political or war pictures would be. Ethically, I think that pictures taken to inform the public of what is going on in other countries or in the real world should not be altered. Images that are used as propaganda and are altered to portray something different than reality is wrong. Although I don't think it is right, I am not as bothered by the manipulation of images of models or other images used for entertainment or sale. I do feel that these changes of models to make them more "beautiful" and slender gives children the wrong message, especially little girls. I feel that we need to show our youth that who they are is absolutely enough and they don't have to live up to the images of very slender models.
One day, I hope to have my own practice as an audiologist. I envision decorating my office with images to provide a more stimulating and pleasurable environment for my clients. It is also guaranteed that these images are going to be manipulated photos or artwork. Personally, I do not see myself creating my own images or using Photoshop much as an audiologist. I will most likely pay a graphic designer to help me with my company's images and as long as it is for entertainment purposes and one's perception of the real world is not altered, I do not mind.
I found an article that discusses the controversy of image manipulation. It is an article written by Vikas Malhotra that is posted on thejavajive.com. I feel that this article provides a good discussion of the controversy and explains image manipulation prior to the computer.
This week we spoke about copyright laws, plagiarism and the ethics behind it all. Copyright laws and the copyright symbol are seen very often and we think we know about them. Up until this week I had a poor representation of what copyright truly is. I didn't realize that it was put in place to protect the author of the original work and that it extends to literacy, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other published and unpublished works (www.copyright.gov). Under copyright laws, ideas and non-tangible work is not covered but they are covered in plagiarism. Plagiarism is stealing or passing off the ideas or words of another as their own (plagiarism.org). Ethics come into play because we must educate children and students that it is ethically wrong to commit fraud by using someone else's work and claiming it as your own. I feel that I intuitively know this, but I was most likely educated about it as a young age. Not all students have this opportunity so I feel that this is a subject that must be expanded upon in the school system.
This video is a bit long but it will bring you on a roller coaster ride of emotions and will provide you with one of the many opinions of a Deaf individual in regards to altering the auditory status of a child. The man in this video is talking about making his hearing child deaf. This story is meant to parody to the cochlear implant controversy over whether or not if is the parents' choice to give their child a cochlear implant to make their deaf child hearing. This is a booming technology that is continually improving. This topic causes great controversy in the Deaf world among those with hearing loss and their families (hearing or not). Many people that are Deaf feel that implanting a child before they can make that decision on their own is abuse. My position wavers frequently when I think about my stance on it but in the end, I feel that it is the decision of the child's family and although at times the audiologist may disagree, it is not their child to make the decision for.
The terms "copyright" and "audiology" don't seem to confront each other very often. However, I can see possible issues when administering common tests or sharing information to students and clients. In several classes, I have been exposed to several methods that audiologists or speech language pathologists have created for their clients. This includes questionnaires that they create administer, games that they have created, written materials they provide their clients, etc. My teachers always give credit where credit is due, though. Ethically, an audiologist should not take credit for a test or material made by someone else. When observing in audiologists' offices, I have noticed that they share information with their colleagues and borrow great and useful items from each other. This is important because it allows one audiologist to allow another audiologist a more efficient and effective method of doing something. I have always seen these audiologists give background to their patients by saying, "A great audiologist named _____ told me that if you turn the music on this level.....etc". Just like any other field, it is important that we not take credit for other people, direct people to the correct sources to receive information, and share but protect anything that we create so others cannot benefit without the creator also benefiting.
