Sir, - I am rather deaf. At least, my hearing is seriously impaired.
My hearing was normal as I grew up and reached well into adulthood, but a point came when I found some difficulty in hearing the ticking of my watch, since when there has been progressive deterioration. I have been examined by many hearing specialists - doctors, consultants, audiologists - and have availed of technological advances in hearing aids.
It is, of course, a condition that raises difficult obstacles in the conduct of modern life. The ringing of the telephone induces anxiety as to whether I will be able to identify who is there and what he is talking about. To listen to the radio or television requires a volume level that seems to distress other people. Public announcements in airports, railway stations, on trains, aircraft, etc. go entirely over my head. Social contact is best limited to a quiet room with not more than one other person present. Otherwise it is a complete sham in which I tire myself out in the effort to nod, shake my head, smile, look serious and laugh aloud at appropriate points in the "conversation". I have had to get used to the puzzled looks generated by my attempts to interpose an intelligent word or word.
Of course, I don't like the situation I am in. I believe that I would choose normal hearing over many hundreds of thousands of pounds, if that choice were presented to me. Still, I was reasonably resigned, until I began to read to read about all those people who are being awarded large sums from the public purse because their hearing is impaired. Such a windfall might be some compensation for my misfortune.
The problem is that I fired a gun only once in my life, when I aimed a .22 at a rabbit. The only shell fire that I have ever heard was in war films, in the days when I used to go to the cinema. I enjoy music, although not as well as before, but I have never played in a band. Still, we live in a noisy world, so surely one of those solicitors could suggest something on which I could hang a claim.
No one can say that the standard of proof is an onerous one. In disbursing public funds, judges do not demand any real proof that A did cause B. All that needs to be proved is that A occurred. Expert evidence gives A as one of the possible causes of B, and the claimant says that B occurred, verified with an audiogram. I've had numerous audiograms, so I know how easy it would be to pretend that one's threshold of hearing is worse than it is. It is the patient who indicates whether or not he can hear the sound being played in his ear. He has only to deny hearing it unless it is really loud. I have never heard of an audiogram being administered under oath.
So, couldn't I get a few thousand to console me for my affliction, which, after all, is going to get worse? - Yours, etc., Frank Farrell,
Lakelands Close, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.