The scale of the issue is evident when one considers that many deaf children receive insufficient language input in the first years of life, placing them at risk of language deprivation across a spectrum from mild to severe. This risk is particularly pronounced among children of hearing parents - who constitute the majority - who are often guided toward spoken-language-only approaches centered on cochlear implantation (CI), with limited or delayed access to sign language.

The spoken and written language environment of the special schools for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, which is difficult for deaf children to access, has developed even further into a language-deprived environment due to the absence of many DGS-competent children who are now taught in mainstream schools, with the corresponding adverse effects on cognitive-social development.

This means that Language Deprivation Syndrome (LDS) is a permanent, socially induced, life-altering cognitive disability that rarely occurs in hearing people but, according to Gulati (2019), has reached epidemic proportions in the deaf population since the end of the 20th century. The medical treatment method of CI implantation, which is often characterized by a lack of appreciation for sign language, as well as the acceptance of practices on deaf children that violate all rules of medical ethics, have led to a catastrophic development in children born deaf that is irreversible in the long term in adulthood (Hecht, 2020).

Society is not yet aware of how important a first language (L1) is for cognitive development and that a pronounced lack of language in children in the first years of life leads to neuronal dysfunction of the brain and, thus, to a cognitive disability.

Like currently spoken languages, sign languages stimulate complete natural language acquisition and related cognitive brain development (Hall et al., 2017; Mayberry et al., 2011; Mayberry & Kluender, 2017; Schick et al., 2007). Although Sign Languages do not exist in written form (apart from transcription systems), early sign language exposure has improved literacy to a written L2 language based on a spoken language, especially in CI-implanted children (Davidson et al., 2014). This is because the brains of deaf children who receive sign language stimulation start generating semantic concepts. They need to acquire L2 literacy skills.

Literacy is highly valued in our society, and extremely important for our education system, so non-written sign languages are seen as inferior. Many teachers still regard them as a kind of auxiliary or support system. However, the genius of a writing system is not the alphabetization of spoken language but the fixation of knowledge through an external medium. This gives languages more standardization and enables society to store and remember information and knowledge on a large scale.

Given the enormous attention paid to achieving correct reading and writing skills over the last century, it is now time to reflect on the importance that certain aspects of these skills will have in the future. Semantically correct decoding of written messages will always be necessary. However, when it comes to the correct grammatical encoding of messages, deaf people can benefit enormously from AI's developing writing, translation, and formulation tools.

In fact, insufficient or no language input triggers a socio-culturally induced neuronal developmental disorder (Hall et al., 2017), which can be described as a form of 'neuronal' physical injury and results in a cognitive disability. This violates endangering the child’s welfare3 and can be considered a risk to the child's welfare4 (Löffelholz, 2017).

When a psychological test used in a duty of care context does not meet the psychometric standards of objectivity, fairness, reliability, and validity, several significant legal and ethical consequences can arise. Inaccurate test results can lead to incorrect diagnoses, causing inappropriate or harmful treatment plans, and the lack of fairness can result in biased outcomes, leading to discrimination against deaf communities. Deaf children who are negatively affected by the test results may sue for damages or discrimination because their rights are violated. Institutions or professionals who rely on unsound tests risk damaging their reputation and credibility.

Test procedures with spoken language instructions and test items should not be used with deaf children who cannot auditorily process spoken language test content. If the test procedure is used, this could violate the child's rights. Audiologists and educators who diagnose in their institutions should know the latter.

Diagnoses such as 'learning disability' or 'intellectual disability' cannot be made for deaf children based on psychological test procedures that require hearing and understanding spoken language test instructions. The application of such procedures to deaf children not only is an infringement of their rights but also creates a psychological stress situation that can be overwhelming for young children and even traumatizing if they are repeatedly confronted with such a stressful situation at short intervals.

Diagnoses such as 'learning disability' or 'intellectual disability' cannot be made for deaf children based on psychological test procedures that require hearing and understanding spoken language test instructions. The application of such procedures to deaf children not only is an infringement of their rights but also creates a psychological stress situation that can be overwhelming for young children and even traumatizing if they are repeatedly confronted with such a stressful situation at short intervals.

Given the time that has already elapsed in which the child has missed an extensive amount of language input and neural stimulation, a sufficiently intensive and continuous sign language offer through a suitable package of measures appears to be urgently needed. This would at least allow the child to find a linguistic connection and build up semantically coherent language competence in an L1.

Current practice shows that an application for home signing courses is often associated with months or years of application and legal proceedings on the part of the parents. Although the legal situation is clear, adverse decisions are sent out due to individual decisions by inadequately trained case workers.g ist, werden aufgrund von Einzelfallentscheidungen ungenügend geschulter Sachbearbeiter negative Bescheide verschickt.

Making sign language learning compulsory by law will ensure that the fate of deaf children is no longer left to chance and in the hands of hearing staff, but that society takes care and responsibility for protecting them from language deprivation and neuronal socially induced physical injury. This will contribute to the protection of their fundamental human rights and ensure that they do not suffer cognitive impairment due to social influences.

Due to the urgency of preventing epidemic socially induced intellectual disabilities due to language deprivation in childhood, the legal obligation should be enforced promptly, or existing laws should be amended accordingly to draw the attention of legislators to the issue and create political pressure for change.