You cannot hear with CI .. ??

Cloggy

Cloggy

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,703
Reaction score
0
I have said many times.. "My daughter is deaf. She can hear." since for me "to hear" means "to perceive sound"... and she does that....

One of the arguments in the CI debate is the "With a CI you are still deaf since whatever you hear is not the same as normal hearing." It's artificial...

Artificial....

So in order to live, your hearts needs to beat....
Someone with a pacemaker is actually dead... since this heart beats due to a device. It's "artificial".
And this heart beating is not the same as our hearts beating....

So....

With a CI you cannot hear....
With a pace-maker you are dead....

There must be an error in this reasoning somewhere.......
 
Even getting a Cochlear implant the person is still deaf. That is how I see it. When the CI comes off, battery dies, or breaks, the users have no hearing so they are still deaf people, right?

There was one thread posted from Miss Delectable about a deaf child whose CIs got stolen when robbers broke into the home and he couldnt get new ones for a long time. The parents had no other way of communicating with him since they used the oral only approach. At his school, he was unable to communicate since they didnt use sign language, I believe and according to the parents, the boy became withdrawn and gosh..what was the word..something about a shell. The boy is obviously not hearing because he has CIs, right?

I dont know about here in AD but I have encountered people who think with the CI the children are 100% hearing and not deaf anymore. I dont know why that misconception is out there.

Others may see it differently.
 
shel90 said:
Even getting a Cochlear implant the person is still deaf. That is how I see it. When the CI comes off, battery dies, or breaks, the users have no hearing so they are still deaf people, right? ...
Click to expand...

Well. CI breaks......... you stop hearing...
Pacemaker breaks....... you stop living...

As I said... my daughter is deaf, she can hear.
 
Cloggy said:
Well. CI breaks..... you become deaf.... you stop hearing...
Pacemaker breaks... you become dead.... you stop living...

As I said... my daughter is deaf, she can hear.
Click to expand...

Ok..got your point. Makes sense. :)
 
My friend told me about it. He has CI for 15 years now. He was hearing then he became deaf at age 50 so I trust him with his words what CI is all about. He knows what sounds alike. In his word (he is very honest man and strong Christian who spread good words so I believe his words on CI)CI and hear the sounds are not same. He still need interpter and still miss alot. My sister was hoh and no one knew she had hearing problem till she got it tested at school, she was failing in her class till she got operation. She was shocked how big different those sounds she missed while she was young and after operation. Okay your daughter is still deaf to me, that is my IHMO even she has CI which it is wonderful gift for her but she will never be a hearing alike u or anyone else period. She is still part of us even she has CI so is everyone else who has CI.

Have a good life.
 
jazzy said:
My friend told me about it. He has CI for 15 years now. He was hearing then he became deaf at age 50 so I trust him with his words what CI is all about. He knows what sounds alike. In his word (he is very honest man and strong Christian who spread good words so I believe his words on CI)CI and hear the sounds are not same. He still need interpter and still miss alot. My sister was hoh and no one knew she had hearing problem till she got it tested at school, she was failing in her class till she got operation. She was shocked how big different those sounds she missed while she was young and after operation. Okay your daughter is still deaf to me, that is my IHMO even she has CI which it is wonderful gift for her but she will never be a hearing alike u or anyone else period. She is still part of us even she has CI so is everyone else who has CI.

Have a good life.
Click to expand...
First... testimony of "Good Christians" and credentials as "Spreading the word" doesn't mean much... Too many examples to the contrairy....
But I'll take your word for it.. You have never lied to me..

I have never said she hears like I do. I'm just saying she's deaf. And she can hear.
There's no need to hear like I do. When I say a word, she can repeat the exact word.. That means she can hear it, and reproduce it without problems...

BTW.... I like the "...She is still part of us even she has CI so is everyone else who has CI..."... I never knew there was us and them...
Actually... I doubt that she is like you..
 
Cloggy said:
As I said... my daughter is deaf, she can hear.
Click to expand...

I think it's a language barrier here. People interpret what you've said elsewhere as "my daughter is [a] hearing [person]". I think many people would agree with the statement, "my daughter can hear, but is not hearing".
 
ismi said:
I think it's a language barrier here. People interpret what you've said elsewhere as "my daughter is [a] hearing [person]". I think many people would agree with the statement, "my daughter can hear, but is not hearing".
Click to expand...

That is a possibility...
 
ismi said:
I think it's a language barrier here. People interpret what you've said elsewhere as "my daughter is [a] hearing [person]". I think many people would agree with the statement, "my daughter can hear, but is not hearing".
Click to expand...

I didn't think that way...

if I want to expand on his sentence it would be like this;

"my daughter is hearing sounds"

"my daughter is hearing musics"

"my daughter is hearing the sound of voices"

etc etc...

he hasn't implied that his daughter is hearing person yet.
Just that he said that she is a deaf person that can hear (with ci).
 
Cloggy said:
I have said many times.. "My daughter is deaf. She can hear." since for me "to hear" means "to perceive sound"... and she does that....

One of the arguments in the CI debate is the "With a CI you are still deaf since whatever you hear is not the same as normal hearing." It's artificial...

Artificial....

So in order to live, your hearts needs to beat....
Someone with a pacemaker is actually dead... since this heart beats due to a device. It's "artificial".
And this heart beating is not the same as our hearts beating....

So....


With a CI you cannot hear....
With a pace-maker you are dead....

There must be an error in this reasoning somewhere.......
Click to expand...

Yes, there is an error. A pacemaker does not force a heart to beat, it regulates the heartbeat. A more apt comparison would be that a pacemaker is an assistive devise that helps to maintain consistency in functioning that is not possible naturally.

A CI as well is an assistive devise that permits functioning that is not possible naturally. It does not provide that which is not already present from a biological or physical standpoint--it helps with compensation.

A failure in a pacemaking devise does not always result in lost cardiac function, just a change in cardiac function.

A failure in CI does result in a loss of auditory function--one doesn't suffer a reduction in the sound they perceive, but a loss of sound perception.

Nor do cardiac patients suffer from the same issues deaf individuals do as a result of the malfunction of a biological function. The social implications are simply not present for the cardiac patient.

You are grasping at straws here, Cloggy!
 
And to add, in the same spirit as a deaf child with a CI is still deaf--an individual with a pacemaker still has heart disease. CI doesn't cure deafness, pacemaker doesn't cure heart disease. Cardiac patients must continue to change lifestyle and take their meds--pacemaker is treatment, CI is treatment in that the CI child still must function with their deafness.
 
Boult said:
I didn't think that way...

if I want to expand on his sentence it would be like this;

"my daughter is hearing sounds"

"my daughter is hearing musics"

"my daughter is hearing the sound of voices"

etc etc...

he hasn't implied that his daughter is hearing person yet.
Just that he said that she is a deaf person that can hear (with ci).
Click to expand...

I agree, and that's what I think he means. But I think those people that are disagreeing with him are interpreting it the other way. (Hence, my suggestion that it's the language barrier at play here.)
 
ismi said:
I think it's a language barrier here. People interpret what you've said elsewhere as "my daughter is [a] hearing [person]". I think many people would agree with the statement, "my daughter can hear, but is not hearing".
Click to expand...
How would people read that. They would jump to a conclusion.
The sentense starts with "My deaughter is deaf".... no confusion.

I see what you're getting at, and in a way, that's my point.
I have often asked a definition of "hearing" and never got a straight answer on this or any other site.

I guess, "Hearing" used to be the opposite of "Deaf". This is no longer the case.... my daughter proves it...
 
jillio said:
And to add, in the same spirit as a deaf child with a CI is still deaf--an individual with a pacemaker still has heart disease. CI doesn't cure deafness, pacemaker doesn't cure heart disease. Cardiac patients must continue to change lifestyle and take their meds--pacemaker is treatment, CI is treatment in that the CI child still must function with their deafness.
Click to expand...

Exacly !!!!
"CI doesn't cure deafness" - you can hear, "..."
"pacemaker doesn't cure heart disease" ... you live !!
 
Cloggy said:
Exacly !!!!
"CI doesn't cure deafness" - you can hear, "..."
"pacemaker doesn't cure heart disease" ... you live !!
Click to expand...

You still don't get it, Cloggy. A pacemaker doesn't artificially induce the heartbeat, it simply regulates it. A CI, in the other hand, is a surgical procedure that artificially creates sound perception. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and it is increasingly obvious that you are reaching for any argumemnt you can dream up to give yourself credence and validation. Like I said before, pacemaker malfunction--patient still lives. CI malfunction--person can't hear! Pacemaker malfunction only creates a situation in which the cardiac rhythm becomes irregular. CI failure doesn't mean irregular sound perception--it means deaf. And, by the way, do you personally equate deafness with some form of metaphorical death?
 
jillio said:
You still don't get it, Cloggy. A pacemaker doesn't artificially induce the heartbeat, it simply regulates it. A CI, in the other hand, is a surgical procedure that artificially creates sound perception. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and it is increasingly obvious that you are reaching for any argumemnt you can dream up to give yourself credence and validation. Like I said before, pacemaker malfunction--patient still lives. CI malfunction--person can't hear! Pacemaker malfunction only creates a situation in which the cardiac rhythm becomes irregular. CI failure doesn't mean irregular sound perception--it means deaf. And, by the way, do you personally equate deafness with some form of metaphorical death?
Click to expand...


Ohhh that stings!!!

I was thinking that people with pacemakers dont have to go thru different educational approaches to test which ones work or dont work. I was conjuring images of people with pacemakers going to Pacemaker schools or Heart Schools. I am being silly. Not intended to insult anyone but that was the image that came in my head.
 
From my perception alot of the debate is semantics. Empathy from both sides would go a long way here.

From what I have read Cloggy has always said his daughter is deaf. (unless I have missed something). And yes his daughter can hear. No it's not natural hearing (obviously) but it seems from his posts that it is useful hearing. There are many that get a CI and don't benefit from it. That doesn't mean thay can't hear using it but it means the hearing is not useful. Perhaps they just hear noise that is not distinguishable. Hearing is to perceive or apprehend by the ear. Hearing is the ability to gain knowledge by hearing. Hearing is to have the capacity of apprehending sound. If I can hear noise but not be able to distinguish anything, am I really hearing? Technically speaking the answer is yes but if you hold true to the definition of hearing then the answer is no.

I don't believe that Cloggy doesn't think is daughter is deaf. He knows she is. She is a deaf little girl that is able to hear (useful hearing) with her CI. She can associate with the sounds of her environment, she is able to speak and understand speach and my guess is that her learning pace and ability to aquire language is increased as a result.

Lets not argue over semantics. It's counterproductive.
 
shel90 said:
Ohhh that stings!!!

I was thinking that people with pacemakers dont have to go thru different educational approaches to test which ones work or dont work. I was conjuring images of people with pacemakers going to Pacemaker schools or Heart Schools. I am being silly. Not intended to insult anyone but that was the image that came in my head.
Click to expand...

:bowlol:
 
rockdrummer said:
From my perception alot of the debate is semantics. Empathy from both sides would go a long way here.

From what I have read Cloggy has always said his daughter is deaf. (unless I have missed something). And yes his daughter can hear. No it's not natural hearing (obviously) but it seems from his posts that it is useful hearing. There are many that get a CI and don't benefit from it. That doesn't mean thay can't hear using it but it means the hearing is not useful. Perhaps they just hear noise that is not distinguishable. Hearing is to perceive or apprehend by the ear. Hearing is the ability to gain knowledge by hearing. Hearing is to have the capacity of apprehending sound. If I can hear noise but not be able to distinguish anything, am I really hearing? Technically speaking the answer is yes but if you hold true to the definition of hearing then the answer is no.

I don't believe that Cloggy doesn't think is daughter is deaf. He knows she is. She is a deaf little girl that is able to hear (useful hearing) with her CI. She can associate with the sounds of her environment, she is able to speak and understand speach and my guess is that her learning pace and ability to aquire language is increased as a result.

Lets not argue over semantics. It's counterproductive.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in spirit, rockdrummer. But semantics are important here because when a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child sees, "My kid has a CI and is now hearing" it is interpreted from what hearing is perceived to be from a hearing perspective. Very few parents early on are well informed about the difference between sound perception and discrimination. Audis tend to concentrate on dB levels and Hz. We know that, while these measurements tell us something, they are far from the whole picture. I not only have a deaf son, but work with deaf students on a daily basis. In particular, I have one student who has had a CI since the 6th grade. He will say, "I can hear with my CI." Having said that I have had to argue with professors who tell me, "He says he can hear. Why does he need a notetaker or terp?" Yes, that student "hears", but what he is able to discriminate is much less than what a hearing person does. That kind of misunderstanding does a great disservice to deaf students. They are perceived as asking for accommodations that aren't really necessary, of trying to take advantage of their hearing loss, and in the cases where Disability Services doesn't have anyone on staff that is knowledgeable about deafness, students are going without services. All based on a misperception of what the word "hearing" means. So semantics does come into play, and I personally believe that we need to be very specific in defining these terms to prevent such miscommunication and the fostering of unrealistic expectations.:)
 
jillio said:
I agree with you in spirit, rockdrummer. But semantics are important here because when a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child sees, "My kid has a CI and is now hearing" it is interpreted from what hearing is perceived to be from a hearing perspective. Very few parents early on are well informed about the difference between sound perception and discrimination. Audis tend to concentrate on dB levels and Hz. We know that, while these measurements tell us something, they are far from the whole picture. I not only have a deaf son, but work with deaf students on a daily basis. In particular, I have one student who has had a CI since the 6th grade. He will say, "I can hear with my CI." Having said that I have had to argue with professors who tell me, "He says he can hear. Why does he need a notetaker or terp?" Yes, that student "hears", but what he is able to discriminate is much less than what a hearing person does. That kind of misunderstanding does a great disservice to deaf students. They are perceived as asking for accommodations that aren't really necessary, of trying to take advantage of their hearing loss, and in the cases where Disability Services doesn't have anyone on staff that is knowledgeable about deafness, students are going without services. All based on a misperception of what the word "hearing" means. So semantics does come into play, and I personally believe that we need to be very specific in defining these terms to prevent such miscommunication and the fostering of unrealistic expectations.:)
Click to expand...

:gpost:

I told everyone that I could hear with my HAs so my teachers took it as a sign that they could ramble on with lectures and walk around the room while rambling. I was completely lost but yea, I could "hear" their voices. It sounded like " ohip fbiaaal fipsrufg beetaaa du du du oook."
 
Back
Top