If CIs didnt involve surgery...

shel90

shel90

Love Makes the World Go Round
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
45,078
Reaction score
335
If they didnt, I would try them...I have serious issues when it comes to surgery so that's why I refuse to try them. I think surgery is such a big big decision. I read in another AD member post how that those who havent tried CIs dont know what we are missing. Well, I acknowledge that..I am sure with my strong audiological background, I would benefit from them BIG time but I just cant do it...if they came in like regular HAs, I would go for them in a min but to put a device in my head..I just cant..I guess maybe the need to hear is not worth all the trouble for me right now but maybe later I will change my mind..who kows what the future brings.. I just wonder if there was no surgery involved, would it be a lot less controversial as it now? I think it wouldnt be as a big deal if there was no cutting involved...what do u think?
 
I'm sure a lot of people would be much happier with CIs with no surgery involved :rockon: but unfortunately it's necessary, since it's the only way to bypass the middle ear where there is hair cell damage.

It's obviously a very personal thing and in your case you had a bad reaction to surgery once. You're also fortunate enough to work in an environment where signing is used extensively and where the hearing people would have good deaf awareness skills. So there isn't the need or the desire in your case.

I think it also comes down to the fact that many of us that go for CIs love to hear things too. Different interests, I suppose.
 
I agree with alot of what R2D2 has to say and think it would be AWESOME if CIs didn't involve surgery. :)

In my case, I spent the past 11 years using tactile interpreters and alternative communication techniques for the deafblind that it was becoming more of a challege for ME to keep up with my hearing peers.

In addition, I experienced two frightening incidents which strongly led me to consider CIs. One of these incidents involved my being locked inside a building because I didn't hear people leave.

The second incident involved my mother who was terminally ill with cancer. I had to call for medical help and when the paramedics arrived, I had no idea what they were doing to my mother because I couldn't see or hear what was going on. After that experience, I *knew* I had to do something about my hearing.

Shel, I completely understand your reasons for not persuing a CI. I also appreciate how open-minded and respectful you've been towards those of us who have opted for CIs. :)
 
This thread is not really about me not getting a CI..it is more of the question if the CI didnt involve surgery, would it be less controversial especially CIs on children?
 
Yes, I would love to try CI if it doesn't involve surgery.
 
shel90 said:
If they didnt, I would try them...I have serious issues when it comes to surgery so that's why I refuse to try them. I think surgery is such a big big decision. I read in another AD member post how that those who havent tried CIs dont know what we are missing. Well, I acknowledge that..I am sure with my strong audiological background, I would benefit from them BIG time but I just cant do it...if they came in like regular HAs, I would go for them in a min but to put a device in my head..I just cant..I guess maybe the need to hear is not worth all the trouble for me right now but maybe later I will change my mind..who kows what the future brings.. I just wonder if there was no surgery involved, would it be a lot less controversial as it now? I think it wouldnt be as a big deal if there was no cutting involved...what do u think?
Click to expand...

Hmm, was that me shel? I know I made some type of statement like that. And it is the truth, if you don't have one you really cannot know how much better the are as compared to a HA...which dd does all the time. THey aren't the same at all. Of course results will vary but most will benefit. Some will benefit more, that has a number of reasons some as critical as the audiologist who programs the device and others more complicated like the ablity of the brain to adapt to the sound.

I did not make the decision lightly and I doubt anyone else who goes through the process does either. :) Would it be less controverial if no cutting was involved? I kinda doubt it since HA's lit a firestorm back when they were first being pushed. :)
 
jag said:
Hmm, was that me shel? I know I made some type of statement like that. And it is the truth, if you don't have one you really cannot know how much better the are as compared to a HA...which dd does all the time. THey aren't the same at all. Of course results will vary but most will benefit. Some will benefit more, that has a number of reasons some as critical as the audiologist who programs the device and others more complicated like the ablity of the brain to adapt to the sound.

I did not make the decision lightly and I doubt anyone else who goes through the process does either. :) Would it be less controverial if no cutting was involved? I kinda doubt it since HA's lit a firestorm back when they were first being pushed. :)
Click to expand...

I dont know if that was u or not. I never really remember who said this or that..just remember the comments themselves if they made an impression. :)
 
If you are near or far sighted, would you not get glasses?

I guess if one could get a CI without surgery, what would be at risk so why choose not to. I would think it would be much like glasses. "where do I sign so I can see clearly again with glasses or hear noises with a ????"

I guess you would also have to re-think the term Cochlear Implant since it would not be implanted. Would it be called an CFI, Cochlear Frequency Immulator or an ANNI Auditory Nerve Noise Impersonator. Just wondering. You could come up with all sorts of names.

I'm not trying to poke any fun here, I'm not sure I get the point of the post. If there is no surgery, wouldn't that be a Hearing Aid if the hair fibers work or a Bone Conductive aid to bypass the middle ear. I would think it would be just another alternative. If a "cochlear" type implant device could be used instead of the others, it would be one stop shopping. It would also eliminate the "broken" part that is not working since it would be bypassing directly to the nerve.
 
If I were so inclined to get a CI, the surgical procedure itself wouldn't stop me.
 
Yea, It would be much easier if it wasn't involves surgery because, what if there's a disappointing result that I could not hear as much? I don't want to waste my time going under a knife without knowing it'll be a positive results because it depends on each individuals, cochlear implant isn't for everyone. I've heard both pro and cons, so it's like being struggling in the middle about yourself.

The more I thought about it the more I know life isn't about hearing music, hearing sounds. Life is about living in it and enjoying it while it lasted. ;)
 
That's true, Cheri but my answer/post answered the very narrow question and that was the surgery itself....which is only the beginning of this journey. That's when it can get complicated....
 
shel90 said:
This thread is not really about me not getting a CI..it is more of the question if the CI didnt involve surgery, would it be less controversial especially CIs on children?
Click to expand...

My POV is that it would be much less controversial, because then it could be likened to HA. And the child can choose to remove HA later in life if that's what they want for themselves.
 
Tousi said:
That's true, Cheri but my answer/post answered the very narrow question and that was the surgery itself....which is only the beginning of this journey. That's when it can get complicated....
Click to expand...

Good point. The surgery is over and done with in a short time in comparison with the potential impact of a CI on one's life (either positive or negative depending on your point of view).
 
jillio said:
My POV is that it would be much less controversial, because then it could be likened to HA. And the child can choose to remove HA later in life if that's what they want for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of people have a visualisation that there is a machine whirring away, trapped inside our heads. The reality is that I can't tell any difference when not wearing a HA vs. not wearing the external processor.
 
R2D2 said:
I think that a lot of people have a visualisation that there is a machine whirring away, trapped inside our heads. The reality is that I can't tell any difference when not wearing a HA vs. not wearing the external processor.
Click to expand...

But, with CI there is the reality of a foreign object, whether you are aware of it or not.
 
jillio said:
But, with CI there is the reality of a foreign object, whether you are aware of it or not.
Click to expand...

and it's trapped inside the head. Hearing aids don't trapped on ears, we can take them off any time we want, but not the electronic device.
 
Cheri said:
and it's trapped inside the head. Hearing aids don't trapped on ears, we can take them off any time we want, but not the electronic device.
Click to expand...

But why would you want to remove it if it's not causing pain, discomfort or a lack of quality in your life? Is it more a psychological/symbolic thing for you?

I have a friend who chose to turn off his CI after a year (he got implanted as an adult and had never heard sound before that). And he is quite happy. He has no need or desire to remove the internal part of the CI from inside his head. It doesn't impact on him.

Would you also decline other surgeries that involve foreign objects e.g. hip replacement, screws for broken bones etc for the same reasons?
 
As long as the implant is in the body, there are other medical considerations. Like, antibiotics prior to dental procedures. With that comes the risk of developing an allergic reaction to the antibiotic from repeated doses, for example.
 
jillio said:
As long as the implant is in the body, there are other medical considerations. Like, antibiotics prior to dental procedures. With that comes the risk of developing an allergic reaction to the antibiotic from repeated doses, for example.
Click to expand...

I think you have read Devbaby's post where she stated that her dentist made a query to her ENT surgeon as to whether an antibiotic is necessary or not.

Unless you have any other information, I would not read into this to say that we cannot have antibiotics.

There is no study or concrete information that I am aware of where this has been established as a problem.
 
R2D2 said:
I think you have read Devbaby's post where she stated that her dentist made a query to her ENT surgeon as to whether an antibiotic is necessary or not.

Unless you have any other information, I would not read into this to say that we cannot have antibiotics.

There is no study or concrete information that I am aware of where this has been established as a problem.
Click to expand...

No, actually, I did not read that post. I am basing my information of the fact that my deceased husband was a dentist, and I worked chairside with him for 17 years before his death. It was protocol to prescribe penicillin 24 hours before and 48 hours after any dental procedure for anyone with any form of implant, be it hip relpacement, knee replacement, ot whatever. There is an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis for these patients.

I did not say you could not have antibiotics. I said, that as long as the implant is in the body, the need for prophylactic antibiotic treatment prior to any invasive procedure, or any procedure which opens the tissue, will still be there. And with each dose of antibiotics, you run an elevated risk of developing an allergic reaction to that particular antibiotic.
 
Back
Top