See, it does happen.

Status
Not open for further replies.
SkullChick

SkullChick

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
939
Reaction score
0
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
 
Yes indeedy. Unless a kid has auditory nereopathy, I don't think that a kid should be early implanted. It really is too difficult to tell how well a kid is using hearing aids, without a booth test.
It's kinda sad that they are being pushed for implantation, even thou the kid can hear somewhat with aids. In ambigious cases, I really do think that the choice should be made by both the parent and the kid.
 
Oh and I'm glad to see an implantee speaking up about being cautious about implanting kids. See.......it's not just us "radicals"
 
Yes and I really do believe it might happening. I have some residual hearing. Thanks God I didn't have CI for fear of losing any of my residual hearing eventho I'm old enough to have it but nahhhh. haha

SkullChick said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
Click to expand...
 
SkullChick said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
Click to expand...

Hi Skullchick,

I had a look at the blog but couldn't find the bit that said that his hearing had recovered. She said he has a 80-85db loss unaided but you are saying this has spontaneously improved?

If I remember rightly, all children have trials with hearing aids for about 6 months or so before they go down the CI route to see if they benefit. They seem to be doing this in this case with encouraging results :)
 
deafdyke said:
Yes indeedy. Unless a kid has auditory nereopathy, I don't think that a kid should be early implanted. It really is too difficult to tell how well a kid is using hearing aids, without a booth test.
Click to expand...

Deafdyke,

There was a medical journal not so long ago about a handful of children who appeared to have been born "deaf" and then spontaneously improved their hearing within about their first two years of life. They all had auditory neuropathy so you might want to be a bit more cautious about recommending that children with this condition be early implanted.
 
SkullChick said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, the liked post has nothing to do with "recovering hearing". The mother is simply pointing out that hearing aids are allowing the child to hear much better than without aids, and that since there is no indication that they can amplify to get within the "speech banana", that a CI might be a good option for this child.
 
Drew's Dad said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the liked post has nothing to do with "recovering hearing". The mother is simply pointing out that hearing aids are allowing the child to hear much better than without aids, and that since there is no indication that they can amplify to get within the "speech banana", that a CI might be a good option for this child.
Click to expand...

I see Christian's mommy in alot of the blogs I visit. I hope all of you took the time to read the whole blog. She post alot of interesting things, I saw Christian sign ball in a utube.
 
SkullChick said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, skullchick. Yes, it does happen. Even a child too young for responsive testing can be thought to be in the severe to profound ranges when they aren't actually. They simply have not learned to use their residual hearing yet, and they don't have an understanding of actually responding to limited sound.
 
jillio said:
Thanks for that link, skullchick. Yes, it does happen. Even a child too young for responsive testing can be thought to be in the severe to profound ranges when they aren't actually. They simply have not learned to use their residual hearing yet, and they don't have an understanding of actually responding to limited sound.
Click to expand...
I-Agree1.gif
I think the child should wait it off first until they know for sure how much resident hearing that the child has, before getting a cochlear implant, that's just my opinion.
 
Oh I wasn't aware of that R2D2. That's very interesting. Is there any way they can tell whether or not the hearing will improve?
 
jillio said:
Thanks for that link, skullchick. Yes, it does happen. Even a child too young for responsive testing can be thought to be in the severe to profound ranges when they aren't actually. They simply have not learned to use their residual hearing yet, and they don't have an understanding of actually responding to limited sound.
Click to expand...

I think this thread has confused people. The little boy's unaided loss according to the blog is still 80-85db and hasn't changed (unless you can see a part of the blog that I've missed). This hearing loss places him in the severe to profound range.
 
R2D2 said:
I think this thread has confused people. The little boy's unaided loss according to the blog is still 80-85db and hasn't changed (unless you can see a part of the blog that I've missed). This hearing loss places him in the severe to profound range.
Click to expand...

Without his aids, he hears in the 85db-80db range. Today in the booth he had CONSISTENT responses in the 45-40db level. That puts his hearing loss in the moderate range aided. No kidding. We knew he was hearing alot more than we thought

See where it says without hearing aids, He was hears 85b-80b range.
 
Cheri said:
See where it says without hearing aids, He was hears 85b-80b range.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. It doesn't say anything about his hearing coming back, it just discusses how his aids are allowing him to hear things softer than a lawnmower right beside his ear.
 
Drew's Dad said:
I don't understand. It doesn't say anything about his hearing coming back, it just discusses how his aids are allowing him to hear things softer than a lawnmower right beside his ear.
Click to expand...

And it is still obvious that this child is receiving benefit from HA. He tests out at moderate ranges aided. He tests out in the severe to profound ranges unaided. He is speaking, according to the parent's report. Likewise, it does not give his exact age (important for responsive testing), nor does it say how long he has been aided. Why the quickness of recommendation for CI, when the child is receiving benefit from HAs?

The criteria of "no benefit from hearing aids" is completely being ignored here.
 
Cheri said:
Without his aids, he hears in the 85db-80db range. Today in the booth he had CONSISTENT responses in the 45-40db level. That puts his hearing loss in the moderate range aided. No kidding. We knew he was hearing alot more than we thought

See where it says without hearing aids, He was hears 85b-80b range.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we can't say that because a person can hear at 40-45db with hearing aids that they are not severe - profoundly deaf anymore. Our classification of deafness is based upon unaided conditions regardless of how well we do with devices. This is what I'm objecting to. I'm not saying you have said this but a couple of people in the thread appear to have said this.

The thread seemed to imply that his actual unaided hearing has been recovered but what is happening is that he is simply responding to his hearing aids. Since just about all children who get CIs first have trials with hearing aids (insurance companies need to be satisfied that everything was tried) I'm just wondering what was done differently with this child compared to others? We don't even know whether he'll qualify for a CI, as his current benefit with hearing aids will certainly come under consideration at the CI centre.
 
Why the quickness of recommendation for CI, when the child is receiving benefit from HAs?

The criteria of "no benefit from hearing aids" is completely being ignored here.
Click to expand...
Oh, and while this might not be what SkullChick thought at first..........it's still proof that the LATEST TECHNOLOGY gadget fever has taken the severe-profound world by storm. Like I've repeatly said, there's nothing wrong with implanting a kid who has VERY little benifit from aids.....but it's cases like these that really reinforce my belief that there are some people out there who are just shopping for the latest trendy hearing gadget!
 
deafdyke said:
Oh, and while this might not be what SkullChick thought at first..........it's still proof that the LATEST TECHNOLOGY gadget fever has taken the severe-profound world by storm. Like I've repeatly said, there's nothing wrong with implanting a kid who has VERY little benifit from aids.....but it's cases like these that really reinforce my belief that there are some people out there who are just shopping for the latest trendy hearing gadget!
Click to expand...

What parts of the blog made you think the mother only wants the latest, trendy gadget? She seems pretty happy with the hearing aids for now.
 
deafdyke said:
it's cases like these that really reinforce my belief that there are some people out there who are just shopping for the latest trendy hearing gadget!
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that if this child receives a CI it will have nothing to do with the desire to get a trendy gadget for everyone to stare at, and everything to do with a desire to help the child hear all of the speech frequencies clearly.
 
Drew's Dad said:
I'm willing to bet that if this child receives a CI it will have nothing to do with the desire to get a trendy gadget for everyone to stare at, and everything to do with a desire to help the child hear all of the speech frequencies clearly.
Click to expand...

I think you are exactly right!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top