EVIDENCE of being deaf with Hearing Aid device

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cloggy said:
And THAT is child-abuse... withholding the possibility of hearing from a child just because it has never heared. That's huge discrimination!!


WTF?! , I have never heard in my entire life that holding a child a chance to not to be able to hear is consider child abuse?! You are way over point on your statement above, It's very disturbed. :(

You think a deaf child would not even have an opportunity of joy as being deaf? What do you know, Cloggy? You've never been deaf yourself to begin with. There is no law that requires every deaf child to recieve a CI, So therefore it does not consider child abuse. It was your choice, your decision to implanted your daughter, desperately want your daugther to hear. Is it wrong for other parents not to choose the same path as you did? Of course not!, it should be a matter of choice. I'm not against CI, But You know where I stand, I support the right of deaf people to make the informed choices for themselves, if they want CI, or not.

And please do not feed off wrong information and try to make the world who have deaf children should be needed to have the children implanted. Just remember not every single deaf child are candidates for CI. Maybe they rather their deaf child be who they are, since the day they were born, instead of "fix me" to be hearing.

Hearing is not require to have, to enter the society. So knock it off with the non-sense about "child abuse".
 
Bear said:
R2D2,

Your misunderstanding my post, it was in reply to someone here saying that deaf cant do these types of jobs. I was just showing that yes there is a way. Cause I was there and did it lol.

But I do understand where you are coming from and yes I do realize they demand good communication skills. My question to THEM that demand this is, since when is writing not a form of communication?

Bear

Hi Bear,

I realise it was in reply to someone else and I agree with you that there are ways around things if in a perfect world people were very flexible.

My point was that in reality the hearing world is not very flexible. I recall in previous posts about claiming SSDI that you have said that you have had spells out of work, which I assume is reflective of the lack of willingness of the hearing world to be flexible in the work place that we all share as deaf people.

That was all. I agree it's not about not being able to do the jobs!
 
gnulinuxman said:
Still not my point. Try again.

Errr it becomes a game then. If you don't really care to clarify what you mean then it's all the same to me. This forum is an opportunity to exchange viewpoints and it is up to each person to clarify what they mean if they feel misunderstood.

From your post 844 you are somewhat concerned about hearing people's perceptions of deaf people if perchance they are seen as "normal" (whatever that is) with a device. So I'm assuming that you are thinking that expectations then will be unrealistic and that somehow if you can't hear then they aren't going to expect the same things.

It's up to you if you want to elaborate on that or clarify. Perhaps providing some examples might also help.
 
R2D2 said:
It's up to you if you want to elaborate on that or clarify. Perhaps providing some examples might also help.
OK, fair enough.

Boss sees 5 job candidates but can only hire 3 of them. 1 is hearing, 2 are deaf with a CI, and 2 are deaf but unable to use their voice. They are all equally qualified to do the job. Boss thinks CI is a cure for deafness. The implantees DON'T think the CI is a cure but are unaware of the boss's beliefs about the CI. Boss also believes deaf people can't do the job even though deaf people can do it. So who is Boss going to hire? The hearing person and the 2 CIers?
 
gnulinuxman said:
OK, fair enough.

Boss sees 5 job candidates but can only hire 3 of them. 1 is hearing, 2 are deaf with a CI, and 2 are deaf but unable to use their voice. They are all equally qualified to do the job. Boss thinks CI is a cure for deafness. The implantees DON'T think the CI is a cure but are unaware of the boss's beliefs about the CI. Boss also believes deaf people can't do the job even though deaf people can do it. So who is Boss going to hire? The hearing person and the 2 CIers?

Okay... thanks for providing an example. That does help clarify what you are talking about. Basically you are highlighting a misconception that a hearing boss may or may not have. I don't have a CI yet so I don't have any experiences in this area. But I can think of just one example when I've interviewed and the potential boss thought that because I could wear hearing aids (back then) that I could use the telephone. This was because he had hired a deaf person previously who could use the phone with his hearing aids so I did have to clarify that in the interview.

I can't say that I've met anyone yet in my circle of hearing friends/acquaintances who thought having a CI was a cure for deafness. I think this maybe because the external parts of a CI look similar to a hearing aid. However when technology moves on and they develop completely implantable CIs then this might be more likely.
 
BTW Gnu since you suggested the boss is going to hire a hearie and two deaf pple with CI, you just proved it is better to be deaf with CI than without... ain't it?


Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
BTW Gnu since you suggested the boss is going to hire a hearie and two deaf pple with CI, you just proved it is better to be deaf with CI than without... ain't it?

^^ Clueless. ^^ :roll:
 
R2D2 said:
Okay... thanks for providing an example. That does help clarify what you are talking about. Basically you are highlighting a misconception that a hearing boss may or may not have. I don't have a CI yet so I don't have any experiences in this area. But I can think of just one example when I've interviewed and the potential boss thought that because I could wear hearing aids (back then) that I could use the telephone. This was because he had hired a deaf person previously who could use the phone with his hearing aids so I did have to clarify that in the interview.

I can't say that I've met anyone yet in my circle of hearing friends/acquaintances who thought having a CI was a cure for deafness. I think this maybe because the external parts of a CI look similar to a hearing aid. However when technology moves on and they develop completely implantable CIs then this might be more likely.
I've seen this misconception by hearing people when dealing with hearing aids and cochlear implants, not one or the other. A scary number of hearing people seems to think that hearing aids and cochlear implants are perfect.
 
Clueless is you. I wrote "BTW". as in - oh, since you mentioned boss, job, deaf and CI...

I've seen this misconception by hearing people when dealing with hearing aids and cochlear implants, not one or the other. A scary number of hearing people seems to think that hearing aids and cochlear implants are perfect

You are preaching to the choir.
Hello, two HAs here..???


Fuzzy .
 
gnulinuxman said:
I've seen this misconception by hearing people when dealing with hearing aids and cochlear implants, not one or the other. A scary number of hearing people seems to think that hearing aids and cochlear implants are perfect.

As a life time wearer of hearing aids I'm afraid I can't agree with you. I definitely notice a difference in the way I am treated compared to my hearing peers generally whether it was at school or in the workplace. As a matter of fact it is a blessing - it's a great way of sifting out which hearing people are genuine and which ones are wasting your time :)
 
R2D2 said:
As a life time wearer of hearing aids I'm afraid I can't agree with you. I definitely notice a difference in the way I am treated compared to my hearing peers generally whether it was at school or in the workplace. As a matter of fact it is a blessing - it's a great way of sifting out which hearing people are genuine and which ones are wasting your time :)
You're lucky because my fiancee and I have to keep re-explaining to some hearing people who won't get it. The only way some of them understand she's deaf is if we're signing to each other. Then they try to figure out if one of us is hearing, especially if my sweetheart wears her hair down and it covers her hearing aid.
 
Cheri said:
WTF?! , I have never heard in my entire life that holding a child a chance to not to be able to hear is consider child abuse?! You are way over point on your statement above, It's very disturbed. :(

You think a deaf child would not even have an opportunity of joy as being deaf? What do you know, Cloggy? You've never been deaf yourself to begin with. There is no law that requires every deaf child to recieve a CI, So therefore it does not consider child abuse. It was your choice, your decision to implanted your daughter, desperately want your daugther to hear. Is it wrong for other parents not to choose the same path as you did? Of course not!, it should be a matter of choice. I'm not against CI, But You know where I stand, I support the right of deaf people to make the informed choices for themselves, if they want CI, or not.

And please do not feed off wrong information and try to make the world who have deaf children should be needed to have the children implanted. Just remember not every single deaf child are candidates for CI. Maybe they rather their deaf child be who they are, since the day they were born, instead of "fix me" to be hearing.

Hearing is not require to have, to enter the society. So knock it off with the non-sense about "child abuse".
You have realised I wrote this in reply to Sweeties post, or are you just reacting on my post..
 
Cheri,

Just to set the record straight... have you read my post. Link to it is here.
I agree with you. I know where you stand, you totally misinterpreted my statement.
To get back on track, here's a peace-offer..
Rose.jpg


---------------------------------------------
My remark was regarding Sourminds statement that:
Sourmind said:
CI is for latened deaf people. PERIOD!

That is discriminating and for deaf children that want to hear with CI, that's Child-abuse..

Perhaps I should have said:
Sweetmind: "CI is for latened deaf people."
And THAT is child-abuse... withholding the possibility of hearing from a deaf child just because it has never heared. That's huge discrimination!![/
 
Last edited:
gnulinuxman said:
I've seen this misconception by hearing people when dealing with hearing aids and cochlear implants, not one or the other. A scary number of hearing people seems to think that hearing aids and cochlear implants are perfect.


If very few hearing people are even "clear" on what a CI/HA is... then this misconception comes from where exactly? Please do not suggest to me that these people have read one article.

gnulinuxman said:
You're lucky because my fiancee and I have to keep re-explaining to some hearing people who won't get it. The only way some of them understand she's deaf is if we're signing to each other. Then they try to figure out if one of us is hearing, especially if my sweetheart wears her hair down and it covers her hearing aid.

If you are re-explaining to some hearing people.... maybe there is more in life that they "just won't get".

You have to decide what to do....your scenario seems very similiar to here.....
 
Cloggy, no matter what you say, telling someone that not implanting deaf children is "child-abuse" is extremely rude. Since when is it child abuse to let a kid be who and what they are when it's not THAT important? Seriously, I can understand glasses, wheelchairs, fake legs, etc. because those I would view as more high-priority. But you don't need to be hearing to be a success in the world.
 
loml said:
Just what are you thinking?? :dunno:
You seem to be arguing against a valid form of communication, writing, because some hearing people hate it. Most hearing people I've met are willing to write back and forth with deaf people. Heck, if my fiancee was unable to lipread, I would have been MORE than willing to write back and forth with her. (She's the one who taught me ASL.)
 
So off base....

loml
I agree that writing is communication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loml
Just what are you thinking??

gnulinuxman
You seem to be arguing against a valid form of communication, writing, because some hearing people hate it

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.... :dunno:

I did say people are not patient, people are not patient in many aspects of life.
 
:whistle: :whistle:

It is one thing to allow a person to choose to use an auditory device, but i see that it is unfair to decide for any individual to have a surgery that changes their physical properties. Once a person is mature enough to decide to have a CI surgically implanted, the decision should be made. To have a parent/guardian etc.choose this for a child is ridiculous. Why should it be ok to force a person into a surgery that they may rely on for their entire life.

Once a child has become accustomed to these devices it is something that they expect to have for the rest of their life. If the device fails or does not continue to work in the same way for their entire life, then they no longer can use what they have been expected to rely on. This is totally unfair to any child or adult. If they have the choice to decide whether to use an auditory device or not then they can make that decision for themselves. It is wrong to force anyone to depend on something when naturally they are not going to have that. Children cannot make that decision. They should have the choice to decide on adapting their physical properties on their own. This should not take place unless they have been fully educated on ALL of the possibilities...positive and negative.

If a child relies on the auditory device and then it suddenly isn’t working anymore, then it is something that they have no choice but to have taken from them. These surgeries are not inexpensive. It takes money to maintain these devices and not all people are able to keep up with this. What happens when a child decides that they do not want to utilize this technology?

It is wrong to force a person to rely on something each day, when naturally they may be better off without a device being implanted into their bodies. Insurance does not cover a CI removal. If a person chooses that route then more power to them,but it is not an issue that should be decided by a person that will not have to live with it. The person that is getting a surgery of this type or any other surgery should be allowed to choose for themselves. It is something that will have impact, whether positive or negative, a person for the rest of their life.

By forcing an individual into a life altering procedure it is the same as saying you are not “good” enough the way that you were born. You must change physically for you to be accepted by the real world. Is this really the impression we want to make on deaf children.

It is a huge put down to deaf childrens true identity. People must have a choice, it is only fair! We should appreciate the differences in all people. If we were all the same, then the world would be a very boring place.

Therefore we have the right to maintain the status we were born with...people need to learn to accept that. Any adaptation that needs to be made should be made within the faultfinders, not the children. Acceptance is KEY! Need I say more?


"Tell the mothers I said, "Don't try to change your child; you are the adult, you bear the burden of change" - Harlan Lane Thats what it needs to get through your head.


Seeing as how there are more cons than pros to getting a CI, ( as such stated in other topics), It is more responsible to NOT implant a child. You dont need to hear to be alive. And if a d/Deaf child is not good enough for you then you need to reconsider your morals and prejudices. Like it, love it, or leave it alone.

Thank you! :nono: :nono: :nono:
Sweetmind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top