A Cure

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
The bolded part is exactly what CI's and other advancements are trying to avoid. One of the major goals of oral education combined with AV therapy and technology is the automaticity of spoken language.
Click to expand...

The Deaf already have their own language why try to change it?
 
BecLak said:
FJ, I said in my previous post, that I read the article and comprehended everything just fine. I know what all these procedures are and do. Stop talking as if I don't know what I am talking about, I'm not stupid.

Brain training is brain therapy. It is the 'therapy' that is a repeat of history, whether it be oral, brain, or whatever.

Electrical stimulation is unnatural interference whichever way you want to look at it.

As for the EEG's that is still testing, guinea-pig material.
Click to expand...

I never spoke in a disrespectful way, and I certainly never implied or stated that you were stupid.

So, you are against all therapy and testing, including routine audiological testing (ABR's)?
 
faire_jour said:
I never spoke in a disrespectful way, and I certainly never implied or stated that you were stupid.

So, you are against all therapy and testing, including routine audiological testing (ABR's)?
Click to expand...

If hearing tests were continued on a constant basis then yes, I would deem even hearing tests unnecessary. Unless you are someone that has no other life other than in hospitals and clinics. I say take time to smell the flowers.
 
The "project" at Sunnybrook/Toronto will be testing how my brain is reacting to sound measuring "brain waves" using with my Implant. About 3 hours of time. I also participated in the "Ears validation study"-how one perceives speech sounds with the new Implant.How ones identify words in isolation and in simples sentences. It also tested for the ability to identify syllables, stress in sentences, vowels and consonants.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
 
BecLak said:
If hearing tests were continued on a constant basis then yes, I would deem even hearing tests unnecessary. Unless you are someone that has no other life other than in hospitals and clinics. I say take time to smell the flowers.
Click to expand...

No one is recommending constant testing, but an ABR (the diagnostic test for a hearing loss) involves electrodes and measuring brainwaves, two things you object to as "guinea pig"
 
BecLak said:
If hearing tests were continued on a constant basis then yes, I would deem even hearing tests unnecessary. Unless you are someone that has no other life other than in hospitals and clinics. I say take time to smell the flowers.
Click to expand...

Huh?

You do realize in order to apply for disability tax credits, or to receive interpreters at post-secondary, a lot of them do need a recent hearing test within three to five years. Sometimes even more frequent depending on the service you are apply for.
 
Last week I had the standard hearing test in Hear USA for new hearing aids. Tomorrow afternoon I will get another test in the otology/neurotology department of a hospital. I have no idea what that will entail, but I will find out. No biggie I guess.
 
Bottesini said:
Are you really getting your brain waves tested?
Click to expand...

You know...

Mom always mixed up ABR with PET. So when she told people the PET scans were inconsistent, they looked at me like there was something mentally wrong with me. I didn't find out until two months ago that what she meant was ABR, not PET. Geez, life would had been easier if she didn't screw up the terminology.
 
souggy said:
You know...

Mom always mixed up ABR with PET. So when she told people the PET scans were inconsistent, they looked at me like there was something mentally wrong with me. I didn't find out until two months ago that what she meant was ABR, not PET. Geez, life would had been easier if she didn't screw up the terminology.
Click to expand...

:lol: :hmm: :laugh2:
 
I just wanted to address two points that a few posters made. One, there is this common misconception that hearing parents of deaf children think the cochlear implant is a cure for deafness. I have never met any parent of a child with a cochlear implant who ever thought that. It makes no sense whatsoever. We know our children are deaf and will always be deaf. What the implant has done is to give our children access to sounds that they never would have been able to access without their cochlear implants and it has made their life easier. I read what Beclak writes and it is similar to others that I have read and heard before but those experiences have not been our children's experiences. My daughter has never felt tired or worn out from speaking or listening. Quite frankly and no disrespect to what she and others have experienced but it has been different for many of our kids and when we say this it is not to diminish or disrespect those experiences but to point out that being raised profoundly deaf, oral and without an implant is different from being raised deaf, oral and with an implant.

The other point someone made is that when first introduced, cochlear implants were marketed as a cure for deafness. As someone whose child was one of the first kids implanted and who was active in ensuring the rights of children to have access to cochlear implants, I can tell you that we spoke to many in the field and no one ever said or even implied that it was a cure for deafness. It just did not happen. In fact, our experience was just the opposite as our cochlear implant team at NYU downplayed what we could expect. Never were we told that it would cure deafness.

As an aside this weekend is an annual get away weekend for us and three other sets of hearing parents with cochlear implanted kids. Between us there are 6 ci kids, now young adults, 4 in college and two in grad school. They have all known each other all their lives.
Rick
 
I think the "cure for deafness" comes to ignorance and not understanding. Here's an example: when I was a teenager, CIs first came out. It was written up in various newspaper articles. People (friends of my parents) started cutting out the articles and forked them over to my parents, and said, "Here. This'll cure your child (me)." They didn't understand. So I get where some here are coming from in saying that it was marketed as a cure, because it was what it was seen at by many. Not all, mind you.
 
AlleyCat said:
I think the "cure for deafness" comes to ignorance and not understanding. Here's an example: when I was a teenager, CIs first came out. It was written up in various newspaper articles. People (friends of my parents) started cutting out the articles and forked them over to my parents, and said, "Here. This'll cure your child (me)." They didn't understand. So I get where some here are coming from in saying that it was marketed as a cure, because it was what it was seen at by many. Not all, mind you.
Click to expand...

But no one who is actually involved with or familiar with cochlear implants.
 
rick48 said:
I just wanted to address two points that a few posters made. One, there is this common misconception that hearing parents of deaf children think the cochlear implant is a cure for deafness. I have never met any parent of a child with a cochlear implant who ever thought that. It makes no sense whatsoever. We know our children are deaf and will always be deaf. What the implant has done is to give our children access to sounds that they never would have been able to access without their cochlear implants and it has made their life easier. I read what Beclak writes and it is similar to others that I have read and heard before but those experiences have not been our children's experiences. My daughter has never felt tired or worn out from speaking or listening. Quite frankly and no disrespect to what she and others have experienced but it has been different for many of our kids and when we say this it is not to diminish or disrespect those experiences but to point out that being raised profoundly deaf, oral and without an implant is different from being raised deaf, oral and with an implant.

The other point someone made is that when first introduced, cochlear implants were marketed as a cure for deafness. As someone whose child was one of the first kids implanted and who was active in ensuring the rights of children to have access to cochlear implants, I can tell you that we spoke to many in the field and no one ever said or even implied that it was a cure for deafness. It just did not happen. In fact, our experience was just the opposite as our cochlear implant team at NYU downplayed what we could expect. Never were we told that it would cure deafness.

As an aside this weekend is an annual get away weekend for us and three other sets of hearing parents with cochlear implanted kids. Between us there are 6 ci kids, now young adults, 4 in college and two in grad school. They have all known each other all their lives.
Rick
Click to expand...

Have a wonderful weekend!

:gpost:
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
I think the "cure for deafness" comes to ignorance and not understanding. Here's an example: when I was a teenager, CIs first came out. It was written up in various newspaper articles. People (friends of my parents) started cutting out the articles and forked them over to my parents, and said, "Here. This'll cure your child (me)." They didn't understand. So I get where some here are coming from in saying that it was marketed as a cure, because it was what it was seen at by many. Not all, mind you.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing it praised as "cure" in a small town newspaper in 2005! They were trying to do a fundraiser for a four-years old girl.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted



I remember seeing it praised as "cure" in a small town newspaper in 2005! They were trying to do a fundraiser for a four-years old girl.
Click to expand...

I am pretty certain Miss Delectable occasionally posts an article of that type still.
 
faire_jour said:
But no one who is actually involved with or familiar with cochlear implants.
Click to expand...

And that is what I said. Rick was saying "The other point someone made is that when first introduced, cochlear implants were marketed as a cure for deafness." It is how my parents' friends saw it as well, and passed that onto my parents.
 
AlleyCat said:
I think the "cure for deafness" comes to ignorance and not understanding. Here's an example: when I was a teenager, CIs first came out. It was written up in various newspaper articles. People (friends of my parents) started cutting out the articles and forked them over to my parents, and said, "Here. This'll cure your child (me)." They didn't understand. So I get where some here are coming from in saying that it was marketed as a cure, because it was what it was seen at by many. Not all, mind you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree that very often in the mainstream media it is portrayed as a cure and/or a miracle but as FJ points out that is not coming from either parents or professionals involved with cochlear implants and that is a big difference.
Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top