a Deaf view on CI -- video

[Audiofuzzy]

So, you are saying that your own parents did not fulfill their responsibilities?

Oh no they did. I had a few years older brother who went to special school for the deaf and HoH for the whole duration (K-8).
With me, they chose to raise me in totally hearing and oral enviroment which at the time was a rational and better choice.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I did the research, Fuzzy. And I made an informed decision based on the research I did. I decided that it was not necessary to surgically alter my child in order to raise him to be happy, healthy, well adjusted, and well educated. And my assessment has held true for 21, almost 22, years now. My goal was to raise my son to be the best that he could be, and he has consistently made me very proud by never backing away from a challenge, never using his deafness as an excuse for not making an effort at excellence, for not doing anything he has ever decided he wanted to do. My goals have been realized, and my son is now in the processs of realizing all of his goals. My goal was not to make my deaf child hear, but to raise himto be the best he could be whether he was deaf or hearing. His deafness is incidental to the equation.

I can agree with that. I can agree that having hearing is not neccessary to be happy, successful individual (although I do believe it's always easier to be able to hear).
I am saying anyone who says it's for "the child to decide" later - is wrong.
Like I said- it's one thing to decide "yes" or "no" basing it on an informed decision, another to think it's "a personal choice".
It is NOT for the profoundly deaf little babies.

btw- congratulations on successfully raising your son.

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

Oh no they did. I had a few years older brother who went to special school for the deaf and HoH for the whole duration (K-8).
With me, they chose to raise me in totally hearing and oral enviroment which at the time was a rational and better choice.

Fuzzy

Why is it called a special school? Are u referring to a Deaf school? If so, nothing special about it..we use the exact same curriculm but deaf children's needs will get met as opposed to being in public schools where they give the minimal accodomations as they can get away with. I had no terp, no cART..nothing at my public school so my rights were denied.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Why is it called a special school? Are u referring to a Deaf school? If so, nothing special about it..we use the exact same curriculm but deaf children's needs will get met as opposed to being in public schools where they give the minimal accodomations as they can get away with. I had no terp, no cART..nothing at my public school so my rights were denied.

Well that particular one was for both deaf and HoH meaning they not only used and taught ASL but also taught oral communication. Not every school where I am from had that. (I think).

Fuzzy

ps - and hadn't had any special aide or any sort of help either, apart from the personal goodwill of the some teachers who tried to always stand in front of me so I could understand.
But even that was because I was a "privileged kid" - I received special treatment because my mom was a teacher herself, and due to her education and position - influential at that.

But whatever I achieved academically or professionally, I achieved solely on my own.

Fuzzy

 

[rick48]

Exactly. Implied in that statement is that I have done a disservice to my son by choosing to allow him to decide whether he feels that he will benefit from a CI.

Same old Jillio, always thinking it is about you and always turning virtually every discussion into an opportunity to tell us what a wonderful parent you consider yourself.

My post clearly states that I am referring to today's parents and not parents such as yourself who 20 years did not have the benefit of seeing the thousands of children for whom the cochlear implant has had such a tremendous impact upon their lives not the two decades worth of research
demosntrating the benefits of early implantation.

No, I would never find fault with you that you were not able to make the decision my wife and I were able to make.

 

[shel90]

Same old Jillio, always thinking it is about you and always turning virtually every discussion into an opportunity to tell us what a wonderful parent you consider yourself.

My post clearly states that I am referring to today's parents and not parents such as yourself who 20 years did not have the benefit of seeing the thousands of children for whom the cochlear implant has had such a tremendous impact upon their lives not the two decades worth of research
demosntrating the benefits of early implantation.

No, I would never find fault with you that you were not able to make the decision my wife and I were able to make.

There are still parents today that dont wish to implant their children but yet provide a rich linguistic environment for their children so means they are doing a disservice for their children? In my opinion, language and socio-emotional development takes precedence over one's ability to hear. Too often I have encountered parents who have implanted their children with the idea that the implant does the job alone and dont provide their children full access to language. Are those parents fullfilling their obligations?

 

[rick48]

There are still parents today that dont wish to implant their children but yet provide a rich linguistic environment for their children so means they are doing a disservice for their children? In my opinion, language and socio-emotional development takes precedence over one's ability to hear. Too often I have encountered parents who have implanted their children with the idea that the implant does the job alone and dont provide their children full access to language. Are those parents fullfilling their obligations?

What do you mean by "provide a rich linguistic environment"? Also, did these parents research the cochlear implant or just use the bogus "let the child decide" line?

Also what do you mean by "dont provide their children full access to language"?

 

[shel90]

What do you mean by "provide a rich linguistic environment"? Also, did these parents research the cochlear implant or just use the bogus "let the child decide" line?

Also what do you mean by "dont provide their children full access to language"?

means that they get their children implanted and expect their children to hear and speak overnight and when it hits them that they have to do hard work, they seem to cant handle it and the child ends up with little or no access to language.

provide a rich linguistic environment meaning ensuring the children get both spoken and sign languages leaving no chance for language delays if the CI should ever fail or the child should have trouble processing the sounds especially in the speech banana. Not every child processes sounds the same way. Also, reading to them, labeling their house with words, and taking them to different places.

I know u do that for your daughter but if the parents dont want to work with their children in language development, then at least put them in a signing environment at the educational setting so the children can get access to language. It is better than nothing. We just got 4 more new students referred from the public schools in the past 4 weeks and they are at least 2 years delayed in language..*sighs*

 

[jillio]

I said: "will never recover the time that was lost". And that is TRUE.

As for not fulfilling your reponsibilities: saying "let the child decide " is what it is, yes - it shows the lack of subject understanding. or researching this stuff altogether.
Because in the case of born severely-profound deaf baby there is only one choice - and it is for the parent to do. NEVER for the child.

If you researched early implanation well, and being fully aware of the implication of delaying implanting, of the fact that by withdrawing from early implantation you will also restrict optimal CI benefits - you decided it doesn't matter because in your opinion hearing is not needed to lead successful life, that's YOUR RATIONAL CHOICE, yes, which you unfortunately had to undertake on behalf of your young child.

But saying - yes I did research, and I left the choice to be made by a child later - it's baloney.
It's shows lack of understading why early implantation is most important, it's pushing over your parental resposibilityto an immature child, and lack of courage.
So if you, jillio say: "I left it to my son to decide about CI in 10, 15, 20 y. later" - no, you did not seem to fulfill your responsibility. And you are saying so if you say "the child will decide later for himself".



Fuzzy

Puleeze, Fuzzy. I weil puty my research skills up agianst yours any day of the week, as well as my ability to understand all of the issues involved. I do not concentrate on one facet alone, as do you. You are so focused on hearing that you seem to be unable to see the other issues involved. Hearing is only part of the equation. But you are focused only on the weakness,not the strength, and as a consequence, are missing that which is important. You ahve yet to explain to me how my son could be a better person, or have achieved more by simply being implanted with a CI. You cannot expalin it to me, because your focus is simply too narrow. You are so intent on making a deaf person hearing that you cannot see that there is more, much, much more, to a person than their ears. Again, when you have been able to achieve some of the same things that my son has achieved without a CI, you will have a foundation onw hich to base your judgemental attitude. As it stands, however, at this point in time, you do not have that foundation.

 

[jillio]

I can agree with that. I can agree that having hearing is not neccessary to be happy, successful individual (although I do believe it's always easier to be able to hear).
I am saying anyone who says it's for "the child to decide" later - is wrong.
Like I said- it's one thing to decide "yes" or "no" basing it on an informed decision, another to think it's "a personal choice".
It is NOT for the profoundly deaf little babies.

btw- congratulations on successfully raising your son.

Fuzzy

And how is it worng to say that it is for the child to decide. The child is the one who lives with the deafness.

And your congratulations are not necessary. As long as the result is a successful, happy child, then the goal has been realized. What other goal is there for a parent raisoing a child? Don't we all want, above all, for our children to become happy, successful, well adjusted adults? What does hearing have to do with that? When you add hearing into the the equation, you simply revert back to that ethnocentric, selfish position of not only wanting the same goal that every parent has for their child, but the selfish goal of wanting them to be just like you.

 

[jillio]

What do you mean by "provide a rich linguistic environment"? Also, did these parents research the cochlear implant or just use the bogus "let the child decide" line?

Also what do you mean by "dont provide their children full access to language"?

O fcourse you would not know what a lingusitically rich environment is rick, as by your own admission, you have never provided such.

 

[jillio]

What do you mean by "provide a rich linguistic environment"? Also, did these parents research the cochlear implant or just use the bogus "let the child decide" line?

Also what do you mean by "dont provide their children full access to language"?

And how, exactly, istletting the child decide bogus? Is it any more bogus than placing a CI on a child and refusing to provide all of the accommodations that would allow that child to function optimally? How is letting the child decide any more bogus than making the decision for the child based on your own ethnocentric perspective of what is best? How is letting the child decide any more bogus than restricting a child to what you, in your limited experience perceive as the best way to cope?

 

[jillio]

What do you mean by "provide a rich linguistic environment"? Also, did these parents research the cochlear implant or just use the bogus "let the child decide" line?

Also what do you mean by "dont provide their children full access to language"?

Not providing a child full access tolanguage refers to refusing to capitlaize ont hat child's strengths, and instead expectingthat they will use their weakest eensory mode and adapt to the manner of communication of those who do not possess the same deficit.

 

[jillio]

Oh no they did. I had a few years older brother who went to special school for the deaf and HoH for the whole duration (K-8).
With me, they chose to raise me in totally hearing and oral enviroment which at the time was a rational and better choice.

Fuzzy

So you are saying that your parents fulfilled their obligations as parents even thought they never learned to sign. And that because they based their decisions ont he indivual circumstances of you and your brother, they did fulfill their resposnibilities.

Well, I based my decision on the indiviual circumstances surroudnign my son. So how is it that I did not fulfill my parental obligations, Fuzzy? Please expalin your reasoning to me, because what you are sayingis completely contradictory.

 

[jillio]

Same old Jillio, always thinking it is about you and always turning virtually every discussion into an opportunity to tell us what a wonderful parent you consider yourself.

My post clearly states that I am referring to today's parents and not parents such as yourself who 20 years did not have the benefit of seeing the thousands of children for whom the cochlear implant has had such a tremendous impact upon their lives not the two decades worth of research
demosntrating the benefits of early implantation.

No, I would never find fault with you that you were not able to make the decision my wife and I were able to make.

What exactly do you mean, not able to make the same decision that you and your wife made? Please elaborate on what you mean by "able". And, while you are at it, perhaps you can explain a previous comment that you amde regarding parents who choose not to impalnt taking the "safe"way out.

 

[jillio]

I have a question here. Exactly who is the CI supposed to benefit? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that the CI was intended to benefit the deaf individual. If that is for whom the benefit is intended, then how is it that the very population for whom the benefit was intended has no right to speak their mind regarding the situation. How is it that a population that is relatively uninvolved in the intended benefit is more capable of assessing the benefit than the target population. In other words, if the CI was intended to benefit the deaf population, and the deaf population voices a disagreement, how is it that the hearing population feels the resposnibility to step in and tell the deaf population that they are incorrect in their assessment?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

O fcourse you would not know what a lingusitically rich environment is rick, as by your own admission, you have never provided such.

I don't think you can say that because you don't really know neither Rick nor his daughter and her achievements, that's one, and I can't help but notice how during the course of many discussions here you often make incorrect assumption about pple you disagree with - that's two.

So you can not say anything about what kind of linguistic enviroment has Rick provided for his daughter. What's more, addressing pple the way you adrress some you don't even invite them to any personal info exchange.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

So you are saying that your parents fulfilled their obligations as parents even thought they never learned to sign. And that because they based their decisions ont he indivual circumstances of you and your brother, they did fulfill their resposnibilities.

Well, I based my decision on the indiviual circumstances surroudnign my son. So how is it that I did not fulfill my parental obligations, Fuzzy? Please expalin your reasoning to me, because what you are sayingis completely contradictory.

It's simply- MY parents did the best they could in the circumstances. Any parent of deaf born child who claims "it's personal choice" and washes his hands off making this difficult decision for the baby shows ignorance on the subject and lack of parental responsibility.

I am sorry but apart form Rick's earlier link even the link about Rachel and Melissa clearly shows how early implantation is vital in obtaining the best possible results from CI.
You CAN NOT leave such a decision to the child, simply because they lack maturity for such decisions.
So, if you left "the decision" for your son to make it later - not good....


Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

And how, exactly, istletting the child decide bogus? Is it any more bogus than placing a CI on a child and refusing to provide all of the accommodations that would allow that child to function optimally? How is letting the child decide any more bogus than making the decision for the child based on your own ethnocentric perspective of what is best? How is letting the child decide any more bogus than restricting a child to what you, in your limited experience perceive as the best way to cope?

It is bogus because the child, and especially a baby, lacks maturity for such decision and in the undisputable light that early implantation matters hugely because of the "window of opportunity" - what else do you need to see how bogus it is?


And we are not talking about everything at once - "accommodations, enviroment etc" - these are separate subjects that can be calmly discussed at other time, right now we are talking about why "letting the child decide" is bogus. Because "window of opportunity" is very short, that's why.

btw "lack of accommodations" and "single enviroment" - this can be neglected regardless of when the child was implanted. Even if it happend by child's own choice, these things can be neglected. So, it doesn't matter.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I have a question here. Exactly who is the CI supposed to benefit? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that the CI was intended to benefit the deaf individual. If that is for whom the benefit is intended, then how is it that the very population for whom the benefit was intended has no right to speak their mind regarding the situation. How is it that a population that is relatively uninvolved in the intended benefit is more capable of assessing the benefit than the target population. In other words, if the CI was intended to benefit the deaf population, and the deaf population voices a disagreement, how is it that the hearing population feels the resposnibility to step in and tell the deaf population that they are incorrect in their assessment?

Exactly - the CI is supposed to benefit the deaf person, and you can not dispute the fact that the best benefits are obtained by early implantation.
Never assume that early implantation equals excluding deaf ways and ASL. It should be both.



Fuzzy