a Deaf view on CI -- video

[Audiofuzzy]

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?

Please try to remember that CI is supposed to benefit the deaf child itself, not anyone else. Parents who implant their children and leave it at that are not fulfilling their obligations either, and obviously didn't do proper research, also.

Fuzzy

 

[vallee]

I have a question here. Exactly who is the CI supposed to benefit?

It benefits me, a deaf person.

 

[jillio]

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

Rick has already informed the members of this board that he implanted his daughter, and kept her in an oral only environment both academically and at home. He, nor his wife e3ver used any form of visual communication, nor was his daughter provided with any form of visual support in an academic environment. He has also stated that she received "some" speech therapy following implantation. That is hardly a linguistically rich environment.

And, for you to tell me that I cannot make an assessment based on the information that has been provided is ridiculas, Fuzzy. That is exactly what you are doing when you tell me that I have not fulfilled my parental responsibilities toward my own child because I decided not to implant him as a child. How is it that it is perfectly alright for you to pass judgement on someone regarding their parenting and their moral obligation and the fulfillment of such to thier child, but it is not acceptable when the tables have been turned? You are a hypocrite, Fuzzy.

 

[jillio]

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

And the research also shows, and has shown for any number of years, that the highest achieving deaf students are those that are exposed to both sign and speech in then home and the academic environment. This research has continued to be replicated in students who are now using CI. In light of that, any parent who ignores the obvious, and refuses to expose their child to an environment that includes both speech ans sign shows ignorance on the subject and creates circumstances that prevent thier child from living to their full potential.

A parent's responsibility is to provide an environment that allows for the proper intellectual, emotional, and social development of the child. A parent's responsibility is to assist their child in reaching adulthood in a way that allows that child to become a fully functioning and contributing member of society. A parent's responsibility is to provide the security and love that allows that child to grow into a healthy, happy, successful adult. If a parent has accomplished that,then that parent has not failed to fulfill their moral obligation as a parent. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than sheer absurdity.

However, if you are going to narrow the criteria for parental responsibility to that which addresses only one need to the neglect of the other needs each and every child has, then you must apply the criteria across the board. In which case, those parents who have failed to address their child's communication needs by failing to use sign language in the home must also be considered to be failing to fulfill their obligations and rsponsibility totheir child. Those parents who have neglected to attend to their child's educational needs by placing them in an environment without proper support services have failed to address their responsibility to thier child. Those parents who have failed to address their child's needs from an appropriate developmental stance on a psycho-social level by providing contact with peers and adult role models to whom that child can relate have failed to fulfill their parental resposnibility.

You cannot make it a one way street, Fuzzy. If you are going to claim that not implating a child is grounds for parental neglect of a child, then you must apply the same criteria to all parents in all situations. Refusal to do so makes your judgement of a parent who decides not to implant invalid.

 

[jillio]

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

Your reasoning is full of holes, Fuzzy. The window of opportunity you refer to is the window for optimal development of langauge. The CI is not the only way, or even the optimal way to address the need for early linguistic input.

Once again, you are thinking too narrowly, and seeing a child as nothing more than a pair of ears. You are assuming that hearing is madatory for language development, and that is a false assumption. And, if you refuse to address all the variable necessary for successful use of a CI, or even success with out a CI, you are making the assumption that the CI is a superior way to raise a child, and that providing auditory input in and of itself will create the environment that will lead to higher functioning. Again, false assumption.

 

[jillio]

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

If the CI is supposed to benefit the deaf individual, then it is the deaf individual who decides the level of benefit, not the hearing. Very simple.

And never assume that not implanting leads to a lower level functioning.

Early implantation, in and of itself, is not exclusive. However, when you have professionals that are advising parents not to use sign with a child who has been implanted based on the false belief that sign will interfere with their ability to speak, and parents who follow such advise, then it does become exclusive. Yes, if a parent decides to implant, then it should also be understood that the optimal environment for that child's development is one that includes exposure to both sign language and Deaf culture. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

 

[shel90]

If the CI is supposed to benefit the deaf individual, then it is the deaf individual who decides the level of benefit, not the hearing. Very simple.

And never assume that not implanting leads to a lower level functioning.

Early implantation, in and of itself, is not exclusive. However, when you have professionals that are advising parents not to use sign with a child who has been implanted based on the false belief that sign will interfere with their ability to speak, and parents who follow such advise, then it does become exclusive. Yes, if a parent decides to implant, then it should also be understood that the optimal environment for that child's development is one that includes exposure to both sign language and Deaf culture. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

Yes and when those parents do realize the importance of both, it is usually too late because by then, their children are delayed in language. Usually that is the motivating factor for them to seek out Deaf culture and sign language which is sad because it could have been done at the very begining.

 

[jillio]

Yes and when those parents do realize the importance of both, it is usually too late because by then, their children are delayed in language. Usually that is the motivating factor for them to seek out Deaf culture and sign language which is sad because it could have been done at the very begining.

Yeppers.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Rick has already informed the members of this board that he implanted his daughter, and kept her in an oral only environment both academically and at home. He, nor his wife e3ver used any form of visual communication, nor was his daughter provided with any form of visual support in an academic environment. He has also stated that she received "some" speech therapy following implantation. That is hardly a linguistically rich environment.

And, for you to tell me that I cannot make an assessment based on the information that has been provided is ridiculas, Fuzzy. That is exactly what you are doing when you tell me that I have not fulfilled my parental responsibilities toward my own child because I decided not to implant him as a child. How is it that it is perfectly alright for you to pass judgement on someone regarding their parenting and their moral obligation and the fulfillment of such to thier child, but it is not acceptable when the tables have been turned? You are a hypocrite, Fuzzy.

But that is ALL you know - Rick didn't wish to share anything else with you, did he? And you have no way of knowing anything else about his daughter "other enviroment" without him telling you. You don't know if Rick's daughter can or can not sign, for example- he never wished to reply to you about that. So, don't make judgments while you don't know all the facts.

btw isn't providing ""some" speech therapy following implantation" one of the requirements following the implantation anyway? you wrote yourself that parents who stop at surgery and do nothing afterwards are not being responsible (and I agree). Also, you have no way of knowing what "some" means. You want it to look like something menial but it may be quite opposite.

Whereas you - I have no time to research for proof but I remember distinctly your saying often "if my son wanted CI he could do it on his own later". That shows rather clearly you left the decision to your son for later, isn't it?
Another thing- if you understand the importance of early implantation, and still chosed not to do it- you wouldn't get your pants in a wad about your son all the time. You would say calmly "I was aware of missing the window of opportunity for oral language, but I believe it's not as important as it is for some". Instead you go berserk every time a parent praise early implanation.



Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

If the CI is supposed to benefit the deaf individual, then it is the deaf individual who decides the level of benefit, not the hearing. Very simple.

And never assume that not implanting leads to a lower level functioning.

Early implantation, in and of itself, is not exclusive. However, when you have professionals that are advising parents not to use sign with a child who has been implanted based on the false belief that sign will interfere with their ability to speak, and parents who follow such advise, then it does become exclusive. Yes, if a parent decides to implant, then it should also be understood that the optimal environment for that child's development is one that includes exposure to both sign language and Deaf culture. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

Did I say anything about professionals advising against signing? NO.
Did I ever say anything about not implanting causes lower functionig? NO.
So why are you keep talking things we are not discussing?
We are talking about why "let the child decide" is bogus.

As for the "individual" who happens to be a born deaf baby - so you are saying the dr should explain to a year old baby implications about missing the window of opportunity and leave the decision to the baby? hmm.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Your reasoning is full of holes, Fuzzy. The window of opportunity you refer to is the window for optimal development of langauge. The CI is not the only way, or even the optimal way to address the need for early linguistic input.

Once again, you are thinking too narrowly, and seeing a child as nothing more than a pair of ears. You are assuming that hearing is madatory for language development, and that is a false assumption. oh, but WHAT language???
And, if you refuse to address all the variable necessary for successful use of a CI, or even success with out a CI, you are making the assumption that the CI is a superior way to raise a child, and that providing auditory input in and of itself will create the environment that will lead to higher functioning. Again, false assumption.[/bB] I claim no such thing. I simply say if you want the optimal benefits from CI then implant early, and being able to hear makes communciation in hearing world easier. Do not add your own thesis to this simple fact.

Quite the contrary - it's simply for the deaf person personal benefit to have the best of both worlds and it is possible to have just that if the right tools are provided, and one of the tools is CI.

CI is most beneficial when implanted early because precisely of the brain having most ability to develop language in the first three years after birth, period.

Whether or not a deaf person will succeed in life of course does not depends on ability to hear alone. But being able to hear certainly helps. For example, some deaf pple find it easier to lipread with a bit of hearing.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

And the research also shows, and has shown for any number of years, that the highest achieving deaf students are those that are exposed to both sign and speech in then home and the academic environment. This research has continued to be replicated in students who are now using CI. In light of that, any parent who ignores the obvious, and refuses to expose their child to an environment that includes both speech ans sign shows ignorance on the subject and creates circumstances that prevent thier child from living to their full potential.

A parent's responsibility is to provide an environment that allows for the proper intellectual, emotional, and social development of the child. A parent's responsibility is to assist their child in reaching adulthood in a way that allows that child to become a fully functioning and contributing member of society. A parent's responsibility is to provide the security and love that allows that child to grow into a healthy, happy, successful adult. If a parent has accomplished that,then that parent has not failed to fulfill their moral obligation as a parent. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than sheer absurdity.

However, if you are going to narrow the criteria for parental responsibility to that which addresses only one need to the neglect of the other needs each and every child has, then you must apply the criteria across the board. In which case, those parents who have failed to address their child's communication needs by failing to use sign language in the home must also be considered to be failing to fulfill their obligations and rsponsibility totheir child. Those parents who have neglected to attend to their child's educational needs by placing them in an environment without proper support services have failed to address their responsibility to thier child. Those parents who have failed to address their child's needs from an appropriate developmental stance on a psycho-social level by providing contact with peers and adult role models to whom that child can relate have failed to fulfill their parental resposnibility.

You cannot make it a one way street, Fuzzy. If you are going to claim that not implating a child ?????? is grounds for parental neglect of a child, then you must apply the same criteria to all parents in all situations.
where did I ever claimed that? I said: - in the case of born severe to profound deaf child, not making early decision by basing it on "let the child decide later" is parental irresponsibility. I said this shows lack of research and subject understanding. I never said merely NOT IMPLANTING. Please read carefully what I wrote.

Refusal to do so makes your judgement of a parent who decides not to implant invalid.

And all that - emotional social development etc, etc, is never possible with early implantation?
And who says it has to be CI and oral only? It is certainly not me, so, who are you arguing with?

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

But that is ALL you know - Rick didn't wish to share anything else with you, did he? And you have no way of knowing anything else about his daughter "other enviroment" without him telling you. You don't know if Rick's daughter can or can not sign, for example- he never wished to reply to you about that. So, don't make judgments while you don't know all the facts.

btw isn't providing ""some" speech therapy following implantation" one of the requirements following the implantation anyway? you wrote yourself that parents who stop at surgery and do nothing afterwards are not being responsible (and I agree). Also, you have no way of knowing what "some" means. You want it to look like something menial but it may be quite opposite.

Whereas you - I have no time to research for proof but I remember distinctly your saying often "if my son wanted CI he could do it on his own later". That shows rather clearly you left the decision to your son for later, isn't it?
Another thing- if you understand the importance of early implantation, and still chosed not to do it- you wouldn't get your pants in a wad about your son all the time. You would say calmly "I was aware of missing the window of opportunity for oral language, but I believe it's not as important as it is for some". Instead you go berserk every time a parent praise early implanation.



Fuzzy

But Rick48 did say that his daughter never learned sign and that she was raised orally all the way and now she is taking some sign classes. However, I do remember one post he made about how his daughter is not interested in
ASL nor the Deaf culture.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

But Rick48 did say that his daughter never learned sign and that she was raised orally all the way and now she is taking some sign classes. However, I do remember one post he made about how his daughter is not interested in
ASL nor the Deaf culture.

Really? I don't know about that. About his daughter not interested in Deaf culture- is it bad?

Fuzzy

 

[rick48]

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

Thanks Fuzzy. That is exactly her modus operendi to attack those she disagrees with through lies and distortions. Even in her response to you she says the we provided our daughter with "some" therapy when I have, on several occasions, described in detail, both the formal (up until the completion of 11th grade) and informal therapy my daughter received.

Well, unlike her, at least I know what kind of therapy my daughter received but that was because we were actively involved with it.

Seen her kind before, always defensive about not chosing the ci for her child so she has to attack those who did and especially the parents of successfully implanted kids i.e, myself, Cloggy, Jackie, Doubletrouble, and the list goes on and on. But she will never admit it and constantly tell you how great her kid is and how great a parent she considers herself.
Rick

 

[rick48]

Really? I don't know about that. About his daughter not interested in Deaf culture- is it bad?

Fuzzy

Again, the half truth of course she forgot to mention that since she was first diagnosed she and we have been involved with the deaf community, that she has many deaf friends some of them lifelong friends so my daughter is very mcuh interested in the deaf community and considers herself to be a part of it.

What she has no interest in is Deaf Culture, the people who called her parents child abusers, who sought and still do to deny her a cochlear implant, who called her a robot, guinea pig, frankenstein, etc. People who judge others by how they communicate not for who they are. Sorry if we did not choose to expose our child to such people but instead exposed her and became a part of a deaf community filled with caring people who accepted her with open arms.
Rick

 

[shel90]

Again, the half truth of course she forgot to mention that since she was first diagnosed she and we have been involved with the deaf community, that she has many deaf friends some of them lifelong friends so my daughter is very mcuh interested in the deaf community and considers herself to be a part of it.

What she has no interest in is Deaf Culture, the people who called her parents child abusers, who sought and still do to deny her a cochlear implant, who called her a robot, guinea pig, frankenstein, etc. People who judge others by how they communicate not for who they are. Sorry if we did not choose to expose our child to such people but instead exposed her and became a part of a deaf community filled with caring people who accepted her with open arms.
Rick

Half truth? I said the exact same thing as u said. Deaf culture...

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Half truth? I said the exact same thing as u said. Deaf culture...

Oh, NO, Shel.
oh NO.

You seem not to be reading everything carefully, or you "miss" the point on purpose.

here's what Rick wrote:

Rick: since she was first diagnosed she and we have been involved with the deaf community, that she has many deaf friends some of them lifelong friends so my daughter is very mcuh interested in the deaf community and considers herself to be a part of it.

and here's then FULL STORY you seemed to miss:

What she has no interest in is Deaf Culture, the people who called her parents child abusers, who sought and still do to deny her a cochlear implant, who called her a robot, guinea pig, frankenstein, etc. People who judge others by how they communicate not for who they are.

THIS KIND of DEAF CULTURE is what Rick's daughter is NOT interested in.
She IS interested in Deaf Culture otherwise.


Don't tell me there is no problem with understanding standard written English on this forum. YOU didn't get the meaning of what Rick's wrote (did you do it on purpose??). And you are one of those who seemingly have a pretty good graps of standard English. perhaps it's not so. If you don't get, I can only imagine how hopelessly others misunderstand.

btw this is the second time when the meaning of the words is misconstrued here in so short time. The other is about "bastion".



Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Thanks Fuzzy. That is exactly her modus operendi to attack those she disagrees with through lies and distortions. Even in her response to you she says the we provided our daughter with "some" therapy when I have, on several occasions, described in detail, both the formal (up until the completion of 11th grade) and informal therapy my daughter received.

Well, unlike her, at least I know what kind of therapy my daughter received but that was because we were actively involved with it.

Seen her kind before, always defensive about not chosing the ci for her child so she has to attack those who did and especially the parents of successfully implanted kids i.e, myself, Cloggy, Jackie, Doubletrouble, and the list goes on and on. But she will never admit it and constantly tell you how great her kid is and how great a parent she considers herself.
Rick

Rick I can not help but notice how some pple who theoretically call themselves "neutral" or "pro -" CI, are in fact very negative about it, and will manipulate all information without mercy to make great achievements of implanted children look poorly.

I agree with you - it's transparent. And I could see it on my own from the very first day here.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

But that is ALL you know - Rick didn't wish to share anything else with you, did he? And you have no way of knowing anything else about his daughter "other enviroment" without him telling you. You don't know if Rick's daughter can or can not sign, for example- he never wished to reply to you about that. So, don't make judgments while you don't know all the facts.

btw isn't providing ""some" speech therapy following implantation" one of the requirements following the implantation anyway? you wrote yourself that parents who stop at surgery and do nothing afterwards are not being responsible (and I agree). Also, you have no way of knowing what "some" means. You want it to look like something menial but it may be quite opposite.

Whereas you - I have no time to research for proof but I remember distinctly your saying often "if my son wanted CI he could do it on his own later". That shows rather clearly you left the decision to your son for later, isn't it?
Another thing- if you understand the importance of early implantation, and still chosed not to do it- you wouldn't get your pants in a wad about your son all the time. You would say calmly "I was aware of missing the window of opportunity for oral language, but I believe it's not as important as it is for some". Instead you go berserk every time a parent praise early implanation.



Fuzzy

He has shared the infpormation regarding his daughter's sign abilities, Fuzzy. Perhaps you were unable to comprehend his post. No matter, you are once again making assumptions without having full knowledge of that which you attempt to speak.

My pants are not in a wad about anything. You are the one that sems to get so upset when you are given an example of a deaf individual who has achieved success both academically and personally without a CI.


What do you mean you don't have time to research? Is that why you demonstrate such a lack of understanding in yopur posts. Perhaps you should find the time to do a little research. It would certainly make your opinions more credible if you knew what the hell ytou were talking about.

And, as far as your "wiondow of opportunity" theory goes, again you are assuming that it applies only to oral language. The window of opportunity applies to sign as well, and that is why research has shoen that children who have been exposed to sign early on, despite their oral skills, perform more equally to hearing peers on all levels of language testing, literacy, and academic performance.

Obvioulsy, you think that oral skills are the most important thing in a deaf child. I, opn the other hand, see oral skills as useful, but see language acquisition as the important thing, because oral skills will do nothing to facilitate academic and person achievement if a child is language delayed from being placed in restrictive environment. I prefer to see a deaf child with superior language skills and lesser oral skills for just that reason. The important thing is not how they communicate, but that they are able to communicate. Communication and language acquisition are necessary for the development of cognitive skills.