A Deaf's View Regarding CI

DeafCaroline said:
anyone seen this article?

Cochlear Implant Controversy
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's easy for students without familiarity to make some of the assumptions these two have made, but those who are actually knowledgable about cochlear implants and how they work are fully aware that they don't "repair" anything, that a child with CIs remains deaf. There are so many misconceptions strewn throughout the piece. My child has never sat out a birthday party or stood on the sidelines at a playground for fear of static or balloons wiping out her mapping and I can't possibly imagine the decision to get CI surgery would ever be to any parent as easy as picking out a pair of glasses. While it might be an image that warms the heart of someone biased against CIs, Marx, Engels, and Machiavelli did not take a stand in favor of cochlear implants and using an argument that they would have is absurd.

Several basic factual errors undermine any pretense of legitimacy; here's just one example:

For example, medical professionals involved believe that nearly all children are candidates for receiving an implant and all have equal opportunity to achieve the same levels of success (Children's Memorial Hospital). One of the main criteria required by Children's Memorial Hospital is that the child be able to understand speech at normal conversational levels without the use of speechreading. Opponents of cochlear implants point out that once the procedure is done, all residual or natural hearing is lost (Stewart-Muirhead). If a child is able to perform that well with or without hearing aids, why are the doctors willing to destroy residual hearing in order to implant?
Click to expand...

Being able to understand speech at normal conversational levels is not one of the main criteria required for CI candidacy at any hospital. The question posed is nonsense.

I sure don't think CIs are right or necessary for every deaf child. But I do think that knowledgable educators of the deaf are absolutely necessary. These two teachers in training need quite a bit of remedial work before they publish commentary in an attempt to influence anyone, or get involved in the education of our deaf children. The only upside to seeing this article pop up every so often, usually by someone who is a little bit bored and wants to stir the pot a bit, is that it reminds me to keep an eye out for the authors and ensure they never come near my child's school for the deaf.
 
Grendel, I have to say you've skipped over big portions of that article. Also, there are tons of papers out there influencing people to get implants or to have their children implanted. Tons. Two people speak up in dissent and you say they are misinformed and outdated (article was published 2000, ok, slightly out of date) and you don't want them near your child's school.
Why are you so threatened? You've got boatloads of pro-Cis people on your side.

Also, I'm curious, are there long term studies being done and are there reports to go with those studies? I've been looking around and not having much success.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Grendel, I have to say you've skipped over big portions of that article. Also, there are tons of papers out there influencing people to get implants or to have their children implanted. Tons. Two people speak up in dissent and you say they are misinformed and outdated (article was published 2000, ok, slightly out of date) and you don't want them near your child's school.
Why are you so threatened? You've got boatloads of pro-Cis people on your side.

Also, I'm curious, are there long term studies being done and are there reports to go with those studies? I've been looking around and not having much success.
Click to expand...

That article is antediluvian by technology standards. I am indifferent to CI, but I think it isn't fun to be trying to make some people outsiders.
 
Bottesini said:
That article is antediluvian by technology standards. I am indifferent to CI, but I think it isn't fun to be trying to make some people outsiders.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to make it fun. But I do wonder why it's ok that there are publications and reports supporting CIs but when one speaks up in opposition, it's considered threatening.

Anyway. What stood out most in the article for me was the Deaf cultural aspect but as Grendel says, her child goes to the school for the deaf so looks like she's got all the bases covered and I think that's great.
 
the child be able to understand speech at normal conversational levels without the use of speechreading.
Click to expand...
Why the preoccupation with speechreading being a "crutch"? I do not get it. Why is there so much emphasis on exclusively listening?
 
GrendelQ said:
Unfortunately, it's easy for students without familiarity to make some of the assumptions these two have made, but those who are actually knowledgable about cochlear implants and how they work are fully aware that they don't "repair" anything, that a child with CIs remains deaf. There are so many misconceptions strewn throughout the piece. My child has never sat out a birthday party or stood on the sidelines at a playground for fear of static or balloons wiping out her mapping and I can't possibly imagine the decision to get CI surgery would ever be to any parent as easy as picking out a pair of glasses. While it might be an image that warms the heart of someone biased against CIs, Marx, Engels, and Machiavelli did not take a stand in favor of cochlear implants and using an argument that they would have is absurd.

Several basic factual errors undermine any pretense of legitimacy; here's just one example:



Being able to understand speech at normal conversational levels is not one of the main criteria required for CI candidacy at any hospital. The question posed is nonsense.

I sure don't think CIs are right or necessary for every deaf child. But I do think that knowledgable educators of the deaf are absolutely necessary. These two teachers in training need quite a bit of remedial work before they publish commentary in an attempt to influence anyone, or get involved in the education of our deaf children. The only upside to seeing this article pop up every so often, usually by someone who is a little bit bored and wants to stir the pot a bit, is that it reminds me to keep an eye out for the authors and ensure they never come near my child's school for the deaf.
Click to expand...
If your child's school is an average bi-bi school they already have a bunch of teachers who share the views of the authors. It's just that they don't speak up in front of you because they know your audist attitude.

I doubt it's any teachers here on AD that you would approve as teachers for your child with your criterias.
 
flip said:
If your child's school is an average bi-bi school they already have a bunch of teachers who share the views of the authors. It's just that they don't speak up in front of you because they know your audist attitude.

I doubt it's any teachers here on AD that you would approve as teachers for your child with your criterias.
Click to expand...

My child's bi-bi school is far from average. And I'm certain her teachers do not share the ignorance exhibited by these two students. You however, appear to have something in common with them.
 
GrendelQ said:
My child's bi-bi school is far from average. And I'm certain her teachers do not share the ignorance exhibited by these two students. You however, appear to have something in common with them.
Click to expand...
Gasp, I do have something in common with them? How horrible.

Ignorance is bliss...
 
Buffalo said:
Yes, this paper got both sides of the issue. However, they said CI surgery is one time thing.... I gotta disagree with that one as we already saw that for some it was more than one time thing.

Also I disagree with the part about it being easier to alter the deaf people rather than providing special services for the deaf. Reason #1 - we already saw that some CI kids still need special services. Reason #2 - it is far easier to teach hearing people sign language from when they are young. I didn't say ASL as they would want to speak and sign at the same time. We Deaf people can keep ASL among ourselves - a secret language! Reason #3 - Once everybody knows sign language, there won't be any need for CI and maybe hearing aids. That would keep the health costs down. The elderly who can't really afford hearing aids, won't be feeling left out if they don't buy an hearing aid. Reason #4 - Once everybody knows sign language, we won't need special services.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I said they had a basic grasp of the issues.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Grendel, I have to say you've skipped over big portions of that article. Also, there are tons of papers out there influencing people to get implants or to have their children implanted. Tons. Two people speak up in dissent and you say they are misinformed and outdated (article was published 2000, ok, slightly out of date) and you don't want them near your child's school.
Why are you so threatened? You've got boatloads of pro-Cis people on your side.

Also, I'm curious, are there long term studies being done and are there reports to go with those studies? I've been looking around and not having much success.
Click to expand...

Not enough time as passed to actually have longitudinal results on childhood implantation.

The studies I have seen all indicate that the implanted children that are doing the best academically and socially are those that have access to sign language. And that the early gains shown in language acquisition level off and then fall behind their hearing peers.
 
Dang. People still getting butt hurt and defensive.

Try a civil, intelligent discussion of the issues. You might be surprised at what you will learn. People expend all their energy taking things personally and then trying to defend themselves when they are not even the topic of discussion.:cool2:
 
Ok, what year did CIs start being regularly implanted? Wasnt it in the 1980s? So that's about roughly 25, 30 years ago and there are still no long term reports released?

And has anyone done studies on adults who were implanted as children? I am very interested in their viewpoints.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, what year did CIs start being regularly implanted? Wasnt it in the 1980s? So that's about roughly 25, 30 years ago and there are still no long term reports released?

And has anyone done studies on adults who were implanted as children? I am very interested in their viewpoints.
Click to expand...

In order to get longitudinal information, they would need cohorts that were all implanted at about the same age and the same time. Experimentally, they were done on kids in the 80's. FDA approval for children came in the 90's, I believe.

Also, longitudinal information would mean following that cohort for a minimum of 25 years, with data gathered at varying intervals. Since a minority of deaf are actually implanted, and the centers are so widespread, it really is difficult to come up with a cohort that can be followed with all of the controls necessary.

In the Journal of Deaf Ed Marsharck did a study on adolescents who were implanted as children. That is one of the studies I referred to previously.
 
Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation :)

I'm going to dig around on the internet and see if there are any personal blogs by those who were implanted as children.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation :)

I'm going to dig around on the internet and see if there are any personal blogs by those who were implanted as children.
Click to expand...

There are several blogs by young adults and high school students gathered here by one recipient who got her first CI during the FDA trials, before they were available to the public. And several AD members are among the earliest implantees.

Some good studies are featured in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.

And educating deaf children features practical application of the latest research to children today.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation :)

I'm going to dig around on the internet and see if there are any personal blogs by those who were implanted as children.
Click to expand...

When I first came to AllDeaf, an AD member called Lissa was very welcoming. She had a CI implanted at the age of 10 and has written about it in her blog. If you go this post you'll find a link to her blog.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Grendel, I have to say you've skipped over big portions of that article. Also, there are tons of papers out there influencing people to get implants or to have their children implanted. Tons. Two people speak up in dissent and you say they are misinformed and outdated (article was published 2000, ok, slightly out of date) and you don't want them near your child's school.
Why are you so threatened? You've got boatloads of pro-Cis people on your side.

Also, I'm curious, are there long term studies being done and are there reports to go with those studies? I've been looking around and not having much success.
Click to expand...
I read the full article, I've seen it several times before--it's sort of the go-to article that people opposed to CIs bring up again and again. I don't have time to break it down line by line and I don't think anyone would want to read that :) -- even though there are many other misconceptions. It's not a legitimate research article, it's an opinion piece based on a lof of basic errors.

I haven't seen many opinion pieces posted on alldeaf with the intent to dissuade people from ASL. When people find news articles that refer to deaf issues incorrectly, we object and slam the errors here. Why is this error-filled article any different, aside from being quite old? I haven't seen 10 year old opinion pieces posted to try to convince people to get implanted or suggest that it's the right approach for all deaf children just as this article discourages CIs as being the wrong approach.

A small minority of deaf have implants, the general public knows little to nothing about them. It's very important to get accurate info out there, most critical in schools -- and this article is extremely harmful in its errors and propagates the concept of Deaf culture as anti-ci and the schism that has existed and could subside if people would let it.
 
Back
Top