A Violation of Human Rights Re: Forcing A Deaf Child to Wear CI

Status
Not open for further replies.
flip said:
Ok, so Rick48 does not make audist posts according to you?
Click to expand...

Refusing to recognize obvious audism in another is audism.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
He also has labeled me a "Deaf wannabe". I don't even know what that is.

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I don't want to be deaf. I wasn't born deaf, and Lord willing, I will not become deaf. However, not wanting to lose a sense I have always had doesn't negate the fact that I have empathy for what the deaf have gone through and still go through.

This is what the oralists don't have. Empathy. In my view, that is far worse than being called a "wannabe".

Rick: If I wanted to become deaf, it's very, very simple. All I would have to do is wear my head phones while listening to music at full blast. Would that do it instantly? No, but, it would be effective. Lets not forget that I've also almost have been in these people's shoes already by virtue of otoxic drugs given to me for infections and pain relief. I also contracted meningitis as an infant.

My hearing is something I DO NOT take for granted, but being hearing also doesn't mean that I am callous and unfeeling to the needs of others. It's about respect. That, Sir, is something you DO NOT have for these people here and you never will.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. He has labeled me a "deaf wannabe", and has labeled anyone who agrees with me as a "syncophant" He also specifically said that by providing a Bi-Bi environment for my son at home and at school, and choosing not to implant, that I "took the easy way out." He is great for name calling and being offensive...generally because there is virtually nothing to support his ramblings. He is attempting that old "the best defense is a good offense" simply because he has no defense.
 
drphil said:
Cochlear Implants are for bringing hearing NOT to save someone's life.
In keeping with the thread discussion- the other half whose parents decided their children shouldn't have an Implant-are their children rights infringed if they subsequently decide to get one-while still living at home ?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

No. That is called respecting the choice of the person who has to live with the deafness, not forcing a hearing view of how to deal with deafness on the child.

My own son knew that he could choose at any time to be implanted and I would support him in his choice and see that he received an implant. He is an adult, still not implanted, and has no plans to be implanted, as he cannot see how hearing could add anything more to his full, happy, and successful life.
 
If people here aren't worth it, why bother responding?
 
GrendelQ said:
Practice some civility.

Did you misread something and think I was complaining about someone else bringing my daughter into the conversation? Not the case. I was explaining why I brought up my daughter's experience, why I think it is relevant to the discussion.

You don't have to be in such a rush to both take and give offense -- this can be a discussion, not a battle.
Click to expand...

You ever hear the phrase, "You would do well to follow your own advise?"
 
jillio said:
Refusing to recognize obvious audism in another is audism.
Click to expand...

Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as exhibiting audism is a narcissistic abuse of the concept and disrespects those who suffer the effects of real audism.
 
Banjo said:
If people here aren't worth it, why bother responding?
Click to expand...

Good question.

I can answer from my perspective: I see several that post that personally, I couldn't care less about. However, I will respond to anything that is being misrepresented because I don't want someone just lurking to get any impression that what they say is correct and form an opinion of the deaf community based on incorrect information.
 
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
 
GrendelQ said:
Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as exhibiting audism is a narcissistic abuse of the concept and disrespects those who suffer the effects of real audism.
Click to expand...

I don't label anyone who disagrees with me an audist. I label those who blantantly exhibit audist perspectives and beliefs and refuse to be introspective enough to consider their beliefs and take the perspective of those they are, usually, unintentionally doing harm an audist.

Please, do explain to us all what "real audism" is. There is a thread devoted specifically to that topic.
 
jillio said:
Oh yes. He has labeled me a "deaf wannabe", and has labeled anyone who agrees with me as a "syncophant" He also specifically said that by providing a Bi-Bi environment for my son at home and at school, and choosing not to implant, that I "took the easy way out." He is great for name calling and being offensive...generally because there is virtually nothing to support his ramblings. He is attempting that old "the best defense is a good offense" simply because he has no defense.
Click to expand...

You know? I was thinking about my post after I wrote it and I have to say if I had a deaf child, I would probably implant. However, I would also provide that with other tools to get along in the world. ASL would definitely be apart of that. And, I would also do what you did. Seek out the Deaf adults and others in the Deaf community to help support this child. I would do what I needed to do to give my child what he or she needed. Unfortunately, I can't force my family members to share my view. I doubt they'd learn ASL, but, I would do what I needed to further my skills and give my child what they needed. This is a long way of saying, I tend to go with a middle ground. I don't believe in extremes. I don't like extremes in any situation.

Now, I admit that my saying this is hypothetical, and I honestly don't know how that would play out in the real world. Would I implant a deaf baby? I don't know. I might. BUT, regardless, I would also ensure that that deaf baby/toddler, had a visual language to fall back on. If there's one thing I've learned from you and others, its this: Deaf children NEED a visual language, and, to deny them that is wrong. They also need deaf role models.

People say that to deny a child the implant is making a choice for that child. I tend to agree. But, here's the thing. I would NOT give that child the message that either language is superior over the other. If this child decided at whatever age to not use the implant, that's cool with me. As long as he or she can get along in the world, that's all that would matter to me. Like you, I take a holistic approach. There's more to it than just hearing and speech. It's ensuring that a kid is happy and healthy; both physically and emotionally.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
You know? I was thinking about my post after I wrote it and I have to say if I had a deaf child, I would probably implant. However, I would also provide that with other tools to get along in the world. ASL would definitely be apart of that. And, I would also do what you did. Seek out the Deaf adults and others in the Deaf community to help support this child. I would do what I needed to do to give my child what he or she needed. Unfortunately, I can't force my family members to share my view. I doubt they'd learn ASL, but, I would do what I needed to further my skills and give my child what they needed. This is a long way of saying, I tend to go with a middle ground. I don't believe in extremes. I don't like extremes in any situation.

Now, I admit that my saying this is hypothetical, and I honestly don't know how that would play out in the real world. Would I implant a deaf baby? I don't know. I might. BUT, regardless, I would also ensure that that deaf baby/toddler, had a visual language to fall back on. If there's one thing I've learned from you and others, its this: Deaf children NEED a visual language, and, to deny them that is wrong. They also need deaf role models.

People say that to deny a child the implant is making a choice for that child. I tend to agree. But, here's the thing. I would NOT give that child the message that either language is superior over the other. If this child decided at whatever age to not use the implant, that's cool with me. As long as he or she can get along in the world, that's all that would matter to me. Like you, I take a holistic approach. There's more to it than just hearing and speech. It's ensuring that a kid is happy and healthy; both physically and emotionally.
Click to expand...

Well said. I would only add that people who choose not to implant are making a temporary decision that can be easily changed at any point in time if the child begins to express a desire to be implanted. When a child is implanted at say, the age of 12 months, it is an irreversible choice. The implant will always be there. Yes, they can remove the outer portion so that it is not connected, but how many parents will continue to be open minded about a change after they have implanted. Most will hang onto that "keep the implanted child in an oral environment or they will not get the best use out of their devise" attitude. Those are the kids that Shel sees on a daily basis. CI kids that were kept in an oral environment until they have become so delayed that it is nigh to impossible for them to ever catch up.

I say it constantly: I am not against the CI for those that are able to choose it for themselves. What I am against is the CI being used as excuse to keep a child in a restrictive oral environment. Which is more important: getting your money's worth out of the CI or educating the child?
 
jillio said:
Well said. I would only add that people who choose not to implant are making a temporary decision that can be easily changed at any point in time if the child begins to express a desire to be implanted. When a child is implanted at say, the age of 12 months, it is an irreversible choice. The implant will always be there. Yes, they can remove the outer portion so that it is not connected, but how many parents will continue to be open minded about a change after they have implanted. Most will hang onto that "keep the implanted child in an oral environment or they will not get the best use out of their devise" attitude. Those are the kids that Shel sees on a daily basis. CI kids that were kept in an oral environment until they have become so delayed that it is nigh to impossible for them to ever catch up.

I say it constantly: I am not against the CI for those that are able to choose it for themselves. What I am against is the CI being used as excuse to keep a child in a restrictive oral environment. Which is more important: getting your money's worth out of the CI or educating the child?
Click to expand...

I agree with you with one caveat. I would want to give my child the opportunity to learn speech so they can use those skills if they chose to. I would be concerned about aquiring language. I guess this brings a question up in my mind... If you didn't implant early, but, gave access to language via ASL, would they STILL be able to aquire English later? Again, I'm playing devils' advocate here... I do tend to agree that it's easier to aquire a language the younger the child is, but, would that still apply if a child already had ASL and say, learned English at a later age?

I also am NOT a linguist, so, my knowledge of aquisition is a bit lacking. I just don't know. Language is something I would take seriously, but, I wouldn't necessarily be heartbroken if my deaf child never grasped English. It would be a bonus rather than a requirement. As for family members, that would be rough, but, I would put my child's needs before theirs. I am NOT above leaving a gathering if my child isn't included in the coversation somehow. Even if it's to clue that child into what is being said.

This just brings up a whole host of things that goes back to something very basic. Respect and dignity for the deaf. Speech is useful in the real world, but I've known deaf people without speech skills who've gotten along quite well. It's not their lack of speech that's the problem. It's the world's view of them that's the problem!
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I agree with you with one caveat. I would want to give my child the opportunity to learn speech so they can use those skills if they chose to. I would be concerned about aquiring language. I guess this brings a question up in my mind... If you didn't implant early, but, gave access to language via ASL, would they STILL be able to aquire English later? Again, I'm playing devils' advocate here... I do tend to agree that it's easier to aquire a language the younger the child is, but, would that still apply if a child already had ASL and say, learned English at a later age?

I also am NOT a linguist, so, my knowledge of aquisition is a bit lacking. I just don't know. Language is something I would take seriously, but, I wouldn't necessarily be heartbroken if my deaf child never grasped English. It would be a bonus rather than a requirement. As for family members, that would be rough, but, I would put my child's needs before theirs. I am NOT above leaving a gathering if my child isn't included in the coversation somehow. Even if it's to clue that child into what is being said.

This just brings up a whole host of things that goes back to something very basic. Respect and dignity for the deaf. Speech is useful in the real world, but I've known deaf people without speech skills who've gotten along quite well. It's not their lack of speech that's the problem. It's the world's view of them that's the problem!
Click to expand...

The answer to that one is "Yes." and more easily than if they had not acquired ASL first.

Generations of deaf have learned to speak without a CI.
 
jillio said:
The answer to that one is "Yes." and more easily than if they had not acquired ASL first.

Generations of deaf have learned to speak without a CI.
Click to expand...

Including me. I could be understood by most strangers even before the CI.

And though I love my CI, I also realize not everyone will be able to benefit from the CI.
 
If a deaf person who was initially anti-CI was offered 10 million dollars to get an implant (for free), would s/he get one?
 
deafbajagal said:
If a deaf person who was initially anti-CI was offered 10 million dollars to get an implant (for free), would s/he get one?
Click to expand...

:hmm: dunno. I didn't need a million dollars to change my mind re CIs.
 
deafbajagal said:
If a deaf person who was initially anti-CI was offered 10 million dollars to get an implant (for free), would s/he get one?
Click to expand...

That's a useless question, since it has never happened to me so I have no way of knowing.
 
Beowulf said:
That's a useless question, since it has never happened to me so I have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...

I would say the answer would be dependent upon how strong one's convictions are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top