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

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right.
 
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...

There you go. Thank you for answering that one question. In that case, I would NOT rush to implant a deaf baby. There would be no need to rush to implant, or maybe, not to implant at all.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
There you go. Thank you for answering that one question. In that case, I would NOT rush to implant a deaf baby. There would be no need to rush to implant, or maybe, not to implant at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is only a need to rush to implant if a parent is unwilling to use ASL as a foundation of language acquisition. When they want spoken English to be the foundation, they implant.
 
Only a few years ago I had said that I'd implant a child but I also would would put them in a Bi-Bi program as I've seen a quite a few CI adults with language delays even though they were implanted young. I have since then decided that I prolly wouldn't implant at all till the child is old enough to decide.
 
deafskeptic said:
Only a few years ago I had said that I'd implant a child but I also would would put them in a Bi-Bi program as I've seen a quite a few CI adults with language delays even though they were implanted young. I have since then decided that I prolly wouldn't implant at all till the child is old enough to decide.
Click to expand...

Yes. You have decided that because you have seen both sides, and experienced both sides. Most hearing parents who opt to use infant implantation have only one side of the story.
 
Wirelessly posted

Oceanbreeze said:
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...

There you go. Thank you for answering that one question. In that case, I would NOT rush to implant a deaf baby. There would be no need to rush to implant, or maybe, not to implant at all.
Click to expand...

yes, the child would be able to learn to speak, but would they be able to learn to understand the spoken language of others? Would they be able to function receptively? The CI does not effect the ability to produce language (directly, but the better you hear yourself, the more readily you are able to correct yourself) but what it DOES do is allow for the child to be able to understand when others speak to them. That is something that can not be taught later. That is were the value of childhood implantation lies.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



yes, the child would be able to learn to speak, but would they be able to learn to understand the spoken language of others? Would they be able to function receptively? The CI does not effect the ability to produce language (directly, but the better you hear yourself, the more readily you are able to correct yourself) but what it DOES do is allow for the child to be able to understand when others speak to them. That is something that can not be taught later. That is were the value of childhood implantation lies.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be able to do all of that.

You are incorrect regarding your assumptions. But it is the same thing that is heard from other oralists. What a shame that they just repeat what each other says without taking the time to actually learn about language acquisition.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



yes, the child would be able to learn to speak, but would they be able to learn to understand the spoken language of others? Would they be able to function receptively? The CI does not effect the ability to produce language (directly, but the better you hear yourself, the more readily you are able to correct yourself) but what it DOES do is allow for the child to be able to understand when others speak to them. That is something that can not be taught later. That is were the value of childhood implantation lies.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be able to do all of that.

You are incorrect regarding your assumptions. But it is the same thing that is heard from other oralists. What a shame that they just repeat what each other says without taking the time to actually learn about language acquisition.
Click to expand...

the research disagrees with you and you know it. People implanted beyond age 5 or 6 do not get the benefit that younger children get (which is open set speech comprehension). It just doesn't happen.
 
jillio said:
Yes, they would be able to do all of that.

You are incorrect regarding your assumptions. But it is the same thing that is heard from other oralists. What a shame that they just repeat what each other says without taking the time to actually learn about language acquisition.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Miss Kat couldn't access spoken language with just her HAs despite her loss, but, she also had ASL. Personally, if it was me, I'd have implanted in that case; assuming that that is what the child wanted. What we're talking about, though, is attitudes. I'm referring to giving my child the best of both worlds; whereas some come across as saying that speech is superior to ASL. Neither language should be touted as such.

Some seem to forget that aquiring speech skills is a dicey proposition for the deaf. Some do. Others don't. But, I'm also saying that I believe that one can function with or without those speech skills.

Adaptation is a wonderful thing. Those of us who have grown up needing to do so, have done it quite well. (and yes, that includes me; given my own limitations growing up.) Limitations, btw, placed on me not by the spina bifida but by society and it's viewpoint of people who are different from them.
 
We let her try each one and she has chosen soccer, gymnastics, etc. -- we don't require any of these activities except for school. The difference in choosing to live where we do vs in the town where her school is located is that now she comes home with a group of 5 deaf kids, including her best friend who lives just a couple of miles from us to dogs, chickens, horses, meandering bridle paths, a creek and pond, etc. and meets her dad rather than being bused to an after-school hearing day care for a few hours every afternoon waiting for her dad to travel the extra hour from his work. I don't like the commute -- but she does!

Rural socializing is a bit different from urban or even suburban, and combining that with sending a child to a private school, you trade off the community of kids who live next door to one another, share a street corner playground and attend the same school for the academic environment you want. None of her classmates live in or near Framingham, moving there wouldn't provide that community.

Fortunately, we don't have to move to find a great deaf school, we're already within reach. We opted not to move away for a different opportunity so we could remain here for the many resources available. We are intentionally trying to balance her languages, and this works right now.
Click to expand...
Yes indeedy. Sounds like you're doing extremely well balancing her languages and stuff. And in about eight years, if she wants more Deaf socializion oppertunties, she could live at school ...also bear in mind that Li Li isn't a voice off Deaf kid. Meaning she doesn't just have ASL only......and I assume that the community where Grendel lives may not be too bad with accepting kids who are different. But that might be a concern later on.
 
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...

Exactly! :applause:
 
I get so sick and tired of speech skills=deafness.

It is stupid.
 
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...

Mastery of spoken and written language is achievable WITHOUT HAs and CIs. There are many here who are living proof of that, myself included.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



yes, the child would be able to learn to speak, but would they be able to learn to understand the spoken language of others? Would they be able to function receptively? The CI does not effect the ability to produce language (directly, but the better you hear yourself, the more readily you are able to correct yourself) but what it DOES do is allow for the child to be able to understand when others speak to them. That is something that can not be taught later. That is were the value of childhood implantation lies.
Click to expand...

:mad: What a load of hogwash! I can speak and have mastered both spoken and written language all without the aid of either HAs or CIs. Shel90 has too, as have many others here. If that is not an audist statement if ever I saw one!
 
Last edited:
BecLak said:
:mad: What a load of hogwash! I can speak and have mastered both spoken and written languages all without the aid of either HAs or CIs. Shel90 has too, as have many others here.
Click to expand...

We are just faking our mastery of English, arent we? :lol:
 
OK heres my take. My profoundly Deaf daughter, now 14, was implanted at 4yo. It took me 2 years to make the decision to do so for exactly this reason. I had no intention of "changing" my daughter into a "hearing" person, I only wanted to give the oppurtunity to "hear" the sounds she was missing out on. My daughter is STILL and ALWAYS will be a DEAF child, being educated w/in a Deaf school, speaking the language of ASL, and living the Deaf culture, only with the added benefit of "hearing" the world around her. I have solely and completely embraced the Deaf world right along with my daughter and am now entering a new phase with our 2yo daughter who has just been diagnosed with a Severe Reverse slope hearing loss, she too will have the benefit of 'hearing" with hearing aids, but she too will begin her education w/in the Deaf Society and Deaf culture full force. NOT all parents are out to CHANGE their children into people that they will never be, we just want them to have the advantage of the sound around them. If eaither of my children decide to stop using their devises at any time that choice is theirs and I will still be an ASL fingerflying Mom of 2 gorgeous daughters whom have showed the best of an entirely new world
 
Mastery of spoken and written language is achievable WITHOUT HAs and CIs. There are many here who are living proof of that, myself included.
Click to expand...
Without HAs? Yes, but how often does mastery of easily understood speech happen without HA and CI?
Yes, mastery of speech can happen without CI, and WITH HAs. Lots of pre 1990 grads of CID, Clarke, DePaul, Tucker Maxon, Oralinga School, St. Joseph's, Jean Weingarten, Sunshine Cottage and public oral programs are LIVING PROOF of that!
 
I didn't have either HAs or CIs. I had already learned to read and speak well before I even tried HAs. I had HAs on and off, more off than on and at that it was short-lived. They irritated me in more ways than one. My mother never insisted or forced me to wear them. My mother corrected my speech, just like she does with my hearing children, no difference there. Speech therapy didn't do that, it just taught me how to position my tongue with a bunch of tongue-twirling and tongue-twister exercises. All it did was 'iron out' my lisp. It didn't teach me the acquistion or comprehension of language. I got that from reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top