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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banjo said:
I wear them. That's why they fine people for not wearing seat belts. Better this way, Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to have someone scrap their brains and guts off the road pavement. Yes, we're going off the topic.

I don't believe one would need a cochlear implant to be successful in life though.
Click to expand...

Yet taxpayers foot the bill for CI's.
 
Beowulf said:
Yet taxpayers foot the bill for CI's.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in Canada, that is the case. There are so many things they refuse to pay for, yet they pay for a number of elective procedures including CI, sex change operations, etc. Yet they won't pay for dental care at all. They don't pay for vision care either.
 
Banjo said:
I wear them.
Click to expand...
And that is your choice. (I've worn them ever since they were available)


Banjo said:
I don't believe one would need a cochlear implant to be successful in life though.
Click to expand...
I agree.

To wear or not to wear a seatbelt is a choice, just like getting a CI or not (or having one's child get one).
 
To wear or not to wear a seatbelt is a choice, just like getting a CI or not (or having one's child get one).
Click to expand...

I don't get fined for not wearing a cochlear implant.
 
Banjo said:
Unfortunately, in Canada, that is the case. There are so many things they refuse to pay for, yet they pay for a number of elective procedures including CI, sex change operations, etc. Yet they won't pay for dental care at all. They don't pay for vision care either.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It ought to be the parents' decision to change the sex of their toddler. Improvement in quality of life and all that.
 
AlleyCat said:
The hearing parents of a deaf child with a CI are going to have the same response as in other threads: dictating an analogy (as was posted in other threads) comparing a CI to forcing a child to eat vegetables or take a bath or tie shoes. The difference is that these are things that are part of growing up, living, etc -- ALL children (DEAF or HEARING) will go through this. There's a substantial difference between that and subjecting a child to a SURGICAL procedure. Feeding and clothing children is nowhere even close. As Yiz said:
Click to expand...

Yep. And obviously, they never will understand the difference as , dare I say it, they cannot put the audist beliefs behind them.
 
AlleyCat said:
The reason I can identify with posters who are not fond of those implanting a child at an early age is that we share the same feeling -- that these hearing parents feel their child cannot get by in life without being implanted with a CI early on. I am profoundly deaf, but I have a high-paying job, I wear HAs and hear what's going on around me, my speech is so good that nobody can identify that it's a deaf person (seriously!) speaking, my English skills are good. Sorry -- I'm not bragging -- just pointing out -- and I did this, among MANY others, without a CI at an early age. If I'm going to get a CI at some point, it will be more to satisfy my curiosity of sounds that I've never heard before. I don't need to improve anything else. Hence why I haven't gotten one just yet, based on my CI audi's recommendations. Yes, many of us have shared "horror stories" of our school years, myself included, and much of that has changed in present times. A deaf child without a CI doesn't necessarily go through even close what many of us did 30, 40 years ago. So for me, a CI is NOT a necessity to succeed. Why parents want to discount the successful adults who did not have a CI as a child is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because it is the only way they can justify their decision in their own minds.
 
set2 said:
Learning to talk and being able to enjoy sounds such as music is also a part of growing up. A C.I. can help a child who is born deaf do these things. Waiting until a child is 18 will most likely mean less benefit from the implant. Some may not benefit as much with an implant but why not give it the best chance of success.

I parents decide to implant their child they should also realize that C.I. s are not perfect and that it will take work for the child to learn to hear with the implant. Parents should also expose their child to other forms of communication such as ASL and from what I have read it seems parents on this board have done this.

I am glad I only had to make the choice for myself because I feel sorry for parents who make the choice for their child and end up being attacked and accused of child abuse.
Click to expand...

From a hearing perspective. And a CI is not necessary for either learning to speak or the enjoyment of music.
 
LoveBlue said:
Really? I didn't have a car seat as a child and I'm still here.
Click to expand...

But they are necessary now. It is illegal to transport a child without one. And childhood injuries and deaths as the result of auto accidents has been greatly reduced as a result. Children have died from not being placed in car seats. No child has ever died from the lack of a CI.
 
deafbajagal said:
A CI is not a bad thing...the only thing I dislike is the misconception (which thankfully is not as common as before) that the device is a fix-it-all for hearing loss and speech impairment. As long as parents are fully informed and they assure that they will make sure the necessary support and therapy is in place, then I'm fine with it. I also dislike it when someone says that without the CI the child cannot succeed - and that's just absurd.
Click to expand...

And as long as they don't use it as an excuse to go oral only, whether in educational environments, home environments, or both.
 
TXgolfer said:
In your opinion.....
Click to expand...

In the opinion of the law. Perhaps you would rather be charged with child endangerment for not using one, but most wouldn't. However, no one has been charged with child endangerment for not implanting a deaf child.

God, with the unreasonable comparisons. The only way to support your position is with sarcasm and fallicious comparisons.
 
LoveBlue said:
And that is your choice. (I've worn them ever since they were available)


I agree.

To wear or not to wear a seatbelt is a choice, just like getting a CI or not (or having one's child get one).
Click to expand...

Nope. Not a choice based on the same criteria. Fallicious comparison. One does not get fined for not implanting, and therefore, the added motivation is not present in CI.
 
Banjo said:
Actually, I was going to say the exact same thing but I decided to not say it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just leave it to me. I have no patience with this silliness any longer.:P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top