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

[jillio]

People seems to forget that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. You can't really make up your own rules as you go along.

Besides, it has nothing to do with this topic.

Just an attempt to deflect since they have run out of arguments that can be held up as logical.

 

[drphil]

Purely coincidental that some of Harlan Lane's discussion re Implant on children replicated above. Apparently Jillio has access to the book: the Journey into the DEAF- WORLD. check OUT chapter 14-second section after discussion on whether Deaf/deaf parents should be "allowed to have deaf/Deaf babies". Apparently a hot topic about 100 years ago. Eugenics was then -hotly debated-apparently.

Seems reality has caught up-"most deaf/Deaf babies" are born of hearing parents-thus the ongoing "uproar". To the below "respectful' comment-why would DEAF/deaf parents consider having their deaf/Deaf babies implanted? Only on computer screens is this debated! Reality?
Rejecting something-is deafness a cultural issue/audiological?- is different than not knowing nothing anything about the issue-one hopes!
I have never claimed to be superior to anyone which suggests the "supposedly friendly atmosphere of the Deaf/deaf" is negated here. Is this reality?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[jillio]

Purely coincidental that some of Harlan Lane's discussion re Implant on children replicated above. Apparently Jillio has access to the book: the Journey into the DEAF- WORLD. check OUT chapter 14-second section after discussion on whether Deaf/deaf parents should be "allowed to have deaf/Deaf babies". Apparently a hot topic about 100 years ago. Eugenics was then -hotly debated-apparently.

Seems reality has caught up-"most deaf/Deaf babies" are born of hearing parents-thus the ongoing "uproar".

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

You are so behind the times.

And deaf babies being born to hearing parents applies to this discussion how?

Why is it exactly that you insist on commenting regarding cultural topics when by your own admission, you know nothing about Deaf culture, nor do you wish to learn? Is it because you consider yourself so very superior as you once had hearing? Got news for you. Your knowledge regarding the Culture is virtually non-existent, so you are not superior in any way. In fact, you are simply ignorant on the topic and choose to remain so.

 

[deafdyke]

fact, studies have shown that when receiving the message with meaning, non-verbal language is relied on more than the speech for understanding

(sarcasm) But don't you know jillo? Speechreading (which includes decoding nonvebral language) is a CRUTCH! You CAN learn to listen and not depend on decoding nonverbal language!(/sarcasm)

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

there are plenty of people who received CIs as adults and say that their only regret is not getting it earlier as well as many who wish they had received them as children. There is also a growing number of ***********s who are implanting their children because of the immense benefit that childhood implantation provides.

it is impossible to compare the benefit that a child gets from an implant to that of an adult who was deaf from birth. It is the difference between enviromental awareness and open set language comprehension. You can't "just wait", you are deciding to deny them that opportunity.

as for "you can learn speech at any age", yeah, but you can't learn to hear. Receptive understanding is 50% of communicating and that is what you are disallowing.[/QUOTE]

Could you please get off that already?! There are numerous people here, including myself, who are living proof of d/Deaf (severely, profoundly and stone deaf) achieving fluency in spoken and written language and comprehension WITHOUT CIs. (or HAs for that matter).

 

[inmate23]

(sarcasm) But don't you know jillo? Speechreading (which includes decoding nonvebral language) is a CRUTCH! You CAN learn to listen and not depend on decoding nonverbal language!(/sarcasm)

thats bs in the real world

There are numerous people here, including myself, who are living proof of d/Deaf (severely, profoundly and stone deaf) achieving fluency in spoken and written language and comprehension WITHOUT CIs. (or HAs for that matter).

well said

 

[GrendelQ]

Now you're back pedaling?

Medicaid AND medicare pays for it. People intentionally drop jobs to get on medicaid to get the CI.

just drop this one too. You were wrong, man up, admit it.

Eh, no. The general taxpayer doesn't 'pay for' our children's CIs.

Sure, if you stretch, as you are doing, you can make an argument that my taxes 'pay for' pretty much anything -- the car you drive, the house you own, the food you eat. The statement from the commenter who said that taxpayers foot the bill for CIs is not accurate and not relevant. Why say it? Because you think you, as a taxpayer should have a say in the medical care my daughter gets because of some link to the retirement taxes we pay? No. Making this connection is like me saying that I should have a say over what kind of car you get, what kind of work you do, what medical care you get because I "pay for" your car, your salary, your healthcare, etc. in the same way that you "pay for" my employer-provided health insurance plan that really did pay for my daughter's CIs.

As I said, though, you don't pay her medical bills, but what your taxes DO pay for, if you are a MA taxpayer, is the ~$95K a year for my daughter's education at a school for the deaf vs. the estimated $16-20K you'd pay for her in the public school.

 

[shel90]

Wirelessly posted

there are plenty of people who received CIs as adults and say that their only regret is not getting it earlier as well as many who wish they had received them as children. There is also a growing number of ***********s who are implanting their children because of the immense benefit that childhood implantation provides.

it is impossible to compare the benefit that a child gets from an implant to that of an adult who was deaf from birth. It is the difference between enviromental awareness and open set language comprehension. You can't "just wait", you are deciding to deny them that opportunity.

as for "you can learn speech at any age", yeah, but you can't learn to hear. Receptive understanding is 50% of communicating and that is what you are disallowing.[/QUOTE]

Could you please get off that already?! There are numerous people here, including myself, who are living proof of d/Deaf (severely, profoundly and stone deaf) achieving fluency in spoken and written language and comprehension WITHOUT CIs. (or HAs for that matter).

Dont worry about FJ...she seems to hang onto the belief that deaf people cant do any of that without a CI. Let her have those beliefs. We all know otherwise.

 

[BecLak]

True, Shel (though we need to stick up for the likes of us, it infuriates me too, when it is implied that we are less than capable without assistive apparatus such as CIs and HAs. It is a choice not a necessity)

 

[jillio]

(sarcasm) But don't you know jillo? Speechreading (which includes decoding nonvebral language) is a CRUTCH! You CAN learn to listen and not depend on decoding nonverbal language!(/sarcasm)

Yeah, I know, say the oralists.:roll: They are so sadly misinformed.

 

[jillio]

Eh, no. The general taxpayer doesn't 'pay for' our children's CIs.

Sure, if you stretch, as you are doing, you can make an argument that my taxes 'pay for' pretty much anything -- the car you drive, the house you own, the food you eat. The statement from the commenter who said that taxpayers foot the bill for CIs is not accurate and not relevant. Why say it? Because you think you, as a taxpayer should have a say in the medical care my daughter gets because of some link to the retirement taxes we pay? No. Making this connection is like me saying that I should have a say over what kind of car you get, what kind of work you do, what medical care you get because I "pay for" your car, your salary, your healthcare, etc. in the same way that you "pay for" my employer-provided health insurance plan that really did pay for my daughter's CIs.

As I said, though, you don't pay her medical bills, but what your taxes DO pay for, if you are a MA taxpayer, is the ~$95K a year for my daughter's education at a school for the deaf vs. the estimated $16-20K you'd pay for her in the public school.

Oh, it is most certainly relevant.

Again, you are taking a generalized statement, which was, in fact, accurate, and trying to make it all about you and your child. You really have a problem there.

No one is complaining about paying for educational costs. Bringing that in is just another attempt at deflection. Try to stick to the topic, and try to not make everything about you.

 

[jillio]

Dont worry about FJ...she seems to hang onto the belief that deaf people cant do any of that without a CI. Let her have those beliefs. We all know otherwise.

Oh, she can have those beliefs. What she can't do is spout the kind of destructive and false information in a public place where someone might actually believe her nonsense without getting corrected. She can have her beliefs, and if she wants to just go on with her life with them, no biggie. The only person she hurts is her own, and we all know that she "has a right to choose" as she has told us so quite often. What she can't do is prosletyze in public like a religious zealot. Not as long as I am here. I will continue to point out her false statements and incorrect assumptions, as I will with any audist views I see.

 

[posts from hell]

Eh, no. The general taxpayer doesn't 'pay for' our children's CIs.

Sure, if you stretch, as you are doing, you can make an argument that my taxes 'pay for' pretty much anything -- the car you drive, the house you own, the food you eat. The statement from the commenter who said that taxpayers foot the bill for CIs is not accurate and not relevant. Why say it? Because you think you, as a taxpayer should have a say in the medical care my daughter gets because of some link to the retirement taxes we pay? No. Making this connection is like me saying that I should have a say over what kind of car you get, what kind of work you do, what medical care you get because I "pay for" your car, your salary, your healthcare, etc. in the same way that you "pay for" my employer-provided health insurance plan that really did pay for my daughter's CIs.

As I said, though, you don't pay her medical bills, but what your taxes DO pay for, if you are a MA taxpayer, is the ~$95K a year for my daughter's education at a school for the deaf vs. the estimated $16-20K you'd pay for her in the public school.

Are you serious?

Your arguments make me happy there's schools of the likes of Cooper Union and Olin... These schools make schools like Harvard appear as mainstream...

This is not about YOU. If there werent such a huge amount of audism we wouldn't be paying that much for your daughter's education.
If there werent such a huge amount of audism - we wouldn't see 65-70% unemployment across all bands of the deaf world - of most which are on government's tab and public insurance.

Again, this is not about you.

 

[jillio]

Are you serious?

Your arguments make me happy there's schools like Cooper Union and Olin... These schools make schools like Harvard look like mainstream...

This is not about YOU. If there werent such a huge amount of audism we wouldn't be paying that much for your daughter's education.
If there werent such a huge amount of audism - we wouldn't see 65-70% unemployment across all bands of the deaf world - of most which are on government's tab and public insurance.
Again, this is not about you.

Bingo!

 

[GrendelQ]

There are two issues that others have brought up here: one IS about my child, one is not, but some are trying to make it about my child.

The latter is what the OP brought up. It became relevant to my child when people made this about their own agendas rather than about this deaf child. Lampooning the issue in silly dramatizations, such as is done in this video, politicizing the situation and using the CI as lightning rod deflects from the reality of this situation, the child's needs and the real abuse (which has very little, if anything to do with CIs). This very painful story of a damaged and hurt child demonstrates a horrific breakdown in communication between parents and between these parents and this child. But rather than take issue with this, some make it about the CI, about themeselves and their own fears.

Statements made about CIs and how resources are used to support her as a deaf child are about my daughter. Just as audism harms each and every deaf person on a personal level (real audism, not some of the silly issues that people often declare as audism, undercutting the meaning of the concept), so do misconceptions about the motivations behind getting CIs and the mechanics of how they work and what resources are used to support their existence harm each and every deaf child with a CI.

Taxpayers do support my daughter, yes. But not by paying for her CIs. They support her education. Why on earth are you taking issue with the fact that deaf children receive support generated by taxpayers? What that support is (whether CI or ASL-based education) is NOT for you to judge or decide based on your own personal values. Do you think I want my neighbors protesting the use of a whole lot of school resources to send my child to the school in which she thrives because they would prefer she attend an oral school? Or be mainstreamed? That's not for them to say -- even though it's their money sending her there. And it's not for you to say. It's also not for you to judge whether our medical care goes to CIs or brain surgery or braces -- especially since it's not your money providing this (but even if it were, even for the handful of retirees and disabled using medicare for this purpose -- it's not your place to make the decision about what they do with the care that is rightfully theirs).

 

[posts from hell]

You need to realize again, this is not about you.

If you were perfectly content with what you are doing (as well as many other AD members) you wouldnt be overly defensive about your choices.

 

[drphil]

Interesting to read some of the various comments above and square this about how the "supposedly Deaf/ deaf community" welcomes in a "friendly/respectfully manner" recently "deafen persons". Respectful-closed fist?

Is a nest of vipers more accurate?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[flip]

Just as audism harms each and every deaf person on a personal level (real audism, not some of the silly issues that people often declare as audism, undercutting the meaning of the concept), so do misconceptions about the motivations behind getting CIs and the mechanics of how they work and what resources are used to support their existence harm each and every deaf child with a CI.

May I ask you, do Rick48 make audist posts on alldeaf.com?

 

[flip]

Interesting to read some of the various comments above and square this about how the "supposedly Deaf/ deaf community" welcomes in a "friendly/respectfully manner" recently "deafen persons". Respectful-closed fist?

Is a nest of vipers more accurate?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony deactivated Aug/07

Sure you aren't "projecting" some of your "feelings" or "behavior" onto a group of "people"?

 

[flip]

I never get tired watching informed choicers getting winded up like firework by the smallest spark, howling towards the sky, going kaboooom in a fascinating pattern, that then fades away into an hollow silence by the last post from Calvin.