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

[Oceanbreeze]

For the record here, I think the OP phrasing of this thread is a little extreme. I don't think parents force kids to wear CI's. However, MOST parents of children with CI's go oral only and refuse to incorporate ASL into the child's life once the child has been implanted. This is against their rights! Forcing the child rely on their weakest sense in all situations is wrong; CI or not. A parent may think that the child is an awesome lip reader. The child may be, but it's not right to make a child (or any deaf person, for that matter) have to lip read day in and day out when the CI is not in use. There will always be situations in which the CI has to be off or situations where the child doesn't hear well. In those situations, ASL is needed and should be given.

 

[GrendelQ]

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

I'll give an example of what I mean: there are some who prefer to emphasize or prioritize the development of ASL with their children, as my family did and does (in our case, we emphasize ASL because it's harder for us -- my husband and I are not yet fluent and we don't live and work in an asl immersive community, so we put much more work into constructing and making sure the little one has an ASL environment). That doesn't necessarily mean they (we) devalue spoken language at all or think that those who don't have access to sound are superior to those who do!

And there are some who prefer to emphasize the development of spoken language. That doesn't necessarily mean they devalue ASL at all or think that those who have access to sound are superior to those who don't.

But too often the expression of valuing spoken language or the access to sound provided by a CI is automatically seen as audism -- when there's no indication that the person thinks a hearing person is superior to a deaf person.

 

[deafbajagal]

I'll give an example of what I mean: there are some who prefer to emphasize or prioritize the development of ASL with their children, as my family did and does (in our case, we emphasize ASL because it's harder for us -- my husband and I are not yet fluent and we don't live and work in an asl immersive community, so we put much more work into constructing and making sure the little one has an ASL environment). That doesn't necessarily mean they (we) devalue spoken language at all or think that those who don't have access to sound are superior to those who do!

And there are some who prefer to emphasize the development of spoken language. That doesn't necessarily mean they devalue ASL at all or think that those who have access to sound are superior to those who don't.

But too often the expression of valuing spoken language or the access to sound provided by a CI is automatically seen as audism -- when there's no indication that the person thinks a hearing person is superior to a deaf person.

You're right. But it's rare to see parents like you who realize that spoken language is equal to ASL. In my experience, many parents see spoken language as superior, with ASL being the option to use (last resort, even) when the child is unable to use spoken language effectively. Also, many professionals who work with parents about CIs often state in one way or another that CIs will facilitate and even make spoken language possible. It's really rare to see professionals who directly work with CIs to promote ASL as one of the language options. Many audiologists and CI specialists I have met are not familiar with ASL or are against the concept of using manual communication with using a CI.

On the flip side, ASL is NOT superior to spoken language. (Now the deaf people might start throwing tomatoes at me). It's not. I am not against spoken language but my personal and professional experiences has made it really difficult for me to promote spoken language for many children because of the methodology and some of the negative experiences which may arise. One big issue that many deaf people forget sometimes is that ASL is NOT always accessible to hearing parents, for numerous reasons. So we have to be realistic and think of ways we can provide support in that regard.

Me, personally, I think most children with CIs should have access to both.

 

[BecLak]

Good point, OceanBreeze,

The video clearly shows the error here - where the mother is insisting the child answer orally and talks to her, without her CIs on, and without making sure that the child can see her first. There is no two-way communication in sign language here. The mother is attempting at some sign language but totally missing 'reading' her daughter's visual responses and expressions (a vital component of sign language), but demands a response orally without CIs all the while insisting she put the CIs on. It is purely selfish on the mother's part.

 

[flip]

I'll give an example of what I mean: there are some who prefer to emphasize or prioritize the development of ASL with their children, as my family did and does (in our case, we emphasize ASL because it's harder for us -- my husband and I are not yet fluent and we don't live and work in an asl immersive community, so we put much more work into constructing and making sure the little one has an ASL environment). That doesn't necessarily mean they (we) devalue spoken language at all or think that those who don't have access to sound are superior to those who do!

And there are some who prefer to emphasize the development of spoken language. That doesn't necessarily mean they devalue ASL at all or think that those who have access to sound are superior to those who don't.

But too often the expression of valuing spoken language or the access to sound provided by a CI is automatically seen as audism -- when there's no indication that the person thinks a hearing person is superior to a deaf person.

Ok, so Rick48 does not make audist posts according to you?

 

[BecLak]

You're right. But it's rare to see parents like you who realize that spoken language is equal to ASL. In my experience, many parents see spoken language as superior, with ASL being the option to use (last resort, even) when the child is unable to use spoken language effectively. Also, many professionals who work with parents about CIs often state in one way or another that CIs will facilitate and even make spoken language possible. It's really rare to see professionals who directly work with CIs to promote ASL as one of the language options. Many audiologists and CI specialists I have met are not familiar with ASL or are against the concept of using manual communication with using a CI.

On the flip side, ASL is NOT superior to spoken language. (Now the deaf people might start throwing tomatoes at me). It's not. I am not against spoken language but my personal and professional experiences has made it really difficult for me to promote spoken language for many children because of the methodology and some of the negative experiences which may arise. One big issue that many deaf people forget sometimes is that ASL is NOT always accessible to hearing parents, for numerous reasons. So we have to be realistic and think of ways we can provide support in that regard.

Me, personally, I think most children with CIs should have access to both.

Sign Language should be made readily available to all who are deaf and their family members. Sign Language is EQUAL to English or to any other language and should be valued as a LOTE (Language Other Than English) in all schools in countries where English is the main language. Other countries where the main language is not English, Sign Language should be treated as equal respectively to the language of that nation.

 

[posts from hell]

Ok, so Rick48 does not make audist posts according to you?

He does to me. Its clear as day.

 

[iowaboy]

I think you could make a human rights claim about denying a child a CI as well-- that's the opposing extreme here. Good parenting is to research the options, and make the decision that you decide is right.

Personally, we decided to implant and to use signed English along with the verbal education. She loves the implants, but I probably would find a way to keep them on her if she resisted- as long as the wasn't indicating pain. As for the communication- we'll take that however it comes. Signed, verbal, or any other way. I think this is by FAR the most common mindset.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

i love that on one hand people say that the deaf are doing just fine and that they have mastered english and have no need for hearing aids or CIs but in the very next sentence say that there is a 70% unemployment rate and that thousands are deaf people are functionally illiterate....which is it? Is there a crisis of undereducation or not??

 

[jillio]

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).

You were the one that brought your child into the discussion. You alone are responsible if she became part of the topic. Start showing some responsibilities for your actions and stop trying to make it someone else's responsibility.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

i love that on one hand people say that the deaf are doing just fine and that they have mastered english and have no need for hearing aids or CIs but in the very next sentence say that there is a 70% unemployment rate and that thousands are deaf people are functionally illiterate....which is it? Is there a crisis of undereducation or not??

Those two things are completely disconnected. I love how people say the CI has made such a difference for the deaf, and yet they still have an unemployment rate higher than average, and education that is sub par in both oral and mainstream arenas. Looks like the CI hasn't been the magic pill so many hung their hope on. Why? Because, as with all audist solutions, they are trying to solve a problem with the same mind that created it.

 

[jillio]

Ok, so Rick48 does not make audist posts according to you?

Hard core audist, that one...and I might add the term "nasty hearie" to that.

 

[posts from hell]

Those two things are completely disconnected. I love how people say the CI has made such a difference for the deaf, and yet they still have an unemployment rate higher than average, and education that is sub par in both oral and mainstream arenas. Looks like the CI hasn't been the magic pill so many hung their hope on. Why? Because, as with all audist solutions, they are trying to solve a problem with the same mind that created it.

mmmhmm... reading comprehension..

How can you effectively teach your loved ones English if you cant read yourself?

 

[jillio]

Good point, OceanBreeze,

The video clearly shows the error here - where the mother is insisting the child answer orally and talks to her, without her CIs on, and without making sure that the child can see her first. There is no two-way communication in sign language here. The mother is attempting at some sign language but totally missing 'reading' her daughter's visual responses and expressions (a vital component of sign language), but demands a response orally without CIs all the while insisting she put the CIs on. It is purely selfish on the mother's part.

No concern for the needs of the child at all, and I find that very disturbing.

 

[jillio]

mmmhmm... reading comprehension..

How can you effectively teach your loved ones English if you cant read yourself?

Well, they say you can only teach 70% of what you know, and if you know only 60%, that means you can teach only 70% of that 60%. Looks like the one being taught is getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Good point, OceanBreeze,

The video clearly shows the error here - where the mother is insisting the child answer orally and talks to her, without her CIs on, and without making sure that the child can see her first. There is no two-way communication in sign language here. The mother is attempting at some sign language but totally missing 'reading' her daughter's visual responses and expressions (a vital component of sign language), but demands a response orally without CIs all the while insisting she put the CIs on. It is purely selfish on the mother's part.

Admittedly, I responded without seeing the video. I merely responded to the phrasing of the thread. Maybe, I did that purposely? At any rate, now having some idea what the video is about, I stand by what I said. Forcing a child to lip read; even when they are good at it, is wrong. It's been proven that deafies only catch about 30% of what is being said when they try to speech read. If an adult has difficulty with speech reading, can you imagine a youngster having difficulty? Good grief!

 

[jillio]

I think you could make a civil rights claim about denying a child a CI as well-- that's the opposing extreme here. Good parenting is to research the options, and make the decision that you decide is right.

Personally, we decided to implant and to use signed English along with the verbal education. She loves the implants, but I probably would find a way to keep them on her if she resisted- as long as the wasn't indicating pain. As for the communication- we'll take that however it comes. Signed, verbal, or any other way. I think this is by FAR the most common mindset.

Why would you think that it is a civil rights issue? I don't think hearing is covered in civil rights. Making your child hearing is more of a parental right.

But I do agree with the rest of your statement. I would only add, research from all perspectives, and not just the one that supports your view.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Those two things are completely disconnected. I love how people say the CI has made such a difference for the deaf, and yet they still have an unemployment rate higher than average, and education that is sub par in both oral and mainstream arenas. Looks like the CI hasn't been the magic pill so many hung their hope on. Why? Because, as with all audist solutions, they are trying to solve a problem with the same mind that created it.

mmmhmm... reading comprehension..

How can you effectively teach your loved ones English if you cant read yourself?

just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

as for the underemployment of childhood CI users, i don't believe enough time has passed to study that, though i did recently come across a small study that was about the subject, i will find it again and write what it says. (in my memory it was only a handful of people and a few were in college, others in vocational training...i really don't remember the conclusions.)

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted



just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

as for the underemployment of childhood CI users, i don't believe enough time has passed to study that, though i did recently come across a small study that was about the subject, i will find it again and write what it says. (in my memory it was only a handful of people and a few were in college, others in vocational training...i really don't remember the conclusions.)

then why the sarcasm?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

as for the underemployment of childhood CI users, i don't believe enough time has passed to study that, though i did recently come across a small study that was about the subject, i will find it again and write what it says. (in my memory it was only a handful of people and a few were in college, others in vocational training...i really don't remember the conclusions.)

When someone disagrees based on an obvious distortion of what was written, it is a sign of lack of comprehension. Or just plain nastiness at trying to fulfill some grudge. You choose.

Hmmm.... so there are no adults that were implanted as children. I beg to differ on that one. But let's say that is true. How can you claim that the CI will increase opportunity if the evidence is not there to support it because "not enough time has passed"?

When you copy and paste from that study (not paraphrase) be certain to include a complete citation so that those of us that wish to read the entire study can do so.