Advances in Technology and a Return to Medicalization

jillio said:
Since the posts have nothing to do with the topic, I could only assume that they were misunderstanding rather than making a deliberate attempt to derail. It was the lesser of 2 evils.
Click to expand...

I think it is bold to assume that people are incapable of understanding you just because they disagree with you.
 
Frisky Feline said:
Maybe it would be helpful to give a few examples in your OP to prevent from misunderstanding more. Due to the past we ve been agruing about the parental choices between with the doctor professional views.


:|
Click to expand...

Thanks, FF. I will give it a try.

Doctors, audiologists, and SLPs are the first, and sometimes only, contact the parent of a deaf child has. If they have a medicalized view of deafness, then they recommend services based on that medicalized view. This results in referral to others that also hold the medicalized view. Since the parent is exposed only to those with a medicalized view, the parent begins to see this as the only or the correct way to view deafness.

Think back to the protests at Gally: Deaf Pres Now. That was a demonstration pushing for the holistic perspective of deafness. That demonstration actually had a big impact on professionals, and they began to move toward a holistic perpsective, or seeing deafness as something that was part of the person, not something to be fixed or cured medically. Many professionals took a more holistic approach after that. I saw it in my colleagues and others. Then, the CI became more universal. Since that time, I have seen a switch back toward the medical perspective, as if hopes are being hinged on the latest technology. I find this disturbing because even with technological advances that allow some deaf to hear more, deafness still affects all domains of their life and development. It also serves to lessen job opportunities and employer's willingness to make accommodations. They think that if a person has a CI, that is the only accommodation they need, and they will refuse to do anything else. It affects educational opportunity. There has been an increase in mainstreaming with minimal accommodations since I have seen the switch ocurring, and as a consequence, many children are being transferred to deaf schools (with a CI) only after they have fallen so far behind there is no other option. This is a sad state of affairs not just for deaf children, but deaf adults, as well.
 
faire_jour said:
I think it is bold to assume that people are incapable of understanding you just because they disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Would you rather I assume that you are deliberately attempting to derail my thread? It is not a matter of disagreement. The posts regarding parental choice are not what the thread was about. Therefore, they are unrelated and off topic.
 
First, I find oralism and a medical perspectives closed tied to each other.

I find it noticable that once hearing people realize that deaf people can do more than hearing people believed, hearing people automatically will use that new knowledge to expand their medical perspective and what can be done. This is not necessary what deaf people find interesting or important.

Take the golden era of deaf ed, when hearing people learned that deaf people could learn to read and write. Teachers and parents got the idea that deaf wasn't that stupid and could learn to speak better. In other words, the Milan event in 1880.

After the deaf education was degraded thanks to years with a medical perspective, sign language and manual systems(cued speech, see) was brought more into deaf education in the 40s and 50s. Then hearing aids came, and everyone jumped on that medical perspective again. Over time, as the expectations didn't match what people hoped for, ASL was brought back into deaf education. Then we got CI, and hearings flocked once again to the medical perspective.

People claiming this question is an attack on "parental choices" would be happier in countries like Iran, IMO.
 
flip said:
First, I find oralism and a medical perspectives closed tied to each other.

I find it noticable that once hearing people realize that deaf people can do more than hearing people believed, hearing people automatically will use that new knowledge to expand their medical perspective and what can be done. This is not necessary what deaf people find interesting or important.

Take the golden era of deaf ed, when hearing people learned that deaf people could learn to read and write. Teachers and parents got the idea that deaf wasn't that stupid and could learn to speak better. In other words, the Milan event in 1880.

After the deaf education was degraded thanks to years with a medical perspective, sign language and manual systems(cued speech, see) was brought more into deaf education in the 40s and 50s. Then hearing aids came, and everyone jumped on that medical perspective again. Over time, as the expectations didn't match what people hoped for, ASL was brought back into deaf education. Then we got CI, and hearings flocked once again to the medical perspective.

People claiming this question is an attack on "parental choices" would be happier in countries in Iran, IMO.
Click to expand...

Ahh...so you are seeing the same shift that I am seeing, and agree that it affects accommodations that are even offered for the deaf.
 
faire_jour said:
I think they understand the topic perfectly but yet, they have chosen to respond with the posts that they wrote. It is not lack of understanding on their part, but you misunderstand their posts, they are taking a stand.
Click to expand...

There really isn't anything upon which to take a "stance".
 
Frisky Feline said:
Maybe it would be helpful to give a few examples in your OP to prevent from misunderstanding more. Due to the past we ve been agruing about the parental choices between with the doctor professional views.


:|
Click to expand...

Check my post at the top of the page. It really is a very simple question.
 
Tousi said:
Check my post at the top of the page. It really is a very simple question.
Click to expand...

Yes i saw your post that your post was not about a question but example. Others continue to misunderstand the OP's. I was making a suggestion to her to put some examples. nothing more. :)
 
jillio said:
Ahh...so you are seeing the same shift that I am seeing, and agree that it affects accommodations that are even offered for the deaf.
Click to expand...

Well, Flip got close but he went all the way back to Milan; whereas I believe you were referring a turnaround these past, say, 20 years, less, more likely.
 
flip said:
I would say, try some thousands.

Jillio asked for input, so she perhaps wants us to come up with numbers, and reason them?
Click to expand...

If it were the case, i would say some thousands because they used the metal ear trumpets that makes your hearing better! :shock:
 
Frisky Feline said:
If it were the case, i would say some thousands because they used the metal trumpets that makes your hearing better! :shock:
Click to expand...

Yes.. The history of modern western medicine started greece some thousands years ago. Wonder what Hippocrates said about deafness.
 
Tousi said:
Well, Flip got close but he went all the way back to Milan; whereas I believe you were referring a turnaround these past, say, 20 years, less, more likely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a closer timeline. I was referring to the more recent past that I have personally observed. Although, I guess if we wanted to, we could examine the shifts from Milan forward. I think we would be seeing a definate repeat of history, and with each, some sort of technological advance that renews hope that "deafness will eventually be cured as a medical problem."
 
flip said:
Yes.. The history of modern western medicine started greece some thousands years ago. Wonder what Hippocrates said about deafness.
Click to expand...

Actually, Hippocrates and Socrates both saw deafness as a holistic issue affecting language, culture, and socialization. They were apparently more advanced that some today.:P
 
Back
Top