C.i?

[SilenceGold]

Disability people are labeled as disabled because they have "Special" needs. CI is one of them. If you think that Hearing parents shouldn't make the decisions on what their "disabled" child would need, then I guess I'll like to watch you figuring out how to understand what a child with a very limited language and critical thinking to tell you.

 

[SilenceGold]

And btw...it is spelled grammar.

 

[ShEiLdTaLiSmAn]

whoopie about grammAr. Geez!

The disabities. I have my belief and I said it here. U have yours and thats yours.

CI. I had said earlier on, everyone have their own needs. INCLUDING hearing parents!

 

[deafdyke]

I don't see where you are coming from. Many people would not want to be disabled (even worse.. DEAF!), or even in an altered form.

Taz, just as Deafness is a sociocultral concept so is Disabilty. As well as being a Deaf Rights activist, I am also a Disabilty Rights Activist. Disabilty Rights believes that there is NOTHING wrong with disabilty. Yes, I know many nondisabled people would not want to be disabled. They associate it with inabilty. They know what it's like to see, hear, walk or whatever. They are limited and impaired and they KNOW it. However those of us who were born or had an early onset of our disabilty can't really concepitlize what it's like to be able to see, hear, walk or whatever. For us our disabilty IS "normal"
Normality is a social concept. In some societies it's normal for a cousin to marry another cousin. In ancient Greece it was normal for an older man to have sex with a younger boy (pederasty). In some societies you can be stoned for having sex out of marriage. In China it was normal(even "sexy") for girls to have deformed feet
I consider disabilty just another part of the human spectrum, sort of like skin color,or gender or sexual oreintation. I do not consider myself unabled, but I DO consider myself disabled!
Disabilty can be adapted to and lived with! Like the bumper sticker says...attitude is the REAL disabilty!

 

[tAzMaNiAc]

Re: Re: CI's in children

Originally posted by LadyDuke

In my opinion, CIs are good for POSTlingually children, not PRElingually children. Although I hate the idea of CIs in kids and adults, CIs are still another form of hearing aids - surgically. Like hearing aids, CIs won't destroy Deaf Culture as most of my fellow Deaf Culturists claim.

I was just using the virtual retina as an example. I didn't mean it for all blind people. The concept is there though.

Of course not all deaf kids should be implanted, but most are candidates and should have the opportunity for this if conditions are right.

PostLingually? If they are deaf from birth they don't have language! Kids born deaf are prelingual, and need to be implanted right there to be able to acquire verbal and auditory skills on the same scale as normal hearing children...

Thanks for your viewpoint.

Brenden

 

[pinkster]

I'm not one to spark up a whole new debate, but I'll try to add a small comment. (riiight)

I grew up thinking that CI's were the devil, you know, dont get them, dont ever promote them. My dad's whole family has a progressive hearing loss - it starts early and then by the time we're teenagers, its almost completly gone. ASL is our first language, English our second. I grew up going to the Deaf club and people there have always said they're bad. Yes, i've heard "CI's ruin our culture" "they make you robots" "they limit you from sports, fun, anything!" Granted, having one comes with an enormous responsibility. With that, it was family opinion to say "they're wrong."

Yet the older I got, the more I felt I kind of missed out. No, Im not sorry I'm deaf (physically speaking), I'm just glad it comes with Deafness. When I moved in with my hearing mom at 17, she asked me if I'd ever consider a CI, my response was a quick "FUCK NO!" She simply asked me why, and I couldnt give her a rational answer. That was when I started wonder "are they really that bad?" And I came to the conclusion of: no, they are not. They may not work for everyone (yes i have SEVERAL friends who have said they hate it and it doesnt work.) Yet I have a couple other ones for whom they work for! Myself, I know they're not evil - society is expanding - technology wise. Im sorry for the fact that people feel we are limited - but I think we are only limited if we choose to allow ourselves to be, and to allow other people to treat us as if we are. I just feel that babies - i mean, i'll just say that Im not comfortable knowing that the child has no defense against whats happening to them. Yes, they may work early on, but when I see someone say "we're doing this so they can have a better life and not feel like the world is against them," I flip out. The world is not against me, and I work just F-I-N-E out in the hearing world. Life is what you make it, EDUCATE people. Deaf people who complain that hearing people call us disabled, treats us like we're stupid, talk to us as if we're children, are L-A-Z-Y. Life is about learning - educate the people around you. Pass on something important. If someone asks you about a CI, give a non-biased answer. (I've tried.) There are positives and negatives to a CI, to anything.

*remembers past posts* Disability? Sad to say my yearbook quote says "Deafness is a way of life, not a disability." I agree with whomever said that if someone says deafness is not a disability, then stop using ADA laws, interps.. etc.. I cant consider myself disabled, I really cant. It doesnt come from being in a Deaf family, or growing up at the Deaf club. It comes from being treated as an equal in grade school, and junior high. High school was a mess (when is it not!) and it became harder to fit in. The older you get, the more biased you are - what ever happened to grade school? (edit: After talking to my dad - its sad that we have to have a law that gets us ASL interpreters when if someone who is spanish, asks for one, hearing people say SURE NOT A PROBLEM!! They dont hassle them as much as they would a Deaf person.)

Someone commented on grammar - Im sorry to say but fuck you. Being Deaf - or deaf - doesnt matter - comes with the neglect to know perfect grammar. My best friend's grammar sucks, but like i said - EDUCATE people. I help her, i help anyone. I dont become angry because she doesnt make sense, or when she messes up. Granted - its no excuse - but obviously its not going to change anytime soon - move on - dont correct.

Ever notice its the ones who have a better speaking ability that lash out at the ones who dont?

Thats all I got.

 

[SilenceGold]

I am never angry when I make a remark of a spelling error or a grammar error. You can just say, "Please don't correct me from now on" then I will try to remember not to bother you on that.

If you are not disabled then you can live on without any special needs like those ADA laws, interpreters, and other special help. Today, you can feel able. Tomorrow when you need an interpreter, that's disability day. Who really cares if you are disabled or not? It's just our society has accepted it. Well, not all in USA yet.

/me goes back to job hunting and cussing at recruiters who says "How can you use a telephone."

 

[kuifje75]

Grammar is not only a deaf thing. A lot of hearing ppl also have that problem. It can be surprising, when you are teaching at a school, how many grammar mistakes hearing students make. I don't think it matters if a person is deaf or hearing, grammar has to be an important part of the students' education, and made sure to be checked on and improved.

 

[deafdyke]

Very true on the comments about grammer, syntax and everything.....even hearing people have trouble articulating themsleves via written language! I am on several listservs for parents of special needs kids for some conditions I have. There are people on those listservs who cannot articulate a correct sentence! There's actually a woman who's posts are so bad that I always delete them without even reading them! She cannot form a coherent sentence at all!

Of course not all deaf kids should be implanted, but most are candidates and should have the opportunity for this if conditions are right.PostLingually? If they are deaf from birth they don't have language! Kids born deaf are prelingual, and need to be implanted right there to be able to acquire verbal and auditory skills on the same scale as normal hearing children...

Taz, Sorry I disagree. I do think in the cases where there is absolutly positively ZERO to little benifit from conventional hearing aids, that they should be implanted in childhood. However in cases where kids get a lot of benifit from being aided, parents should WAIT and let the child decide on their own. As I have stated else where in the forum, I had surgury at seventeen (canalplasty) I get a LOT of benifit from hearing aids, and speechreading. I am EXTREMELY glad that my parents waited til I could make the decision on my own and didn't try to cure or make me hearing when I was little. (the canalplasty could have made it so I would have been hearing) I like sound, yes...but I also love silence.
When it's ambigous as to if a CI could help a hearing person hear better then with hearing aids, the parents should wait until the child is old enough to make the decison!
Yes, kids born deaf are prelingal...however they can't get implanted until they are 18 months. Even with the BAER, it's really diffcult to accuratly tell how well a baby can hear. I've heard of kids who tested profound on the BAER but are actually HOH!
I do not think kids born deaf should automatically be implanted and automatically put into a/v training without exposure to sign.
Born deaf and early deafened kids SHOULD grow up with exposure to both speech and sign. Born/early deafened kids make up the biggest group of oral failures. Even today there are many many oral failures! That's actually a big reason why acheivement at deaf schools is so low, b/c most of the oral/mainstream failures or the kids who fall through the cracks or kids who don't have involved parents end up there!

 

[SilenceGold]

I just thought of this idea...

Is it bad to teach monkey sign language. Would the baby monkey's parents be mad at us for teaching them a better language than their own body languages?

To us, it could be good because we have the intelligence to understand far more better than those monkey parents. Imagine how they would love to argue with us if they could speak to us.

 

[Cain Marko]

Originally posted by deafdyke I do think in the cases where there is absolutly positively ZERO to little benifit from conventional hearing aids, that they should be implanted in childhood. However in cases where kids get a lot of benifit from being aided, parents should WAIT and let the child decide on their own.

Define benefit.

As I have stated else where in the forum, I had surgury at seventeen (canalplasty) I get a LOT of benifit from hearing aids, and speechreading.

Again define benefit. Maybe like you my H/A allow me to hear things in a "normal" range. Which to me means speech.
I define beneficial H/A as getting enough power to hear speech. Why bother with hearing aids if you cant hear anything but loud noises. With an implant, a child has the chance to learn to hear without using visual cues to know what a person is saying.

I am EXTREMELY glad that my parents waited til I could make the decision on my own and didn't try to cure or make me hearing when I was little. (the canalplasty could have made it so I would have been hearing) I like sound, yes...but I also love silence.

It sounds like you wouldnt even be a candidate for an implant so why do you say i am glad i didnt get it when you couldnt get it if you actually wanted it.
A CI user is still deaf, more deaf than you or I. They take off the headpiece and they hear diddley.

When it's ambigous as to if a CI could help a hearing person hear better then with hearing aids, the parents should wait until the child is old enough to make the decison!

No. Parents should continue to test the childs hearing until they are comfortable with diagnosing the loss.
Not sit and wait till they get older.

Yes, kids born deaf are prelingal...however they can't get implanted until they are 18 months.

Wrong. Its FDA approved 12 months now and with special circumstances even younger.

Even with the BAER, it's really diffcult to accuratly tell how well a baby can hear. I've heard of kids who tested profound on the BAER but are actually HOH!

A decision to implant wouldnt be made until the loss was diagnosed. Sure babies are hard to test in a sound booth. Thats why you dont take one test but many and over time.

I do not think kids born deaf should automatically be implanted and automatically put into a/v training without exposure to sign.
Born deaf and early deafened kids SHOULD grow up with exposure to both speech and sign.

Education choices are different for each kid. But if todays child is implanted with todays technology then use the tool they are given. Go full A/V with no visuals. The kid can/will succeed. I see the proof of it.

Born/early deafened kids make up the biggest group of oral failures. Even today there are many many oral failures! That's actually a big reason why acheivement at deaf schools is so low, b/c most of the oral/mainstream failures or the kids who fall through the cracks or kids who don't have involved parents end up there!

Thats old tech working with oral education. You cant compare it to today. I wouldnt call kids oral failures just like I wouldnt say kids are ASL failures. Each kid needs an education to learn communicate tailored to the way they learn.
Kids arent failures.

But I'd say this. If a parent or person wants to succeed with something than go find those that are successful with a similar choice. Dont join a school that doesnt promote what you think is possible for your kid. Give your kid every chance to succeed. In this specific discussions example do not use sign, do not use cueing, do not use lipreading. Go all out listening and talking. Dont give the kid any chance to cheat by learning any visuals. That way the brain has an excellent chance at learning to listen and learning to speak way before the kid steps one foot into kindergarten. No more speech therapy after they hit grade school...how great is that. And its possible.


Seriously, you got as much CI knowledge as a kitchen magnet. Really you should be advocating for a group similar to yourself that can use the expertise (whatever it may be) in a constructive way. You aint explaing the CI world well at all.
I would encourage you to visit a local school with CI kids in it. See how different life is for them than it was for us 20?? years ago.




"Hey Alex I hope this post meets with your approval."

 

[deafdyke]

Actually Cain there are STILL MANY oral failures even today! Talk to someone at a school for the deaf! Even at Moog Oral school, there are "pure oral" failures who actually NEED ASL!

[do not use sign, do not use cueing, do not use lipreading. Go all out listening and talking. Dont give the kid any chance to cheat by learning any visuals. That way the brain has an excellent chance at learning to listen and learning to speak way/QUOTE] Umm....did you know that even hearing people speechread? I am the only deafie at my college, and ALL my friends are hearing....they can speechread so well that we can have spoken conversations without even making a sound! I cannot believe how many deaf people seem to think that hearing people don't read lips. There are some that don't but most of those people are out of it Asperger Syndromey types who can't even read basic body language!
Besides that is a WONDERFUL way to produce a half-literate person. Very few people can truely suceed at a program like that as it does NOT give a deaf or hoh person 100% access to LANGAGUE!

 

[deafdyke]

Almost forgot... I actually do know that now they are implanting based on an audiogram, (what you hear without hearing aids) rather then what you hear with hearing aids!
I know a little boy who had a 90% hearing loss (unaided audiogram) but with hearing aids he heard about 70% of what was said (with hearing aids I hear about 80-85% of what's said) and he got implanted!
I know a guy who has a severe-profound loss. Can hear almost everything with aids on...but b/c he can't talk on the phone, they told him that he was a canidate for implantation!
I do know a lot about CI....however I am simply skeptical about the oral sucess claims!

 

[LadyDuke]

Re: Re: Re: CI's in children

Originally posted by tAzMaNiAc
.
Of course not all deaf kids should be implanted, but most are candidates and should have the opportunity for this if conditions are right.

I suppose so. But there's a problem. Early implantation in babies is dangerous. What if the baby was actually born hearing, but did not respond to hearing screening for some reasons? What if the baby was born hard-of-hearing and has enough residual hearing to develop language? Don't you think they should wait til children get older - probably at five years old?

PostLingually? If they are deaf from birth they don't have language! Kids born deaf are prelingual, and need to be implanted right there to be able to acquire verbal and auditory skills on the same scale as normal hearing children...

Yes, I know the difference between postlingually and prelingually.

I honestly am skeptical that CIs will work for most PRElingually deaf children because it requires a lot of work learning the auditory language and developing verbal skills.

CIs would work better for POSTlingually children because the auditory language is already all in their heads. They will have less trouble accustoming to the device.

As for language development in PRElingually deaf children, they really don't need auditory input to acquire language. They still can acquire language via ASL and/or Cued Speech/English.

I'm PRElingually Deaf and am also congenitally deaf. I was born WITHOUT concept of speech. I wore my first auditory trainers at the age of 18 months. That's early, isn't it? anyway, I still lack word comprehension today despite the fact that I had 14 years of A/V training sessions! I'm sure the results will be the same thing if I was implanted as a toddler.

I acquired language without a problem. I had the same language development process as most "normal" hearing children have. I learned a language for the first time when I was 9 months old. It began with ASL. Then at age 2 or 3, I learned the written version of the English language.

I'm the living proof here that PRElingually deaf children CAN and WILL acquire language without auditory/verbal inputs.

 

[sablescort]

Re: Re: Re: Re: CI's in children

Originally posted by LadyDuke
I suppose so. But there's a problem. Early implantation in babies is dangerous. What if the baby was actually born hearing, but did not respond to hearing screening for some reasons? What if the baby was born hard-of-hearing and has enough residual hearing to develop language? Don't you think they should wait til children get older - probably of five years old?



Yes, I know the difference between postlingually and prelingually.

I honestly am skeptical that CIs will work for most PRElingually children because it requires a lot of work learning the auditory language and developing verbal skills.

CIs would work better for POSTlingually children because the auditory language is already all in their heads. They will have less trouble accustoming to the device.

As for language development in POSTlingually children, they really don't need auditory input to acquire language. They still can acquire language via ASL and/or Cued Speech/English.

I'm PRElingually Deaf and am also congenitally deaf. I was born WITHOUT concept of speech. I wore my first auditory trainers at the age of 18 months. That's early, isn't it? anyway, I still lack word comprehension today despite the fact that I had 14 years of A/V training sessions! I'm sure the results will be the same thing if I was implanted as a toddler.

I acquired language without a problem. I had the same language development process as most "normal" hearing children have. I learned a language for the first time when I was 9 months old. It began with ASL. Then at age 2 or 3, I learned the written version of the English language.

I'm the living proof here that PRElingually CAN and WILL acquire language without auditory/verbal inputs.

 

[LadyDuke]

GRRRRRRRRR, Sablecort!!

You replied before I got a chance to edit my post. There are some words I forgot to type. Grrrr.

Anyway, why do you think it's weird???

 

[sablescort]

Its not weird its "werd" if u look close to sign

It means "werd up I agree with wot u saying"

Hope I clear up the meaning of the sign

 

[pinkster]

Originally posted by kuifje75
Grammar is not only a deaf thing. A lot of hearing ppl also have that problem. It can be surprising, when you are teaching at a school, how many grammar mistakes hearing students make. I don't think it matters if a person is deaf or hearing, grammar has to be an important part of the students' education, and made sure to be checked on and improved.

Granted - but theres a distinctive difference between "Deaf" grammar errors and "hearing" grammar errors. Im not saying its their fault - my dad said if anything both cultures are to blame. Hearing people think in order to teach English you must speak it, and deny ASL (a long time ago) ie: oral method. A prime example: can you teach a spanish speaking person english without using spanish to translate? No. (Usually) So why do people think you can teach a Deaf person English, without using ASL?

 

[Cain Marko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: CI's in children

Originally posted by LadyDuke
I suppose so. But there's a problem. Early implantation in babies is dangerous. What if the baby was actually born hearing, but did not respond to hearing screening for some reasons? What if the baby was born hard-of-hearing and has enough residual hearing to develop language? Don't you think they should wait til children get older - probably at five years old?

Its obvious you dont know what you are talking about.
Learn about it here.
Hearing Tests
Any child no matter what age can be diagnosed with a hearing loss. Dont wait to find out. Thats the dumbest thing to do.

Yes, I know the difference between postlingually and prelingually.
I honestly am skeptical that CIs will work for most PRElingually deaf children because it requires a lot of work learning the auditory language and developing verbal skills.

You can be as skeptical as you want but that doesnt change the fact that prelingual children are learning to listen/speak at the same rate as hearing children now.
Just becuase something requires "a lot of work" doesnt mean its not worthwhile.
Besides it isnt a lot of work...it comes naturally to kids to want to succeed at things.
Maybe its just hard for you to understand??

CIs would work better for POSTlingually children because the auditory language is already all in their heads. They will have less trouble accustoming to the device.

As for language development in POSTlingually deaf children, they really don't need auditory input to acquire language. They still can acquire language via ASL and/or Cued Speech/English.

I'm PRElingually Deaf and am also congenitally deaf. I was born WITHOUT concept of speech. I wore my first auditory trainers at the age of 18 months. That's early, isn't it? anyway, I still lack word comprehension today despite the fact that I had 14 years of A/V training sessions! I'm sure the results will be the same thing if I was implanted as a toddler.

I acquired language without a problem. I had the same language development process as most "normal" hearing children have. I learned a language for the first time when I was 9 months old. It began with ASL. Then at age 2 or 3, I learned the written version of the English language.

I'm the living proof here that PRElingually deaf children CAN and WILL acquire language without auditory/verbal inputs.

Youre living proof that people can succeed with many different language and communication options/choices.

But that doesnt mean todays kids have to do it that same way you did.
In fact todays kids have the chance to do it a lot different than you did.

Thats great.

 

[deafdyke]

I honestly am skeptical that CIs will work for most PRElingually deaf children because it requires a lot of work learning the auditory language and developing verbal skills.

LD, So what if it requires a lot of work? It's worth it! Having oral skills means that a deaf kid has options and can function somewhat better in the hearing world then someone who can only use pen and paper. Oral skills are VERY VERY useful!
Me, the reason I am skeptical of CIs working in what I like to call "classic" prelingals (babies born deaf or deafened before one year) is b/c they NEVER heard normally, even as infants.
Their brain doesn't know how to process sound the way a hearing person's brain does. There's actually a really interesting case study by Oliver Sacks in his book "An Anthropologist on Mars" This case study is about a guy who was born legally blind and then became totally blind due to cateracts...he had an operation which restored his sight...but the way HE saw things wasn't the way sighted people saw things b/c his brain did not know how to process sight.
Now it may appear that the CI is amazing and helps all deaf kids hear, but the thing is the stats for sucess are always going to be slanted , b/c only a VERY small minority of deaf people are born deaf (5%) or become deaf during infancy. Most people become deaf perilingally (during language aqusistion) I don't deny there are deaf people who are sucesses at learning to speak and hear....however there have ALWAYS been prelingal oral deaf sucesses! Even back in the '60's with those big bulky body aids that didn't work very well, 5%-10% of prelingal deaf people were oral sucesses.