CI Dr telling mom she's a bad mother

[jillio]

I would be weary of "friend to friend" or "my uncle's brother's cousin's sister told me this" type of posts.

But if did indeed happen then yes it is sad and need to be addressed but right now this post is all hearsay.


.

If we throw out everything that is hearsay on this forum, we will be throwing out 3/4 of all posts. Ot any other forum for that matter.

 

[TechBill]

If we throw out everything that is hearsay on this forum, we will be throwing out 3/4 of all posts. Ot any other forum for that matter.

That why I don't believe everything I read or see on the internet

.

 

[yizuman]

I don't see even a slim possibility of either of those things actually becoming law, ever.

As banjo already said, never say never.

Here's an example of a possible forced medical laws...

All during 2002, state legislatures were grappling with legislation presented as an emergency bill to deal with bioterrorism. Deceptively titled the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), it would authorize state officials to forcibly inject anyone with a drug, vaccine, or other treatment. Refusal of treatment would enable the state health department bureaucrats to remove you or your children from your home and put you in a distant quarantine. Don't bother calling your legislator or going to a judge because the bill would strip them of power to help.

In addition, the MSEHPA would give state bureaucrats the power to seize and destroy property (including guns) without compensation, and ration medical supplies, food and fuel in a public-health emergency. As originally written, this bill was substantially a blank check to impose totalitarian measures without accountability.

At first, it was a mystery where the pressure was coming from on the state legislatures to rush this bill through without debate. The mystery was solved when we learned that the bill was written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a member of Hillary Clinton's infamous Health Care Task Force, promoted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and sweetened up by the Department of Health and Human Services with promises of federal grants for speedy enactment.

Never before have legislatures abdicated their responsibilities and powers in such a sweeping manner. Current laws permit state legislatures to restrain runaway state health departments, but MSEHPA would give unelected bureaucrats unchecked authority for as long as 60 days, during which time the legislature would be powerless to protect its citizens.

All states currently allow medical, religious or conscience exemptions to immunization requirements. MSEHPA would deny these exemptions. The government didn't want a repeat of what happened about the anthrax vaccine. When the postal workers were victimized by the anthrax attack, the government offered them the same vaccine that President Clinton had required of U.S. service personnel under threat of court martial. Given the option, less than 2% of postal workers chose to receive the vaccine.

That was humiliating to public health officials, who depend on universal, unquestioned vaccination to justify their budgets and their credibility. They made sure that MSEHPA would not give citizens the same choice that the postal workers had.

The good news is that due to the alert action of Eagle Forum and a couple of other conservative organizations, only about eight states passed a significant part of MSEHPA. Many states rejected it or never brought it up for a vote. Other states substantially gutted the most obnoxious sections before passage.

Source: America Must Choose: Open Borders or Civil Liberties -- November 2002 Phyllis Schlafly Report

Pretty scary how legislators go around trying to pass laws such as the one above. They may not gotten all they wanted, but there's always the next time.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

It is very wrong of the doctor to tell the mother that she's a bad mother for not having her child implanted. She did her homework and made an informed decision not to implant her child. That is not child abuse. That doctor should be fired and have his license revoked permanently.

However, it should be pointed out to her that they do not drill into your skull to implant someone.

Yep, I agreed there. The doctors like that should get his or license revoked for being so unprofessional telling her what kind of mother she is. No doctors should have the right to pressure a parents over their child.

 

[Drew's Dad]

As banjo already said, never say never.

Here's an example of a possible forced medical laws...



Source: America Must Choose: Open Borders or Civil Liberties -- November 2002 Phyllis Schlafly Report

Pretty scary how legislators go around trying to pass laws such as the one above. They may not gotten all they wanted, but there's always the next time.

My opinion is that it would never pass. Only eight states in your example passed even a portion of the suggested legislation, and it may not have even been the parts that the article is written about.

Individual or small groups of legislators advance all kinds of suggested laws each year that meet their individual hopes, desires or values, and most of them are shot down entirely or heavily edited. It is examples like you linked that make me comfortable in my opinion that the forced implantation or edited child abuse laws will not ever be enacted. That's my opinion.

Good link, though.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Why not? If jackie is willing to do so, why not give her the name of this doctor and let her try. Jackie has already demonstrated an amazing ability to take on institutions.

If this is a real doctor who said this, then people need to know who he or she is.

I would be more then willing to go anywhere in the states and talk to this doctor in person and speak to his supervisiors and also talk to the cochlear implant companies that he uses. I can assure you that is type of behavior on the doctors behalf is not acceptable to anyone in the oral deaf community. It is just plan wrong. How dare he try to assume that implants are for everyone. Just as how dare someone tell me that I do not have the right to implant my child if I have all the informaton.

 

[shel90]

I would be more then willing to go anywhere in the states and talk to this doctor in person and speak to his supervisiors and also talk to the cochlear implant companies that he uses. I can assure you that is type of behavior on the doctors behalf is not acceptable to anyone in the oral deaf community. It is just plan wrong. How dare he try to assume that implants are for everyone. Just as how dare someone tell me that I do not have the right to implant my child if I have all the informaton.

I think the dr is in Australia as the OP is from Australia herself. Just a guess on my part.

 

[shel90]

My opinion is that it would never pass. Only eight states in your example passed even a portion of the suggested legislation, and it may not have even been the parts that the article is written about.

Individual or small groups of legislators advance all kinds of suggested laws each year that meet their individual hopes, desires or values, and most of them are shot down entirely or heavily edited. It is examples like you linked that make me comfortable in my opinion that the forced implantation or edited child abuse laws will not ever be enacted. That's my opinion.

Good link, though.

The creator of the thread is from Australia. Maybe the laws are different there>

 

[R2D2]

The creator of the thread is from Australia. Maybe the laws are different there>

Laws for what? Australia doesn't have legal provisions to force children to get implanted if that is what you mean.

 

[Miss-Delectable]

Hello guys,

First of all, I do not lie or do I spread false information. I posted this story because it's credible.

This boy in question went to same school as me, although he was in grade 1 or 2 when I was in my final year of high school. He has distinctive eye colour for an Asian. So when my friend told me about this boy and his mother; I knew of this boy.

Drew, I said "bad mom......and stuff" because he probably said something negative about sign language,too. I wish I was a hearing fly on the wall on that day.

Vampy, yes, it was true.

I could post the name of the CI doctors, one has long retired, but I can't do that because I'm not certain which one said it. I could speculate and put their names out here, but it's inappropriate until I could get the name from the hourse's mouth herself. And even if you went and contacted them, he would deny it.

Jackie, I have no doubt you could get this story looked at in professional sense, but this happened in Australia, not America. CI clinic's under Public Health System, so you don't really have a choice whom to consult with.

Lastly, I don't know if the mother complained to the management. I hope she did, though.

 

[R2D2]

Jackie, I have no doubt you could get this story looked at in professional sense, but this happened in Australia, not America. CI clinic's under Public Health System, so you don't really have a choice whom to consult with.

Hi Miss Delectable,

Just one correction. Perhaps it wasn't the case back when your story occurred but CI clinics here in Australia aren't just under the public sector. You can go private as well and choose your doctor. I know this is the case because this is the path I went through.

It sounds like the story happened quite a long time ago and the doctor concerned was obviously old and old school. Hopefully today, doctors are more sensitive.

 

[Miss-Delectable]

Hi Miss Delectable,

Just one correction. Perhaps it wasn't the case back when your story occurred but CI clinics here in Australia aren't just under the public sector. You can go private as well and choose your doctor. I know this is the case because this is the path I went through.

It sounds like the story happened quite a long time ago and the doctor concerned was obviously old and old school. Hopefully today, doctors are more sensitive.

Hi R2D2,
I'm aware there's private and public sector in this field. But when you think about it, many children would have been and are implanted through the public system because it's free therefore the choice of choosing a doctor would be limited.

The doctor, I mentioned, one of them is still working in this job, and I've met him. So, in some aspect, he is old school literally and figuratively.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Hi Miss Delectable,

Don't worry what some ADers doubt your post. I have no doubt on your post because I beleive you.

I agree with most of ADer's posts that it's unprofessional of Doctor judge mother as a bad mother. *shake my head*. It's not normal... The doctor is suppose to feed cons and pros to every parents of deaf children about CI and HA issues.

 

[Drew's Dad]

Drew, I said "bad mom......and stuff" because he probably said something negative about sign language,too. I wish I was a hearing fly on the wall on that day.

It's very confusing when you use quotation marks around a statement that was not actually made, especially when now you admit you're just guessing that he "probably" said something bad about sign as well. I'm not sure what you suppose the doctor may have said is especially related to what he actually said - but perhaps it is.

The language you quoted makes it seem like that was the exact words the surgeon made, as told to your friend, or possibly the exact words your friend used to describe what the surgeon said to you (though that is not the most obvious reading of it).

Either way, that's an unfortunate story.

 

[jillio]

It's very confusing when you use quotation marks around a statement that was not actually made, especially when now you admit you're just guessing that he "probably" said something bad about sign as well. I'm not sure what you suppose the doctor may have said is especially related to what he actually said - but perhaps it is.

The language you quoted makes it seem like that was the exact words the surgeon made, as told to your friend, or possibly the exact words your friend used to describe what the surgeon said to you (though that is not the most obvious reading of it).

Either way, that's an unfortunate story.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And that is the whole point. There is acecdotal support for the fact that there are those professionals who continue to subscribe to the medical model to such a degree that the information they are providing to parents is innacurrate.

 

[Cheri]

It's very confusing when you use quotation marks around a statement that was not actually made, especially when now you admit you're just guessing that he "probably" said something bad about sign as well. I'm not sure what you suppose the doctor may have said is especially related to what he actually said - but perhaps it is.

The language you quoted makes it seem like that was the exact words the surgeon made, as told to your friend, or possibly the exact words your friend used to describe what the surgeon said to you (though that is not the most obvious reading of it).

Either way, that's an unfortunate story.

I thought the same as you.

 

[purplecatty]

I believe you Miss-Delectable. DR is wrong to make his opinion about telling mother a bad mother under his profession. He doesn't work for Child Service. I'm glad that she left and made a right choice to find another avenue to communicate with her son.

I agree 110% that Dr should never force or cocerce parents into having child implanted with CI. It's actually Child's decision. Let child learn deafness first before they decide to have CI later in their life. In that way they would be much wiser and smarter. Deafness help child to concetrate better.

I have heard common story about when child had CI in their infancy, they grew older and they ditched CI cuz it's hurting their head or bothering them. I don't blame them!! Baby cannot tell parent if CI is too loud or not. Audiologist say that they have technology that adjust CI so it won't be too loud for babies wearing CI. I disagree with them.

I believe in children's choice. It's their ear. If children wore hearing aid in early year, They will have better chance of knowing how to adjust volumes, change batteries, and tell parents that their earmolds are uncomfortable and time to replace. If They learned about CI, they can choose to have CI implanted in them if they think it benefits them. More chance that they'll wear CI throughout their adulthood if they love listening music, background sounds, ect..

Thanks
Catty

 

[Drew's Dad]

I believe you Miss-Delectable. DR is wrong to make his opinion about telling mother a bad mother under his profession. He doesn't work for Child Service. I'm glad that she left and made a right choice to find another avenue to communicate with her son.

I agree 110% that Dr should never force or cocerce parents into having child implanted with CI. It's actually Child's decision. Let child learn deafness first before they decide to have CI later in their life. In that way they would be much wiser and smarter. Deafness help child to concetrate better.

I have heard common story about when child had CI in their infancy, they grew older and they ditched CI cuz it's hurting their head or bothering them. I don't blame them!! Baby cannot tell parent if CI is too loud or not. Audiologist say that they have technology that adjust CI so it won't be too loud for babies wearing CI. I disagree with them.

I believe in children's choice. It's their ear. If children wore hearing aid in early year, They will have better chance of knowing how to adjust volumes, change batteries, and tell parents that their earmolds are uncomfortable and time to replace. If They learned about CI, they can choose to have CI implanted in them if they think it benefits them. More chance that they'll wear CI throughout their adulthood if they love listening music, background sounds, ect..

Thanks
Catty

Nice post, I respect your opinion. However, I don't understand one thing.

Where is this world where children make decisions for themselves? I've seen it in Lord of the Flies, but that's about it. In my world, parents are responsible for every action a child takes, including having to consent to any surgery, or withholding it.

I suppose I just don't "get" the "child's choice" argument.

 

[jillio]

Nice post, I respect your opinion. However, I don't understand one thing.

Where is this world where children make decisions for themselves? I've seen it in Lord of the Flies, but that's about it. In my world, parents are responsible for every action a child takes, including having to consent to any surgery, or withholding it.

I suppose I just don't "get" the "child's choice" argument.

It is the parent's choice, as long as the child is a minor. But how many parents take the child's perspective into account? How many parents implant based on their own perspective of deafness....sometihing they have never experienced? To a hearing parent, deafness is a loss. To a profoundly deaf child, it is not. Hearing parents implant based on what they think, from a hearing perspective, a deaf child needs. This is an account of a parent who did take her child's perspective into account.

 

[doubletrouble]

It is the parent's choice, as long as the child is a minor. But how many parents take the child's perspective into account? How many parents implant based on their own perspective of deafness....sometihing they have never experienced? To a hearing parent, deafness is a loss. To a profoundly deaf child, it is not. Hearing parents implant based on what they think, from a hearing perspective, a deaf child needs. This is an account of a parent who did take her child's perspective into account.

That's an unfair generalization to make,,,,,, I choose for the dr's to implant my son based on a Deaf view, as did my Deaf sister in alw, Deaf brother in law's with their own children... All of my nephews and niece who are deaf (and have Deaf parents) are all implanted.... some when a child was older- to see "if the implant really works" and some as young as 1 1/2 years old. My SIl and BIL's friends in the Deaf community are also having thier children implanted at a young age- where a child cannot make the decision for him-herself.............

BTW, just a bit off topic here, my nephews were PULLED out of a Deaf school and placed in a mainstream program in their school districts because the Deaf school was not meeting the academic needs of the children. Now, in a mainstream setting, they are flourishing.... one is even on honor roll... So the theory (at least in my own experience) that mainstreaming is a bad thing for deaf children is debunked.