CI on 6 year old.

[Hwy99]

Sorry, but I do not believe your story.

Ok. That girl who I was talking about, her name was Mandy. She went to WSD and live in the tri-cities in the eastern Washington. Now she graduated and moved somewhere in Portland/Vancouver area. She is my old best friend's ex girlfriend, that's how I met her. She is also other one who convienced me to get a CI.

If still not believe me, then go to maz3mo_6 - maz3mo_6 - Pictures, that's her.

I am not in her friend's list because we are no longer really a "friend" anymore. We are just wasn't in touch that much.

So ask me for proof before you speak.

 

[Hwy99]

Yea I know I might be late on this thread, but one very cruelity from Rick post pulled me get in this thread again.

 

[babygirl__10]

I think that the father or doc. needs to just learn how to love his son the way he his. Yeah every parent wants to get their child help but by keeping giving him up for adoption is just telling the kid that you dont want him the way he was given to you!!! I feel very bad for the kid. I know how it is to feel like a freak even if your parents do love you. You feel lonely and get teased. His life will be hell just cux he is deaf but now cux he is paralzed it is not going to get any better. And i know how it feels to be teased cux u cant hear something or you talk weird cux i m hard of hearing

 

[R2D2]

Good post Deafskeptic. While some media reports might talk about "cures", you can't expect anything else from a journalist. They are a remarkably uninformed lot.

 

[rick48]

Ok. That girl who I was talking about, her name was Mandy. She went to WSD and live in the tri-cities in the eastern Washington. Now she graduated and moved somewhere in Portland/Vancouver area. She is my old best friend's ex girlfriend, that's how I met her. She is also other one who convienced me to get a CI.

If still not believe me, then go to maz3mo_6 - maz3mo_6 - Pictures, that's her.

I am not in her friend's list because we are no longer really a "friend" anymore. We are just wasn't in touch that much.

So ask me for proof before you speak.

I think you may be mistaken as I was referring to a six year old boy.

 

[rick48]

Good post Deafskeptic. While some media reports might talk about "cures", you can't expect anything else from a journalist. They are a remarkably uninformed lot.

True, the only ones ever saying that a ci "cures" deafness are the uninformed media and the ones opposed to cis saying that others say it. Can't remember ever reading or hearing a ci user, parent of a ci child or ci surgeon saying that it cured deafness. Just another myth.
Rick

 

[Cloggy]

There are Myths on both sides. The claim that CI's 'cures' deafness for starters. Also calling it a 'bionic ear' is another. People may get misled by that in thinking they will get superhuman hearing if they have a CI done which is definately NOT the case. Also when people say 'you have everything to gain and nothing to lose'. That too is a myth. You do lose a certain tranquility from sound pollution. You also lose any natural hearing you may have and their is a possiblity of losing good health if things go wrong. So their are myths on both sides I think.

Another big myth is when people say it's the 'only' way. Which is so not true. There are many options that are much cheaper for communicating with hearing people. I communicate with hearies all the time and I don't have a CI. I have a computer and am linked up to the internet so can communicate with people that way.

The argument "CI's 'cures' deafness" is something that deaf people use, implying parents have said that. I have never said that, nor have I heared it being used by other parents of deaf children...

About "bionic ear" ... it is that. Why would it not be a bionic ear?

About "thinking they will get superhuman hearing".. this is the first time I heared about that.

About "Also when people say 'you have everything to gain and nothing to lose'." I agree that it is not true. You do loose residual hearing but when it was of no use, the loss is insignificant. If it isn't, you're not a candidate for CI.

About "it's the only way" is relative to what you want to achieve. When you want to hear, it's the only way. If you want to communicate, there are other options..

Overall, what I have seen in the last 3 years, is that when I have explained my daughters deafness and use of CI, people that are sceptical accused me of using some of the myths like you wrote about, when in fact, these are assumptions by people opposing CI of how parents of deaf children think..
There seems to be an idea that a parent that chooses for CI for it's child:
A: Doesn't love the child because it's deaf,
B: Thinks the child will hear normally,
C: "Just " wants to take the easy way out,
D: Is against sign-language,
E: Hates Deaf culture,
F: Thinks it's the only way one can communicate,
G: Doesn't care that their child might die by the operation,
H: CI cures deafness,
I: Thinks deaf people are stupid,
J: ........ and some more...

So all these issues have to be addresses by the parents to show that this is not the case. And in reply one says...
well, you are doing a great job, but all the other parents.... they ARE like that..

I guess a lot of these assumptions are based on childhood experiences, but again, I would like to emphasise that there is quite a difference between a parent that has to decide to raise a deaf child 20 years ago versus nowadays.
There's more information and more technology.

A big step forward withing the thinking of d/Deaf culture would be to give these parents the benefit of the doubt, instead of comparing them with parents that unwillingly made a wrong choice...
(And many here in AllDeaf have... )

 

[jillio]

True, the only ones ever saying that a ci "cures" deafness are the uninformed media and the ones opposed to cis saying that others say it. Can't remember ever reading or hearing a ci user, parent of a ci child or ci surgeon saying that it cured deafness. Just another myth.
Rick

Then what is the purpose of CI? It is, is it not, to relieve the symptoms of deafness. If one is relieving the symptoms o something, then one is ultimately treating it as a disease. And the ultimate goal in the treatment of disease is to eradicate.

 

[R2D2]

Then what is the purpose of CI? It is, is it not, to relieve the symptoms of deafness. If one is relieving the symptoms o something, then one is ultimately treating it as a disease. And the ultimate goal in the treatment of disease is to eradicate.

It allows a deaf person to artificially hear when they need to and when they want to. I think that relief of symptoms is in a different category to a "cure" as such. Deafness is not eradicated with a CI.

To me a "cure" for a deaf person would be restoring natural hearing and a normally functioning ear structure.

You could argue that sign language is a "relief of symptoms" in a sense. Sign language is a language that developed because it allows profoundly deaf people to communicate smoothly without having to use their hearing.

 

[shel90]

It allows a deaf person to artificially hear when they need to and when they want to. I think that relief of symptoms is in a different category to a "cure" as such. Deafness is not eradicated with a CI.

To me a "cure" for a deaf person would be restoring natural hearing and a normally functioning ear structure.

You could argue that sign language is a "relief of symptoms" in a sense. Sign language is a language that developed because it allows profoundly deaf people to communicate smoothly without having to use their hearing.

What do u mean that sign language is a "relief of symptoms"? Are u saying that or just hypothetically? I am not sure what u mean by that so it would be helpful if u can clarify that for me. Thanks!

I don't believe that sign language is a "relief of symptoms". I feel that it is in the same boat as all spoken languages except that it is visual and doesn't have a written form so I don't know if I am interpreting your statement right or not?

 

[R2D2]

What do u mean that sign language is a "relief of symptoms"? Are u saying that or just hypothetically? I am not sure what u mean by that so it would be helpful if u can clarify that for me. Thanks!

I don't believe that sign language is a "relief of symptoms". I feel that it is in the same boat as all spoken languages except that it is visual and doesn't have a written form so I don't know if I am interpreting your statement right or not?

I agree that sign is in the same boat as spoken languages as far as language structure is concerned, however it historically developed as a result of needing relief from symptoms of deafness i.e. needing to communicate but not being able to hear enough to use a spoken language.

If the same deaf people had been born hearing, there is no doubt that their preferred language of communication would be a spoken language. So in that sense, sign language developed as a result of meeting a need pertaining to deafness.

 

[shel90]

I agree that sign is in the same boat as spoken languages as far as language structure is concerned, however it historically developed as a result of needing relief from symptoms of deafness i.e. needing to communicate but not being able to hear enough to use a spoken language.

If the same deaf people had been born hearing, there is no doubt that their preferred language of communication would be a spoken language. So in that sense, sign language developed as a result of meeting a need pertaining to deafness.

Ok..got it. Makes sense.

 

[rick48]

... You do loose residual hearing but when it was of no use, the loss is insignificant. If it isn't, you're not a candidate for CI.

....

A big step forward withing the thinking of d/Deaf culture would be to give these parents the benefit of the doubt, instead of comparing them with parents that unwillingly made a wrong choice...
(And many here in AllDeaf have... )

Cloggy,

You made some very good points but I just wanted to further emphasize these two. For a profoundly deaf person who does not derive any benefits from hearing aids, there is in reality no residual hearing that is being lost. That person cannot hear sounds aided or unaided.

Many of us are aware that people had negative experiences growing up and that it is natural to want to share them so that others will not suffer from those negative experiences but it should also be tempered with the realization that there are some parents out there who are not making those mistakes and who are giving their children very positive experiences and re-enforcement.
Rick

 

[Boult]

reinforcement you mean? Rick....

 

[jillio]

It allows a deaf person to artificially hear when they need to and when they want to. I think that relief of symptoms is in a different category to a "cure" as such. Deafness is not eradicated with a CI.

To me a "cure" for a deaf person would be restoring natural hearing and a normally functioning ear structure.

You could argue that sign language is a "relief of symptoms" in a sense. Sign language is a language that developed because it allows profoundly deaf people to communicate smoothly without having to use their hearing.

Well, actually deafness is not eradicated with CI. However, that is still the goal. Sign language is not a relief opf the symptom, it does not provide sound perception. It is an adaptation to the particular circumstances of deafness. Loss f auditory function is not disturbed, no medical intervention is necessary with this form of adaptation. It is naturally occurring, not scientifically created.

The biggest issue with deafness is, and always has been, the issue of communication, not the loss of auditory function. To correct some degree of that loss does not get at the root of the problem, it merely relieves the symptom, i.e. reduced or absent sound perception.

 

[jillio]

There are Myths on both sides. The claim that CI's 'cures' deafness for starters. Also calling it a 'bionic ear' is another. People may get misled by that in thinking they will get superhuman hearing if they have a CI done which is definately NOT the case. Also when people say 'you have everything to gain and nothing to lose'. That too is a myth. You do lose a certain tranquility from sound pollution. You also lose any natural hearing you may have and their is a possiblity of losing good health if things go wrong. So their are myths on both sides I think.

Another big myth is when people say it's the 'only' way. Which is so not true. There are many options that are much cheaper for communicating with hearing people. I communicate with hearies all the time and I don't have a CI. I have a computer and am linked up to the internet so can communicate with people that way.

And you communicate quite well, if I do say so myself!

 

[dreama]

And you communicate quite well, if I do say so myself!

 

[dreama]

No responsible doctor would ever say that a CI is a cure for deafness. My own surgeon pointed out to me that although my hearing will be much improved, I'm not cured of deafness. My own father who is a retired doctor pointed out to me that my hearing may never be normal.

So what you are actually saying is CI's are another form of assistance tecnology. I can accept that. I only wish other forms of Assistant tecnology got the same kind of funding.

True enough on most counts but I haven't heard of most people getting poor health as a result of the CI.

Maybe not for most people with CI's but it DOES happen. In which case the deaf person would have been much better off without, which is why I think the statement "you've got everything to gain, and nothing to lose" is a myth.

I agree that it's not the only way but you do have to consider all the pros and cons; ASL (BSL in your case) is a wonderful language but one major disadvantage is that most hearing don't know it.

As for lipreading, it's useful but if your hearing is quite poor it can be exhausting trying to lipread all day. I used to get aches in my face from the strain of lipreading all day.

I know what you mean as I also used to lip read before I lost my sight. However there are more methods then just sign language and lip reading. You can use pen and paper, computers, and txt phones also to communicate with hearies.

Speech is useful but a major disadvantage for those who are profoundly deaf, it can make hearing who hear their good speech think they're not really deaf at all. They don't always look at you or slow down enough so you can understand them.

I've excellent speech with no deaf accent (I had a slight accent before the operation) and when I met a total stranger in the past, I'd pretend I couldn't speak. It's much easier to convice the hearing you're deaf that way.

I always feel like saying to the hearing, "Yes, I've good speech, but did my speech make it easier to understand YOU?" The hearing seem to focus on speech so much that they forget that the deaf speaking has to be able to understand them.

I know what you are saying. I've also been told I've got really good speech, and you do get people who do not understand and think you are not deaf. I don't know how a CI would help with that though. If anything it would probably make people less sympathetic.

If the child isn't implanted early, he'll not get the full benefits of the implant. I'm a deaf adult and I'm well aware that I may not get as much benefit with it as a late deafened adult or a child who was implanted early.

If you don't implant the child, you'd best be motivated to learn sign or other ways to commicate with a deaf child. Otherwise, the child is going to have problems with language down the road. You'll also have family problems down the road if you don't learn to commicate with the child. Most parents of deaf children who take this route aren't like Jillo.

I think this is the point that we disagree on. I think the parent will have to use BSL/ASL wether the child has a CI or not. I was born with only 40db loss but I still feel that I would have benifited from BSL while I was growing up. Particularly as my hearing deteriated.

 

[Cloggy]

Well, actually deafness is not eradicated with CI. However, that is still the goal.

That is not the goal for CI. The goal for CI is to provide hearing, allowing audible communication. Deafness will not be eradicated. There will be a decrease in the number of persons that are not able to hear, but that is not the goal, it's a result...
Think of it...
No parent (or adult) will choose CI in order to eradicate deafness. That would mean losing something. Instead, something is gained.... the ability to hear.

Sign language is not a relief opf the symptom, it does not provide sound perception. It is an adaptation to the particular circumstances of deafness. Loss f auditory function is not disturbed, no medical intervention is necessary with this form of adaptation. It is naturally occurring, not scientifically created.

All very nice, but it really doesn't help a lot if the vast majority around you doesn't know the language.
Just like not being able to speak Englis and living in USA. SUre, there might be others that speak your language, but does it really help??

The biggest issue with deafness is, and always has been, the issue of communication, not the loss of auditory function. To correct some degree of that loss does not get at the root of the problem, it merely relieves the symptom, i.e. reduced or absent sound perception.

When loss of communication is because of loss of the auditory function, then getting that function back sounds like me a way to regain communication.
Like, when your car stops, you could just let it stand on the side of the road and take the bus and train the rest of your life. You can also make an effort to be able to use the car again and enjoy the freedom.
It's a choice... Both methods of transport will bring you to fantastic places....

 

[deafskeptic]

Maybe not for most people with CI's but it DOES happen. In which case the deaf person would have been much better off without, which is why I think the statement "you've got everything to gain, and nothing to lose" is a myth.

I've heard of isolated cases where people came down with with meningitis after getting CIs with a placer thing (I think but don't quote me on it.) but that's about it. I've never gotton meningitis shots (I should have gotten them.) but I'm in good health otherwise. I don't think Malfoyish would care much for me calling her an isolated case as she was one of those people who came down with it. The risk is quite low though and my guess is that it's less than 1%. CIs are no longer manufactured with the placer now so that's even less likely to happen now.

I know what you mean as I also used to lip read before I lost my sight. However there are more methods then just sign language and lip reading. You can use pen and paper, computers, and txt phones also to communicate with hearies.

I know what you are saying. I've also been told I've got really good speech, and you do get people who do not understand and think you are not deaf. I don't know how a CI would help with that though. If anything it would probably make people less sympathetic.

Indeed not. I speak from personal experince. If I'm in a noisy situation with total strangers, I know better than to speak as people will assume that I'm not deaf if I speak. P&P methold is my favortite in such a situation. I aslo own a tty as I've never been able to speak on the phone. Hopefully with AVT, I'll find it easier to understand people. We shall see.

Quite true about the rest and I have a tty at home if I can't use the relay service with my Mac.

I think this is the point that we disagree on. I think the parent will have to use BSL/ASL wether the child has a CI or not. I was born with only 40db loss but I still feel that I would have benifited from BSL while I was growing up. Particularly as my hearing deteriated.

I actually agree with you that CI'er may need signs but I can't tell parents to learn sign. I can recomend that they learn sign to help with language development.

I was referrring to parents who choose not to go the CI route. If the child get no benefits or limited benefits from hearing aids, you'd damn well better learn sign or you'll have problems down the road. Unforutantly, parents like Jillo are the expectation to the rule.