According to you again!
She is doing great, and according to the professionals they can not test for dead zones in a child. I think it was summed up perfectly by her therapist "Whatever took her hearing, took her ability to understand speech. She could hear tones fine, but speech was impossible."
But getting the CI, reversed that. I am sure there are many people out there with the same issue, why do you think it is a worthy cause to advocate AGAINST something that would give them that ability?? Why would you tell a parent to spend years using a hearing aid that could prove partially, or even completely useless? Why NOT give them to opportunity to hear 100%, rather than living with 50%?
