Cochlear decison

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



if your child was born with cataracts? How about a cleft lip or club foot? Would you persue elective surgery for those?

Those are medically necessary surgeries. They are not elective.:roll:

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted



no one is trying to get you to implant your child. It is great that he has developed those skills. But why is it bad that my child CAN have a long, independant phone call with her grandparents or walk up to any kid at the park and easily and comfortably talk with them? I would never say that you are wrong for not implanting, so why do you insist we ARE wrong for doing it?

Holy damn. My daughter can call her family members over the video phone, and guess what? No long distance fees!
Yes. My family members all have videophones.

And Guess what.. When I was growing up, i made a ton of friends in the neighborhood. They all signed.

I saw them at my brothers wedding two months ago, their signing skills never lost a beat. Awesome.

 

[deafskeptic]

I would.

So would I.

 

[jillio]

Holy damn. My daughter can call her family members over the video phone, and guess what? No long distance fees!
Yes. My family members all have videophones.

And Guess what.. When I was growing up, i made a ton of friends in the neighborhood. They all signed.

I saw them at my brothers wedding two months ago, their signing skills never lost a beat. Awesome.

I had an infamous poster here arguing with me a few years ago about how disadvantaged my son was because I allowed him to make the decision regarding CI that HIS daughter could talk on the phone with her CI. I said, my son can talk on a phone anytime he wants to. Its called text.

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

Cloggy - the real question remains; With the advent of technology do we (the deaf) really need to hear and speak verbally?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Great example... beautiful... No he doesn't...

Just after my daughter started to use speech, she said something we (me and my wife) couldn't understand.. She repeated and we didn't get it.... She persisted... Then she spoke and used her hands and signed "rain"...
Does she need CI?
Is she preferring to speak?

No, she is speaking for your benefit because that's what YOU wanted and yet you couldn't understand what she said so she had to sign finally. Hmmm....

 

[DeafCaroline]

your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"

The difference between you and others is that in your own words, it was YOUR choice to get the CI for yourself. Babies who get implanted didn't have a say in the matter.

And secondly, it's not the CI itself that's the threat, it's the oralist beliefs that go hand in hand with the CI industry that's the threat. You should know all this already by now.

 

[shel90]

I had an infamous poster here arguing with me a few years ago about how disadvantaged my son was because I allowed him to make the decision regarding CI that HIS daughter could talk on the phone with her CI. I said, my son can talk on a phone anytime he wants to. Its called text.

Or VP!!!!

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

Very interesting that a child will attempt speech alone based on the environment they are in, and then when it doesn't work, resort to sign in order to be understood. That says so much. Thanks for sharing that with us.

 

[StevieMont927]

No but did my parents do their best to do whats best for me? I would have to say yes. They did their job, and im happy for what they have done.


Gonna have to say even though I cant"hear", im hearing a lot of the times since i wear my implants almost 12/7. But i still have some/little amount of accommodations.
However I'm somewhat upset i never got the chance to learn ASL but my parents actually wanted me to learn ASL but i refused. I'm upset i refused when i was younger.
Implanting an infants another thing. Thats up to the parents as they have the ABILITY to do whats best for their child. If i have a deaf child (which is likely, and kinda hope so lol), I'd implant him/her. Thats just who i am, and would decide.



Why waste all of those precious years to get the cochlear up and working for you. Right now, my left cochlear sucks cause I never been able to hear out of that side for all of my life. My right, is just so damn clear like watching HD HBO boxing seeing all of the sweat coming off the bodies after each punch.

Earlier someone is implanted, they better off the cochlear will be adapted to the the implant and it's technology
I still agree to trying hearing aids first to making 100% sure that they can hear or not out of hearings before going to surgery.
Asl sure, continue with it no matter if theyre deaf with implants or not.

Even with the implant in a deafie, they're still gonna need to make accommodations for the child. THAT is where they're uneducated on.

Children who are old enough to make an informed decision are still able to learn to speak, it may not be "perfect", but it works. I still don't see the necessity of implanting as an infant. Why do the cochlea need to be adapted at all? Besides having a child become hearing, of course. Any sort of surgery like that is of course going to work better the younger the patient, but what need is there to implant an infant? Why not someone who's around ten, who can understand that it's a surgical procedure, that it may not work, and that they are going to be cut open and have a machine stuck in their ears to make them hear?

Other than the convenience of an easier time adapting to the implant, why is it so important to get it in infancy?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

if your child was born with cataracts? How about a cleft lip or club foot? Would you persue elective surgery for those?

Careful with trying to draw parallels between genuinely debilitating conditions and deafness.

who is to say those are "debilitating"? I have never experienced any of them, and i assume neither have you. They are elective surgeries.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"

The difference between you and others is that in your own words, it was YOUR choice to get the CI for yourself. Babies who get implanted didn't have a say in the matter.

And secondly, it's not the CI itself that's the threat, it's the oralist beliefs that go hand in hand with the CI industry that's the threat. You should know all this already by now.

i believe he was implanted as a very young child and did not have input into the decision.

 

[StevieMont927]

Wirelessly posted



who is to say those are "debilitating"? I have never experienced any of them, and i assume neither have you. They are elective surgeries.

I couldn't find anything on cataracts being medically harmful, but early treatment can prevent severe vision loss. I'm not sure where I stand on that point.

A Cleft lip and/or palate can interfere with an indifitual's food intake. It also poses a much higher risk for infection. Infection of any kind is dangerous, especially so near the brain. I would likely persue surgery for a cleft lip.

Club feet can be corrected usually without the use of surgery, and if not, mostly minor surgery. I would likely try to correct this with assistive devices.

 

[Daredevel7]

Hmm..

I find it kinda odd for deaf people, in defense of no implantation/HA/whatever, to say "What do you mean? We do talk to people over the phone! Text! VP! Etc."

Because... umm... doesn't it imply that it sucked before the technology existed?

 

[Mountain Man]

who is to say those are "debilitating"? I have never experienced any of them, and i assume neither have you. They are elective surgeries.

I suppose you don't realize just how offensive you're being, but then I suppose you don't care.

Try looking up the definition of "debilitating" and see if you can't figure it out.

 

[shel90]

Hmm..

I find it kinda odd for deaf people, in defense of no implantation/HA/whatever, to say "What do you mean? We do talk to people over the phone! Text! VP! Etc."

Because... umm... doesn't it imply that it sucked before the technology existed?

Culturally Deaf people of those times said it was not a big deal because at those times, they adapted...Deaf clubs, snail mail, and etc.

In fact, many of the older culturally Deaf people feel that today's technology of VP, texting,a nd social networks are keeping Deaf people from socializing in person like they did in those days.

I never heard of them complaining about phone issues except when it came to getting discriminated by hearing employers when looking for jobs.

Anyone, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[bbaseballboy123]

Wirelessly posted
i believe he was implanted as a very young child and did not have input into the decision.

.... "No but did my parents do their best to do whats best for me? I would have to say yes. They did their job, and im happy for what they have done."
I was implanted at 2, and i obviously did not have any input, BUT ONCE AGAIN, my parents did what they thought was best for ME. Damn.

Children who are old enough to make an informed decision are still able to learn to speak, it may not be "perfect", but it works. I still don't see the necessity of implanting as an infant. Why do the cochlea need to be adapted at all? Besides having a child become hearing, of course. Any sort of surgery like that is of course going to work better the younger the patient, but what need is there to implant an infant? Why not someone who's around ten, who can understand that it's a surgical procedure, that it may not work, and that they are going to be cut open and have a machine stuck in their ears to make them hear?

Other than the convenience of an easier time adapting to the implant, why is it so important to get it in infancy?

So I was implanted at 2, and started with very intense speech program. Now I probably talk along the lines of "perfect". No one really knows I'm deaf until they see something on my ear or i say something.

Its like training a puppy. the younger they are, the better they will be trained. Same with cochlea, training/adapting the cochlea will make it hear better, hear the lang English at a eariler age than waiting til theyre like what 6 years old? wasting away 5 years of hearing English (or any other lang)

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



who is to say those are "debilitating"? I have never experienced any of them, and i assume neither have you. They are elective surgeries.

You are confused regarding the nature of an elective surgery and a medically necessary surgery.

 

[jillio]

I couldn't find anything on cataracts being medically harmful, but early treatment can prevent severe vision loss. I'm not sure where I stand on that point.

A Cleft lip and/or palate can interfere with an indifitual's food intake. It also poses a much higher risk for infection. Infection of any kind is dangerous, especially so near the brain. I would likely persue surgery for a cleft lip.

Club feet can be corrected usually without the use of surgery, and if not, mostly minor surgery. I would likely try to correct this with assistive devices.

All of these conditions have medical consequence if treatment is not received. Deafness does not.

 

[jillio]

Hmm..

I find it kinda odd for deaf people, in defense of no implantation/HA/whatever, to say "What do you mean? We do talk to people over the phone! Text! VP! Etc."

Because... umm... doesn't it imply that it sucked before the technology existed?

No. Communication was simply achieved through other means.