Cochlear decison

[Cloggy]

Again, why is it MEDICALLY necessary for an infant to have a Cochlear implant? I do believe it's forcing in regards to a child having a CI. If the child cannot consent to an unnecessary surgery it is forcing. You could "provide" a child with an environment in which she'll thrive. You could even "provide" HAs. Once it becomes invasive, however, and when the child doesn't understand what's going on and can't consent, then it's forcing.

I have no doubt that children will (usually) learn to more easily understand speech, and to speak well, if they're implanted early. The point, however, is that it's not a medically necessary procedure but more one done because it's more convenient for hearing parents and members of the family.

Who said it was MEDICALLY necessary? A CI is not medically necessary.. When you are deaf and you want to hear, THEN a CI is a medical procedure to (very likely) make that possible... For an infant, a child, the parents might want to make that decision... Like my wife and I did for our child..

And of course it's more convenient for parents and members of the family. AND for the child, and for 99% of the people she meets... . But convenience is not the reason for deciding to have ones child be able to hear.
It's about the ability to hear and with that to have the ability to communicate with language like 99+ % of the world. The ability to speak Dutch with parents and siblings. The ability to speak Norwegian at school and with friends in the street. The ability to learn English, Italian, Chinese.
And all this without loosing the ability to learn sign language, without loosing the possibility to get connected with deaf people, or with Deaf people.

The only ability she looses is the ability to know what it is NOT to hear ALL the time.........
Our daughter can hear.. Being deaf is part of her. She has no problem taking the CI off before she goes to bed. She is in no hurry to put it on when she wakes up... unless other people are up as well, or when she wants to watch TV or DVD.... Of course she can watch DVD's being deaf, but she prefers watching them when she can hear..

 

[Cloggy]

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.

Welcome to share...
Yes imagine... a deaf child preferring to use speech over sign.... Knowing that her parents would understand sign but still trying to use her newly developed skill of speech.... As if she enjoys speaking...
Good that, while she was deaf, we have used sign language to communicate....

 

[Mountain Man]

try to replace "speech is necessary" with "hearing sounds is wonderful"...

And not hearing sounds is equally wonderful, as I'm sure any Deaf person would happily tell you. Don't try and turn this into a quality of life debate unless you don't mind looking like an audist.

But convenience is not the reason for deciding to have ones child be able to hear. It's about the ability to hear and with that to have the ability to communicate with language like 99+ % of the world.

I assume you mean "spoken language". And why is that so important to you? If it's not a matter of convenience then what is it really all about?

Knowing that her parents would understand sign but still trying to use her newly developed skill of speech.... As if she enjoys speaking...

Is it perhaps because her parents exhibit more pride and encouragement when she attempts to speak? Children will, in general, naturally gravitate towards whatever they perceive to give them the most positive feedback.

 

[Cloggy]

And not hearing sounds is equally wonderful, as I'm sure any Deaf person would happily tell you. Don't try and turn this into a quality of life debate.

Yeh... let's not...

I assume you mean "spoken language". And why is that so important to you? If it's not a matter of convenience then what is it really all about?

Any other language that comes to mind? It's about communication..

Is it perhaps because her parents exhibit more pride and encouragement when she attempts to speak?

AH.. perhaps... perhaps not...

Children will, in general, naturally gravitate towards whatever they perceive to give them the most positive feedback.

You are 100% right: Hearing children, d/Deaf children... have a look here.....

 

[jillio]

I like the "Correct me anyone if I'm wrong". Very surprised jillio or someone else didn't correct some errors because it's in everyones interest that d/Deaf have good knowledge about CI and the parents of children with CI..

OK.. here's a huge error you made....
* It isn't like "if they don't like HAs then they can choose CI." HAs are not better than CI. CI is not better than HA. They are different tools.. Our daughter heard nothing with HA's THEREFORE the only way to hear was with CI.. Had she had any benefit from HAs then she would have continued with HAs.
Basically.. if you lose the ability to hear sound with HAs then there is an option to hear again with CI. But no-one will "get" a CI when he/she can still hear with a HA..

Otherwise:
* Point of view: No forcing... providing, giving. But "forcing" sounds much more dramatic of course...

* Infant screening will detect deafness shortly after birth. Signs are great to interact with the child. ASL when the child will grow up deaf, ASL or perhaps Cued Speech if the intention is to let the child hear. But nowadays, with children implanted very early, speech is very often enough to communicate 100% with the child.

* If the child is old enough to make her/his own decision... the possibilities / success are far smaller... Children implanted with CI before their first birthday follow speech development of hearing babies and infants.. d/Deaf children that after years of deafness "get" CI will need a lot of adjusting to hearing, and help learning to speak.. For children that were HH and lose the little hearing they have, it is much easier to adapt to CI.

StevieMont was not corrected because that poster made no errors. You on the other hand, make nothing but errors.

Infant screening is notoriously unreliable. It determines only those children that may have a hearing deficit when tested at an age where definitive levels can be determined. It determines risk, and that is all. Just as many infants that failed newborn screening are found not to have any hearing loss as those that do.

It is not true that the possibility for success is smaller for those that are implanted older. There is research quoted in this very thread that debunks that popular myth. The CI industry is fond of telling people that innacurracy in order to rush them into a decision.

Totally and completely false that children implanted before their first birthday follow the speech development of naturally hearing children. You are just making this crap out of thin air. There is virtually nothing to support such nonsense as this, and much to prove it is false.

You really need to find some people that are either as gullible as you are, or much less well informed of the facts than the majority of AD members. No one around here is naive enough to buy this nonsense you type.

 

[jillio]

Welcome to share...
Yes imagine... a deaf child preferring to use speech over sign.... Knowing that her parents would understand sign but still trying to use her newly developed skill of speech.... As if she enjoys speaking...
Good that, while she was deaf, we have used sign language to communicate....

Boy, talk about seeing what you want to see! You are really delusional.

 

[jillio]

I'm not debating that. Just saying.

I realize that. I was validating your response.

 

[jillio]

Ahh.. the "proof your statement" comment.. funny how that is never needed for the statements you make....

So many articles have come to this conclusion... but how about this....
With your instant library of articles from your university, have you found any articles that have concluded the opposite?

Ah well...
For the interested: try this one
---------------
Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children

Tait, M.E., Nikolopoulos, T.P. and Lutman, M.E. (2007) Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children. International Journal of Pediatric Otolaryngology, 71, (4), 603-610. (doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.12.010)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.12.010

Description/Abstract

Background
Preverbal vocal and auditory skills are essential precursors of spoken language development and they have been shown previously to predict later speech perception and production outcomes in young implanted deaf children.

Objectives
To assess the effect of age at implantation on the development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted children.

Methods
The study assessed 99 children, 33 in each of three groups (those implanted between 1 and 2 years; 2 and 3 years; and 3 and 4 years). Preverbal skills were measured in three areas: turn taking, autonomy and auditory awareness of spoken language, using the Tait video analysis method.

Results
The youngest implanted group made an exceptional progress outperforming in all measures the two other groups (p < 0.01), 6 and 12 months post-implantation, whereas there was no such difference before implantation. In the youngest group there was also significantly greater use of an auditory/oral style of communication: 85% of the group by 12 months post-implantation compared with 30% and 18% of the two older groups.

Conclusions
Vocal and auditory preverbal skills develop much more rapidly in children implanted between 1 and 2 years in comparison with older implanted children and reach a significantly higher level by 6 and 12 months post-implantation. In addition, younger implanted children are significantly more likely by 12 months post-implantation to adopt an auditory/oral mode of communication. These findings favour cochlear implantation as early as between 1 and 2 years, provided that correct diagnosis and adequate hearing-aid trial have been achieved.

As I've stated, you are going to have to give me more than some abstract you Googled. An abstract is useless for supporting anything. You have been told that before. But you are still up to the same old, same old. Looks like you have not managed to advance your skills at all in your absence. Shame.

I refer you back to post 319 and 321 in this very thread for actual quotes from the bodys, not the abstracts, of empirical research that indicates this little abstract you pulled is not even on a level that you understand. It does not say anything about a child implanted early following the same developmental schedule for language acquisition as a hearing child. Your wishful thinking is causing you to misinterpret.

 

[jillio]

Who said it was MEDICALLY necessary? A CI is not medically necessary.. When you are deaf and you want to hear, THEN a CI is a medical procedure to (very likely) make that possible... For an infant, a child, the parents might want to make that decision... Like my wife and I did for our child..

And of course it's more convenient for parents and members of the family. AND for the child, and for 99% of the people she meets... . But convenience is not the reason for deciding to have ones child be able to hear.
It's about the ability to hear and with that to have the ability to communicate with language like 99+ % of the world. The ability to speak Dutch with parents and siblings. The ability to speak Norwegian at school and with friends in the street. The ability to learn English, Italian, Chinese.
And all this without loosing the ability to learn sign language, without loosing the possibility to get connected with deaf people, or with Deaf people.

The only ability she looses is the ability to know what it is NOT to hear ALL the time.........
Our daughter can hear.. Being deaf is part of her. She has no problem taking the CI off before she goes to bed. She is in no hurry to put it on when she wakes up... unless other people are up as well, or when she wants to watch TV or DVD.... Of course she can watch DVD's being deaf, but she prefers watching them when she can hear..

Thank you. A CI is not medically necessary. Nor is it necessary to hear.
So, you are putting a child at risk in order to surgically correct them so that they are far closer to the hearing child that you thought you were going to have. There are people who do not think the risks of the damage that can be done longitudinally is worth the risk to surgically alter their child into something they parent wants. Especially when there is no connection to CI and future success and happiness.

 

[Cloggy]

StevieMont was not corrected because that poster made no errors. You on the other hand, make nothing but errors.

So you agree with his statement that when you don't like your HA you just set CI... Interesting....

Infant screening is notoriously unreliable. It determines only those children that may have a hearing deficit when tested at an age where definitive levels can be determined. It determines risk, and that is all. Just as many infants that failed newborn screening are found not to have any hearing loss as those that do.

Really... and where do you get that conclusion from? Good thing they don't rely on just one test...

It is not true that the possibility for success is smaller for those that are implanted older. There is research quoted in this very thread that debunks that popular myth. The CI industry is fond of telling people that innacurracy in order to rush them into a decision.

Sorry.. it is...Sure you will be happy to show the research ... oh wait... I'll probably have to find it myself in this forest op posts....

Totally and completely false that children implanted before their first birthday follow the speech development of naturally hearing children. You are just making this crap out of thin air. There is virtually nothing to support such nonsense as this, and much to prove it is false.

Nothing..?? Sorry JT... there's lots.... You might not want to read it, but there's lots.. Lots

You really need to find some people that are either as gullible as you are, or much less well informed of the facts than the majority of AD members. No one around here is naive enough to buy this nonsense you type.

Gullible.. nice word.... great negative sound....
But there are plenty of people as gullible as me with children that enjoy their CI.... Just a pitty you let your AD members believe some facts are nonsense

 

[jillio]

So you agree with his statement that when you don't like your HA you just set CI... Interesting....

Really... and where do you get that conclusion from? Good thing they don't rely on just one test...
Sorry.. it is...Sure you will be happy to show the research ... oh wait... I'll probably have to find it myself in this forest op posts....

Nothing..?? Sorry JT... there's lots.... You might not want to read it, but there's lots.. Lots

Gullible.. nice word.... great negative sound....
But there are plenty of people as gullible as me with children that enjoy their CI.... Just a pitty you let your AD members believe some facts are nonsense

Already provided you with the post numbers that have the research quoted.

Nothing has changed. You are still the misinformed, naive, audist propoganda spreading guy you always were.:roll: Your reputation preceedes you. Your time would be much better spent trying to convince those that have not already been convinced that you have no credibility at all. But hey, if you want to waste time around here confirming the opinion people already have of you, be my guest. I love it when people shoot themselves in the foot. It makes our work so much easier around here.

 

[posts from hell]

So you agree with his statement that when you don't like your HA you just set CI... Interesting....

Really... and where do you get that conclusion from? Good thing they don't rely on just one test...
Sorry.. it is...Sure you will be happy to show the research ... oh wait... I'll probably have to find it myself in this forest op posts....

Nothing..?? Sorry JT... there's lots.... You might not want to read it, but there's lots.. Lots

Gullible.. nice word.... great negative sound....
But there are plenty of people as gullible as me with children that enjoy their CI.... Just a pitty you let your AD members believe some facts are nonsense

Ah, of course... parents that did what they wanted to their children enjoying the result.... Offfff coursseee...

 

[Bottesini]

Gullible.. nice word.... great negative sound....
But there are plenty of people as gullible as me with children that enjoy their CI.... Just a pitty you let your AD members believe some facts are nonsense

Where do you get the idea she controls what we believe?

I am perfectly capable of separating fact from nonsense on my own.

 

[posts from hell]

Where do you get the idea she controls what we believe?

I am perfectly capable of separating fact from nonsense on my own.

Thats what I thought. big lol there.

Cloggy.. you need to step it up, man. Your game is weak.

Maybe you're rusty from a year and half of off time?

 

[Cloggy]

Thank you. A CI is not medically necessary. Nor is it necessary to hear.
So, you are putting a child at risk in order to surgically correct them so that they are far closer to the hearing child that you thought you were going to have. There are people who do not think the risks of the damage that can be done longitudinally is worth the risk to surgically alter their child into something they parent wants. .

Putting your kid in a car is also putting your kid at risk... Btw... what damage?

Especially when there is no connection to CI and future success and happiness.

I wasn't going to go there but since you are making the "there's no connection" statement.... Depends who is looking where of course.... I'm quite sure you don't agree with this study.. But show me the study that confirms your statement....


Higher Quality of Life for Deaf Children | Medical News and Health Information
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A hearing device may help deaf children do more than just hear. A new study shows cochlear implants may also help deaf children enjoy their childhood.

Cochlear implants are electronic devices that partially restore hearing to the deaf or severely hard of hearing. The device is surgically implanted in the inner ear and stimulates the hearing nerve, allowing deaf individuals to receive sound.

Researchers studied 88 families with children who had cochlear implants and measured their quality of life using a questionnaire. The results revealed children who had a cochlear implant rated their quality of life equal to that of their hearing peers.

Prior research has shown deaf children have more difficulty in making friends and often feel less socially accepted than normally hearing children of the same age. The use of a cochlear device improves speech perception and language development, which researchers believe improves the children's confidence in social situations.

The research concludes that for children who regularly use a cochlear implant, feelings about life are overall no better or worse than their hearing peers. The findings signify that cochlear implants have a positive effect on certain psycho-social behaviors.

Source: Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, published online February 2010

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

Gullible.. nice word.... great negative sound....
But there are plenty of people as gullible as me with children that enjoy their CI.... Just a pitty you let your AD members believe some facts are nonsense

Where do you get the idea she controls what we believe?

I am perfectly capable of separating fact from nonsense on my own.

Me too

 

[posts from hell]

I loved my childhood, every minute of it. My neighborhood kid friends all signed to me.

They still do... some 20 years later.

No need for a CI.

 

[Beowulf]

Thank you. A CI is not medically necessary. Nor is it necessary to hear.
So, you are putting a child at risk in order to surgically correct them so that they are far closer to the hearing child that you thought you were going to have. There are people who do not think the risks of the damage that can be done longitudinally is worth the risk to surgically alter their child into something they parent wants. Especially when there is no connection to CI and future success and happiness.

You know, drawing from my personal experience in meeting and talking with CI users, I am unsettled: I swear that over half want explants, and they were implanted at early ages. I am struck by the fact that parents do not understand the social risks inherent in getting a CI, and it makes my blood turn cold. Who in the name of God would be willing to gamble their children's happiness in order to hear? WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD????

 

[shel90]

Putting your kid in a car is also putting your kid at risk... Btw... what damage?
I wasn't going to go there but since you are making the "there's no connection" statement.... Depends who is looking where of course.... I'm quite sure you don't agree with this study..
Higher Quality of Life for Deaf Children | Medical News and Health Information
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A hearing device may help deaf children do more than just hear. A new study shows cochlear implants may also help deaf children enjoy their childhood.

Cochlear implants are electronic devices that partially restore hearing to the deaf or severely hard of hearing. The device is surgically implanted in the inner ear and stimulates the hearing nerve, allowing deaf individuals to receive sound.

Researchers studied 88 families with children who had cochlear implants and measured their quality of life using a questionnaire. The results revealed children who had a cochlear implant rated their quality of life equal to that of their hearing peers.

Prior research has shown deaf children have more difficulty in making friends and often feel less socially accepted than normally hearing children of the same age. The use of a cochlear device improves speech perception and language development, which researchers believe improves the children's confidence in social situations.

The research concludes that for children who regularly use a cochlear implant, feelings about life are overall no better or worse than their hearing peers. The findings signify that cochlear implants have a positive effect on certain psycho-social behaviors.

Source: Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, published online February 2010

Of course..that title alone is degrading for many of those who dont have CIs.

This is the problem with people who share those views...they convince society that deaf children are better off with CIs which in turn makes society much harsher on those who dont have CIs.

Anyone else see the negative implications of the wording of this stupid study?

 

[posts from hell]

Of course..that title alone is degrading for many of those who dont have CIs.

This is the problem with people who share those views...they convince society that deaf children are better off with CIs which in turn makes society much harsher on those who dont have CIs.

Anyone else see the negative implications of the wording of this stupid study?

Yes.