Cochlear implant mends lives

[Cloggy]

Cochlear implant mends lives

Clare Masters and Edith Bevin
June 16, 2007 12:00am


WHEN this young woman was just four years old a tiny device changed her life and made her part of medical history.

Holly McDonell is living proof of the difference science can make. The 24-year-old has just graduated with first class honours in law but two decades ago she was the world's first Cochlear implant recipient.

As she celebrated the 20-year anniversary of the breakthrough Aussie invention with the surgeon who made it possible, Ms McDonell reflected on the implant that transformed her world.

"Without the implant I am completely deaf but with it I can hear just as well as everyone else," she said.

"I can hear voices and accents and tones. I can hear anger and happiness . . . I do wonder what my life would be without it and I just can't imagine it being so good.

"I feel so blessed."

The first child in the world to receive the commercially approved Cochlear implant when she was fitted with it on June 4, 1987, Ms McDonell had become deaf at four after contracting bacterial meningitis.

She received no benefit from hearing aids and her speech deteriorated.

Her parents were told the only option was for their daughter to learn sign language, unless they wanted to try a radical Australian invention.

"At the time it was very new and it was a really hard decision for them but it was by far the best decision they ever made -- that decision has made my life," Ms McDonell said.

The implant meant she could attend mainstream school with no special support. She completed her higher school certificate in 2000 and studied economics and law.

She is completing her practical legal work experience at Clayton Utz before being admitted as a solicitor this year.

Ms McDonell celebrated the anniversary this month with Prof Bill Gibson, the surgeon who did the implant.

She said she was thankful that Cochlear implant inventor Graeme Clark ignored those who said a bionic ear implant was not possible in the foreseeable future.

Prof Clark's pioneering 1960s Melbourne University research led to a prototype bionic ear in 1978, and an approved Cochlear implant in 1985.

The Cochlear implant is designed to bypass the damaged parts of the inner ear. It works by sending electrical stimulation directly to the auditory nerve.

Today more than 50,000 profoundly deaf people in 120 countries can hear, thanks to him.

"To enable deaf children to communicate naturally in society with hearing people has been a special privilege that I hardly thought possible when I started my research 40 years ago," Prof Clark, 71, said.

He is now working to create spinal cord implants to help paraplegics walk again.

 

[R2D2]

Ms McDonell celebrated the anniversary this month with Prof Bill Gibson, the surgeon who did the implant.

Smiles. He did my surgery too. He's a nice man.

 

[DeafSCUBA98]

amazing.. thats long time ago.. i can't believe that long ago.

[He is now working to create spinal cord implants to help paraplegics walk again.

I sure hope he success that soon before his time to an end.. since i notice he's 71 right now..

many ppl in wheelchair will be glad if this is a success...

I think there's a shot related to it but it has to be injected immedetly(sp?) after injured the spinal cord.

 

[rick48]

Great article Cloggy!

Rick

 

[Hear Again]

What a wonderful article! Thanks for posting this Cloggy!

 

[dreama]

It makes it sound like being deaf is being broken. That is so untrue. While CI's can help some people articles like this just drive me up the wall as they reinforce the attitude that deafness is something that needs fixing when deaf are fine as they are!

 

[shel90]

It makes it sound like being deaf is being broken. That is so untrue. While CI's can help some people articles like this just drive me up the wall as they reinforce the attitude that deafness is something that needs fixing when deaf are fine as they are!

I got the same feeling too when I read it. I am happy for the girl that it was successful and everything. Just the impression that CIs will solve the communication problems when it really doesnt do it for all deaf/hoh people that kinda put me off. That's the kind of message that people who are not educated about deaf people will take seriously and influence their thinking.

 

[jillio]

I got the same feeling too when I read it. I am happy for the girl that it was successful and everything. Just the impression that CIs will solve the communication problems when it really doesnt do it for all deaf/hoh people that kinda put me off. That's the kind of message that people who are not educated about deaf people will take seriously and influence their thinking.

I had the same reaction as you and dreama when I read it earlier, but hesitated to say anything because I would have jsut been accused of being a militant and not accepting anything positive that is posted about CI. But now that I'm not the only one who felt that way, I'll take my chances!

Yeah--the first thing I noticed was that the title said "mends lives". That directly infers "broken" because if it isn't broken, it doesn't need mending!

Then the paragraph where it says her parents were told it would have to be CI or sign implies that they found sign to be so objectionable that they found experiemental surgery to be better than a signing deaf child. Don't forget, no one knew what would happen at this point--the surgery was still at an experimental point, and long term side effects, as well as immediate side effects still had not been discovered.

But once again, this is the kind story that always gets paraded before the public. Where are the stories about the kids who have been implanted and not had that degree of success. They are out there, too, and their stories need to be told as well to achieve a balanced perspective.

 

[shel90]

I had the same reaction as you and dreama when I read it earlier, but hesitated to say anything because I would have jsut been accused of being a militant and not accepting anything positive that is posted about CI. But now that I'm not the only one who felt that way, I'll take my chances!

Yeah--the first thing I noticed was that the title said "mends lives". That directly infers "broken" because if it isn't broken, it doesn't need mending!

Then the paragraph where it says her parents were told it would have to be CI or sign implies that they found sign to be so objectionable that they found experiemental surgery to be better than a signing deaf child. Don't forget, no one knew what would happen at this point--the surgery was still at an experimental point, and long term side effects, as well as immediate side effects still had not been discovered.

But once again, this is the kind story that always gets paraded before the public. Where are the stories about the kids who have been implanted and not had that degree of success. They are out there, too, and their stories need to be told as well to achieve a balanced perspective.

I was the same about whether I should post in this thread or not cuz I didnt want to be accused as being so negative about CIs. I am just negative at how the CIs are portrayed as a way of solving all deaf people's problems when it is not always true. I dont have any problems with the CIs themselves except that they require surgery which sucks but that's another thread. Anyways it is the attitude that's out there about deafness and sign language and that attitude was evident by the author of the article. When I read it, I was happy for the girl but the underlying message about deafness and sign language turned me off right away so I couldnt post saying "Yay" if I didnt honestly feel that way. That would make me a hypocrate.

 

[Cloggy]

It makes it sound like being deaf is being broken. That is so untrue. While CI's can help some people articles like this just drive me up the wall as they reinforce the attitude that deafness is something that needs fixing when deaf are fine as they are!

I got the same feeling too when I read it. I am happy for the girl that it was successful and everything. Just the impression that CIs will solve the communication problems when it really doesnt do it for all deaf/hoh people that kinda put me off. That's the kind of message that people who are not educated about deaf people will take seriously and influence their thinking.

.......
Yeah--the first thing I noticed was that the title said "mends lives". That directly infers "broken" because if it isn't broken, it doesn't need mending!

Then the paragraph where it says her parents were told it would have to be CI or sign implies that they found sign to be so objectionable that they found experiemental surgery to be better than a signing deaf child. Don't forget, no one knew what would happen at this point--the surgery was still at an experimental point, and long term side effects, as well as immediate side effects still had not been discovered.

But once again, this is the kind story that always gets paraded before the public. Where are the stories about the kids who have been implanted and not had that degree of success. They are out there, too, and their stories need to be told as well to achieve a balanced perspective.

When I started the thread, I knew these post were coming.
And I hesitated to start it, but then again, this is the article. This is the view. Like it or not... (Not I guess..)

And of course there is something broken. There's a part of the body that doesn't work.
And like with other parts that don't work in the body, that does not need to be a problem. But one can make it a problem, or it can become a problem.

But again, something is broken; something is not working. There's no need to fix it.... but it's possible.

 

[shel90]

When I started the thread, I knew these post were coming.
And I hesitated to start it, but then again, this is the article. This is the view. Like it or not... (Not I guess..)

And of course there is something broken. There's a part of the body that doesn't work.
And like with other parts that don't work in the body, that does not need to be a problem. But one can make it a problem, or it can become a problem.

But again, something is broken; something is not working. There's no need to fix it.... but it's possible.

We just have different views...no biggie. I am just more concerned about those children who didnt benefit from their CIs and end up delayed in language and the public doesnt seem to realize that due to believing that success stories like these will happen for all deaf children.

No, I dont like that view...it is that view that caused me so much misery and is causing many children misery right now. I wish I can tell u more about the middle school kids that come from the mainstreamed programs with serious depression problems but I cant go into details. It just breaks my heart. That's why i dont like that view. U can like it all u want..I wont tell u what to do.

 

[jillio]

When I started the thread, I knew these post were coming.
And I hesitated to start it, but then again, this is the article. This is the view. Like it or not... (Not I guess..)

And of course there is something broken. There's a part of the body that doesn't work.
And like with other parts that don't work in the body, that does not need to be a problem. But one can make it a problem, or it can become a problem.

But again, something is broken; something is not working. There's no need to fix it.... but it's possible.

If your liver fails, you need medical intervention to "fix" what is not functioning. However, if your auditory system is not functioning, it can, and has been for centuries, overcome by non-medical means. The deaf have adapted to their so called "broken hearing", have adapted to their unique circumstances and situations, and have done so without the assistance of medicine. They have used their inate ability to adapt and not only survive, but thrive. George Veditz said it best in 1913: "We are, first, last, and always, th people of the eye." It is truly an amazing accomplishment that the deaf have adapted to interpreting their world through their visual sense when the majority uses their auditory sense, but the greatest accomplishment is the development and evolution of a complete and recognized language to overcome their communication difficulties. This is as great an accomplishemnt as any scientific intervention designed to "fix" deafness. This is the proud legacy of Deaf Culture and history.

 

[Aleser]

I'm with everyone. It kind of seems like it's saying "gee, life would have sucked if science didn't give me this implant." You got an implant, you benefited. Great for you, but being deaf doesn't make a person miserable, that sort of attitude on deafness does.

 

[Cloggy]

....... However, if your auditory system is not functioning, it can, and has been for centuries, overcome by non-medical means. .....

Sure, it's a choice.
What makes one decision better than the other....?

Being deaf, you can be proud of it, and being deaf you can be proud of it while hearing....

Not everything that is broken need to be - or can be fixed. Some things can....

 

[jillio]

Sure, it's a choice.
What makes one decision better than the other....?

Being deaf, you can be proud of it, and being deaf you can be proud of it while hearing....

Not everything that is broken need to be - or can be fixed. Some things can....

Absolutely, its a choice. One decision is not better than the other, so long as the outcome of that decision is satisfactory in all ways for the individual. However, the oral philosphy has long contructed deaf as disabled, and have adamantly insisted, sometimes through very covert means, that it is the deaf's responsibility to adapt to the language, the values and the norms of the hearing, that they are impaired and therefore, must make that impairment less visable by adopting spoken language in order to be accepted, and yet even when a deaf individual reaches an outstanding level of achievement orally, are continually reminded that they are "almost hearing, but not quite on the same level as the hearing." It serves to be a constant reminder of never being good enough. That history of oppression and inequality and oppression is what led to the insistence, through Deaf Culture, that Deaf is not an impairment, but rather, a cultural and linguistic difference. It is based on shared experience and language. It has allowed the Deaf individual a place to feel as if they can be themselves, a safe place where they aren't judged based on how hearing they appear to be.

The very painful history is one of the reasons that oralism, in its strictest form, is so opposed by not only the D/d, but also by those who teach and advocate. The philosophy behind oralism is based on a medical view, and that medicalized perspective has created a self fulfilling prophecy. Oralism basically says that to be literate, the Deaf must rely on oral skills. But relying on oral skills has created a situation where too many students are being educationally deprived, because they cannot learn the material without using visual cues. Not providing manual communication, or bastardizing manual communication to MCE systems, is what caused the literacy rates of the Deaf/deaf population to go down--not insufficient oral skills. So you see, the oralists first made an incorrect statement about the ability of the Deaf to learn and succeed in their own adaptive way, and then they put in place the policies that insured that their erroneous judgement was valid. That scares many people, Deaf and hearing alike. And, because the history has been so unjust, it has influenced the collective reaction to anything that even resembles the return of a strict oral philosphy. To understand the reaction, one must first understand the cause of the reaction. When that is accomplished, both sides will develop tolerance for the difference in opinion and the war will stop.

 

[rick48]

When I started the thread, I knew these post were coming.
And I hesitated to start it, but then again, this is the article. This is the view. Like it or not... (Not I guess..)

Cloggy,


I knew it would not be long before the negative posters chimed in as they always do.

So I guess if you picked 6 as the over under, you win. I actually thought they would be there within five posts. They must be slipping!

God forbid you post an article about a person who enjoys their ci and enjoys the benefits and opportunities it has given her. The article cannot just be accepted for what it is: a look at the first child ci recipient 20 years after her implant and how she turned out. Instead of celebrating the fact that this young lady is happy, appreciates what her parents did for her and is about to become a lawyer, no the litany of negativity begins. For them, the glass is eternally half empty.

The one thing that really bothered me, is not what they said, for they are so predictable that they have no credibility but that you said that you hesitated to even post it. Please, if we stop posting positive stories about ci users, if we stop sharing either our personal experiences or those of our children, then the negative posters will have succeeded in what they seek to accomplish and people coming to this site seeking useful information about cochlear implants for either themselves or for their children will be denied that information.

I have always felt that we were so fortunate to have met so many kind and caring people who helped us both with our ci decision for our daughter and then her as she traveled down a wonderful but definitely "the road less traveled", that the best way to repay those kind and caring people was to help those starting their own ci journey for either themselves or for their children. To me, that is what you are doing with posting articles such as this one and your blog about Lotte and the wonderful things she is doing.

DO NOT LET THEM STOP YOU FROM HELPING OTHERS!!!

Keep up the good work, we are grateful to you.

Rick

 

[Cloggy]

I'm with everyone. It kind of seems like it's saying "gee, life would have sucked if science didn't give me this implant." You got an implant, you benefited. Great for you, but being deaf doesn't make a person miserable, that sort of attitude on deafness does.

I agree that the title could have been chosen better.

 

[Cloggy]

Absolutely, its a choice. One decision is not better than the other, so long as the outcome of that decision is satisfactory in all ways for the individual. However, the oral philosphy has long contructed deaf as disabled, ...........
.... That history of oppression and inequality and oppression is what led to the insistence, through Deaf Culture, that Deaf is not an impairment, but rather, a cultural and linguistic difference. It is based on shared experience and language. It has allowed the Deaf individual a place to feel as if they can be themselves, a safe place where they aren't judged based on how hearing they appear to be.

The very painful history is one of the reasons that oralism, in its strictest form, is so opposed by not only the D/d, but also by those who teach and advocate. The philosophy behind oralism is based on a medical view, and that medicalized perspective has created a self fulfilling prophecy. Oralism basically says that to be literate, the Deaf must rely on oral skills. But relying on oral skills has created a situation where too many students are being educationally deprived, because they cannot learn the material without using visual cues. Not providing manual communication, or bastardizing manual communication to MCE systems, is what caused the literacy rates of the Deaf/deaf population to go down--not insufficient oral skills. So you see, the oralists first made an incorrect statement about the ability of the Deaf to learn and succeed in their own adaptive way, and then they put in place the policies that insured that their erroneous judgement was valid. That scares many people, Deaf and hearing alike. And, because the history has been so unjust, it has influenced the collective reaction to anything that even resembles the return of a strict oral philosphy. To understand the reaction, one must first understand the cause of the reaction. When that is accomplished, both sides will develop tolerance for the difference in opinion and the war will stop.

History has been very unjust for the d/Deaf since the expected mode of communication was never good enough to fill the communication-gap.
However, that is history. Times are changing. The excuse and/or argument of history becomes weaker and weaker. One should not compare today with events that happened 100+ years ago, because people believed that the only way for deaf people to get into heaven was to be able to speak...

 

[R2D2]

It was great to hear about the girl in question and there is no doubt that she has really benefited from her CI. She was obviously a post-lingual too, so losing her hearing would have been a real and discernable loss to her, unlike a baby who was born deaf. My daughter is 4 and her language is already well developed, so loss of hearing at that age would have caused the girl in the article adjustment difficulties.

Having said that and to be fair, I can see why the other posters might find the article a bit upsetting. The title itself implies that any profoundly deaf person who doesn't get a CI has a "broken life". There is also the implication that an existence of not being able to hear is a miserable one and that science can rescue you from that.

I see a difference between an attitude of providing more opportunities and choices in life as opposed to describing people without CIs for whatever reason, in that way. When I look at my nephew who signs only, I see fewer choices and more worry about dealing with the hearing world, but I don't see a broken life or abject misery.

People generally are remarkably adaptive and learn to find pleasure in different things. Also, not everything in life can be remedied or avoided and in such circumstances the ability to accept the situation and make the most of it is a useful tool to have.

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy,
.............
The one thing that really bothered me, is not what they said, for they are so predictable that they have no credibility but that you said that you hesitated to even post it. Please, if we stop posting positive stories about ci users, if we stop sharing either our personal experiences or those of our children, then the negative posters will have succeeded in what they seek to accomplish and people coming to this site seeking useful information about cochlear implants for either themselves or for their children will be denied that information.
............

You're absolutely right.
I though about putting a comment in the first post, because I do believe the title could have been better, but I decided to post it as it is.
I can see through the unfortunate title of the article and I hoped others could do so as well. (And some could..)

But you are right. The focus has changed from "a person that enjoys her CI" to "the title that shows how deaf are treated".
Pitty