Cochlear implant mends lives

[jillio]

Why difficult to believe? Since we both have deaf children nearly the same age and since you made a decision to deny your child a ci, then you must have engaged in the same thorough research that we did in making our decision to give our daughter a cochlear implant? You just made a different decision.

Yes, we do have a deaf child approximately the same age. No, I did not deny my son a CI. Rather I researched thoroughly, all of the options and the educational consequences, not to mention the social consequences and issues surrounding adjustment and psychologocial development. Communication choice was bit a drop in the bucket of all of the issues considered when I decided to forego forcing a CI on my child based on my method of communciation and permitted him the freedom of deciding if and when he would find surgical alteration of a then very experimental procedure helpful in living a successful life. He has not, to date found it necessary, and yet he lives a quite successful life and interacts with the hearing world on a daily basis.

Our research into the cochlear implant began in mid to late 1988 after our decision to raise our child orally. There was a child about a year and a half to two years older then our daughter enrolled in the same pre-school program who had just been implanted. So, did we first learn about the cochlear implant on our own or from seeing this child, it really does not matter. What we were able to observe is the profound and tremendous impact the ci had on a child just older then our daughter. So we talked to these parents extensively (we have remained friendly with them and our daughters remain friends to this day). Since this was the pre-google era, we also did old fashioned roll up your sleeves hard work learning about the ci and contacting various people.

After we decided to raise our child orally is the qualifying statement in all of this. You had already made the decision that your child would be placed in the position of adapting to your circumstances, rather than adapting to your child's circumstances. Therefore, the decision to have your child implanted was the natural progression from the oral philosophy. And in contacting the professionals, as I assume "other people" referred to means, you were most definately subject to subtle advertising, as they hold a stake in whether or not a patient decides to have the procedure done.

We learned there was a small organization of cochlear implant users called CICI and we went to their convention in Fishkill, NY in June/July of 89 just weeks before our daughter's scheduled surgery. We met many more deaf adult users and a few other children who confirmed what our months of phone calls and personal observations had shown us. We met and talked to representatives from Cochlear Corp who we had previously talked to over the phone.

And di you, as well, research as thoroughly and as open mindedly, all other options in order to critically analyze and smd synthesize all of the information you were being given? Did you spend as much time visiting TC programs as you did oral programs. Did you research the psychological and educational repercussions of choosing both oral and sign based sinstruction, as well as home environment. Did you spend time chatting with Deaf individuals as well as deaf individuals?

Why is it difficult to believe that we approached the ci surgeon, what are they gods? This was our child, our baby who we were in the midst of deciding whether to undergo surgery, you better damm well believe that my wife approached them and questioned them at length before deciding what to do. Before entrusting our child into their hands. Didn't you do the same?

I don't find it difficult to believe that you approached the surgeon. What I find difficult to believe is that you were completely unaffected by the hype and the one sided presentations of the CI. As you said, I was raising a deaf child at precisely the same time, and I know that the oral philosophy was touted as the way to make a child more like hearing children, that TC was presented as a fall back in case the strictly oral approach failed. And the CI was presented as sicences latest miracle that gave the deaf child the opportunity to be jsut like his hearing parents. The way the CI was presented in 1988 was the very reason for the controversy between Deaf culture and the medical establishement and the audist based professionalized hearing educators and audiologists. And since you had already made the decision that your daughter would be raised orally, your decisionwas not based on the CI, but simply offered you a tool to make your objective easier to accomplish. On the other hand, Ih ad not made the decision to raise my child orally. My son was 2 years old in 1988, and was beginning his journey into Deaf culture as was I. He was also wearing HAs and having AVT on a daily basis. He was being exposed to all, and my decision was made based on the information he was providing me regarding the ease with which his communication skills developed, the method he relied on in play and in the majority of interactions with others, including hearing, and the amount of frustration and stress caused by requiring him to perform orally and auditorily. I allowed my child simply to be exposed to all, and let him guide me in my decision. Had he been more comfortable with a strictly oral environment, then I would have made the decision to go the oral route with him. In addition, the possiblilty of CI has been discussed with him numerous times as he grew to adulthood. He has many friends, and attended school with many CI users. But because he has not had his options closed, and was raised to know that there is more than one option to acieve success, he cannot see the benefit for his individual situation. And I respect his decision to say, "If you choose CI, that's fine with me. But I don't need to undergo a surgical procedure to insure that I will be accepted and successful. I am capable of doing it on my own terms."
We had the distinct pleasure of talking at length several times with two of the leading ci surgeons then: Simon Parisier of MEETH and Noel Cohen of NYU. They were patient, understanding, answered all our questions and did not try to influence us one bit. Dr. Cohen, who we twice entrusted our daughter's hearing to, is one of the finest men you will ever meet and an outstanding professional. Why not question the audiologist, he was and still is our daughter's audi and he too answered all our questions and we laugh to this day about his comment that perhaps at best, the cochlear implant would give her some access to sounds.

Yes, you entrusted her hearing to the medical community. But who did you entrust her deafness to?So yes, we sought out the cochlear implant on our own for that is what we believe responsible parents making a well informed and reasoned decision need to do: seek out the information, talk to adult users, talk to parents of children and talk with the professionals, ask your questions, get your information, evaluate and then decide whether its in your child's best interests, but again I am probably telling you something you did at roughly the same time as us.

You sought our the CI as a way to accomplish what you had already decided was best: a strict oral environment for a deaf child. That is where the ethnocentricsim and bias becomes manifest.

Thanks for taking my words out of context, I knew you would be unable to write a post without doing so. I did not say there was no advertising involved, I said it was not a factor: big difference. We are purchasing a car tonight but I could not tell you one of their commercials. Advertising involved yes, a factor no. I guess no apology will be forthcoming from you, well I never expected one from you anyway.

Just because you cannot consciously recall a commercial in detail does not mean that you have not processed the information presented and that it is not influencing your decision. Its called priming, it is a well respected psychological phenomena, and one that is capitalized on by advertisers constantly.

 

[jillio]

Are they really - or is that your assumption?

How incorrect am I??

Actually, in the United States, 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents. While all of those parents can be considered oral, all of their children are not. There are other cultures in the world that contain Deaf Cultures that parrallel the deaf culture in the United States, in that they are linguistically different from their majority culture. However, it is only in the Western world that the individuals who are identified as Deaf and therefore, sign based are considered to be deviant and in need of conversion to the oral majoritiy's method of communciation. I would suggest that you take the time to read about Deaf Culture in Bali, Indonesia, and the Deaf communities in indigenious areas of Mexico as a start. You will find that there are not only Deaf members of these communities, but hearing members as well, and that all children, both hearing and deaf, learn the native sign language as their mother language. The cultural construction of deafness as a medical condition that needs to be treated simply is not there, nor is the lack of acceptance for an idividual who communicates in an alternate method. These individuals function as well respected and complete members of the community. Therefore, your statement that 90-96% of the world is oral is erroneous. Once again, if you want to use statistics in a debate, please make sure that you have done your research and have knowledge about that of which you speak.

 

[jillio]

I said 90+%....

I was not accurate enough according to U.S. Census Bureau (See here) it is 99.6%....
U.S. total population over 16: 267,665,000 (100%)
Have difficulty hearing normal conversation 7,966,000 3.8%
Unable to hear normal conversation 832,000 0.4%

I was wrong according to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), they say 96.95%
U.S. total population over 18: 199,617,000 (100%)
"A little trouble" hearing 25,128,000 12.58%
"A lot of trouble [hearing] or deaf" 6,103,000 3.05%

I was not accurate according to Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies Gallaudet University who shows 99.77%
Description - Estimated Numbers - % of population
Deaf, both ears - 421.000 - 0.18
Cannot hear & understand any speech - 552.000 - 0.23
At best, can hear & understand words shouted in the better ear - 1.152.000 - 0.49%

More info...

Statistics
Source: Compiled from fact sheets produced by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD).
Hearing loss is greater in men.

Almost 12 percent of men who are 65 to 74 years of age are affected by tinnitus. Tinnitus is identified more frequently in white individuals and the prevalence of tinnitus is almost twice as frequent in the South as in the Northeast.

Approximately 28 million Americans have a hearing impairment.

Hearing loss affects approximately 17 in 1,000 children under age 18. Incidence increases with age: Approximately 314 in 1,000 people over age 65 have hearing loss and 40 to 50 percent of people 75 and older have a hearing loss.

About 2 to 3 out of every 1,000 children in the United States are born deaf or hard-of-hearing. 9 out of every 10 children who are born deaf are born to parents who can hear.

Ten million Americans have suffered irreversible noise induced hearing loss, and 30 million more are exposed to dangerous noise levels each day.

Only 1 out of 5 people who could benefit from a hearing aid actually wears one.

Three out of 4 children experience ear infection (otitis media) by the time they are 3 years old.

At least 12 million Americans have tinnitus. Of these, at least 1 million experience it so severely that it interferes with their daily activities.

Approximately 59,000 people worldwide have received cochlear implants. About 250,000 people would be good candidates for a cochlear implant. In the United States, about 13,000 adults and nearly 10,000 children have cochlear implants.

Approximately 4,000 new cases of sudden deafness occur each year in the United States. Hearing loss affects only 1 ear in 9 out of 10 people who experience sudden deafness. Only 10 to 15 percent of patients with sudden deafness know what caused their loss.

Approximately 615,000 individuals have been diagnosed with Ménière's disease in the United States. Another 45,500 are newly diagnosed each year.

Approximately 3 to 6 percent of all deaf children and perhaps another 3 to 6 percent of hard-of-hearing children have Usher syndrome. In developed countries such as the United States, about 4 babies in every 100,000 births have Usher syndrome.

One out of every 100,000 individuals per year develops an acoustic neurinoma (vestibular schwannoma).

More info in the Summary Report of that page..

cloggy, cloggy, cloggy. You stated your percentages in reference to the world, and now you are using U.S. census information to support your claim. That is why your arguments are so easily refuted. U.S. census information applies only tothe United States, and not to the world's population. And then you attempted to validate your erroneous statistics by claiming that to be oral was human nature. That is another fallicy. Communication is human nature, language is human nature. For the hearing oral is human nautre. For the deaf, visual is human nature. A little study of the fields of cognitive and developmental psychology would provide you with the insight you need.

 

[jillio]

You didn't direct this question to me, but thought I'd answer with my experience.

In Drew's case, the only reason we learned about the CI is that we did our own research. Drew did not pass his newborn hearing screening, and we were given a list of places to call to get a diagnostic test done. Nothing in the hospital referenced a CI at all.

After calling about 15 places on that sheet we found that it would take at least 2 months to get the test done. We had searched for hearing loss and deafness on the internet and learned that there was something called a CI. We asked our son's pediatrician about it and he said he thought they helped people hear things like a car horn or loud noises, but didn't know much about them.

We eventually were connected by my uncle to a hospital in St. Louis where we were able to get the ABR done and talk to a CI surgeon.

We never saw any advertisements from CI corporations, and no medical person referred us or suggested to get a CI. We only knew of it from our research.

Maybe that's rare, but in my area most of what we found were people or agencies that did not favor the CI and were heavily suggesting us to go without a CI.

And I would ask you the same question that I asked rick48. Did you, as well research all of the other options prior to investigating a CI and seeking out a CI surgeon. As your son is still quite young, I am assuming that you did not, but correct me if I am wrong.

 

[rick48]

"...a then very experimental procedure helpful in living a successful life..."

I am literally out the door and will deal with the cliche ridden psycho babble upon my return but to call the ci in 88-89 experiemental demonstrates that you failed to do your homework or at least understand what you were researching. The ci had already been FDA approved for adults and was in clinical trials for children above the age of 2 such as my child. Too bad you failed to get or understand all the facts when you forced your biased decision upon your son.

Because we acted as responsible parents and researched all the options, our daughter has real choices and options today, hopefully others can say the same as they made the decisions that were in their child's best interests and not according to an agenda that says there is only one way to raise all deaf children.

Bye-bye or should that be bi-bi?

 

[jillio]

"...a then very experimental procedure helpful in living a successful life..."

I am literally out the door and will deal with the cliche ridden psycho babble upon my return but to call the ci in 88-89 experiemental demonstrates that you failed to do your homework or at least understand what you were researching. The ci had already been FDA approved for adults and was in clinical trials for children above the age of 2 such as my child. Too bad you failed to get or understand all the facts when you forced your biased decision upon your son.

Because we acted as responsible parents and researched all the options, our daughter has real choices and options today, hopefully others can say the same as they made the decisions that were in their child's best interests and not according to an agenda that says there is only one way to raise all deaf children.

Bye-bye or should that be bi-bi?

No, dear, you fail to understand. "In clinical trials" means that it is experimental.

And you fail to understand the concept of forcing as well. Allowing one to decide is not forcing. It is having enough self confidence and being secure enough in my ability to parent my child that I can risk allowing him to make decisions that will take him in a direction unfamiliar to me. I wasn't threatened by his deafness, as some parents obviously are.

 

[rick48]

No, dear, you fail to understand. "In clinical trials" means that it is experimental.

And you fail to understand the concept of forcing as well. Allowing one to decide is not forcing. It is having enough self confidence and being secure enough in my ability to parent my child that I can risk allowing him to make decisions that will take him in a direction unfamiliar to me. I wasn't threatened by his deafness, as some parents obviously are.

No honey, FDA approved means that it is not experimental. And gee, neither were we threatened by our daughter's deafness for we embraced it and gave her all the opportunities then available. So I guess sweetie pie, its you who do not understand either the concept of "forcing" or doing complete research before making a decision.

 

[Drew's Dad]

And I would ask you the same question that I asked rick48. Did you, as well research all of the other options prior to investigating a CI and seeking out a CI surgeon. As your son is still quite young, I am assuming that you did not, but correct me if I am wrong.

I really investigated the different options at the same time. Initially the only contacts we found were involved with deaf schools or the county services which were all in favor of signing that was fine - just the way it was.

About the same time we started to investigate the CI and spoke to the surgeon in St. Louis and attended the oral school which blew us away as we never expected what we saw. When we went to St. Louis we really weren't seeking out a surgeon, we just wanted to know what the surgery was and wanted to see what a school of CI kids was like as we had never been exposed to that slice of life before.

 

[shel90]

"...a then very experimental procedure helpful in living a successful life..."

I am literally out the door and will deal with the cliche ridden psycho babble upon my return but to call the ci in 88-89 experiemental demonstrates that you failed to do your homework or at least understand what you were researching. The ci had already been FDA approved for adults and was in clinical trials for children above the age of 2 such as my child. Too bad you failed to get or understand all the facts when you forced your biased decision upon your son.

Because we acted as responsible parents and researched all the options, our daughter has real choices and options today, hopefully others can say the same as they made the decisions that were in their child's best interests and not according to an agenda that says there is only one way to raise all deaf children.

Bye-bye or should that be bi-bi?

No need to insult the bi-bi approach..it is not attacking u.

 

[jillio]

No honey, FDA approved means that it is not experimental. And gee, neither were we threatened by our daughter's deafness for we embraced it and gave her all the opportunities then available. So I guess sweetie pie, its you who do not understand either the concept of "forcing" or doing complete research before making a decision.

FDA approved for adults does not mean FDA approved for children. If the procedure was in clinical trail for children, then it was, indeed, an experimental procedure. And you stated, that it was in clinical trial for children. And FDA approval only guarantees that it has been tested tothe point that it is surgically safe. Benefit and long term side effects require longitudinal studies, and longitudinal studies cannot be accomplished until there have been enough clinical trials to guarantee participants in the longitudinal study. So again, it was experimental in nature during the time periods that you referenced.

No, to embrace something means that you accepted as is without attempts to surgical change the nature. And to place your child in a situation where she is not exposed, from the very beginning to alternative solutions, and requiring that she adapt to your mode of communication, is indeed, forcing.

 

[MomToDeafChild]

And to place your child in a situation where she is not exposed, from the very beginning to alternative solutions, and requiring that she adapt to your mode of communication, is indeed, forcing.

What is a CI, if not an alternative solution to deafness?

If you've exposed your child to only sign, but NOT the CI, then you too are guilty of placing your child in a situation where they don't have access to other 'alternative solutions', and of forcing them into the mode of communication you've chosen. At least with a CI the other 'alternative solutions' will continue to be available should that child choose to use them at some point. The child who is denied a CI early on has less of a chance of utilizing that particular 'alternative solution' over time.

 

[jillio]

What is a CI, if not an alternative solution to deafness?

If you've exposed your child to only sign, but NOT the CI, then you too are guilty of placing your child in a situation where they don't have access to other 'alternative solutions', and of forcing them into the mode of communication you've chosen. At least with a CI the other 'alternative solutions' will continue to be available should that child choose to use them at some point. The child who is denied a CI early on has less of a chance of utilizing that particular 'alternative solution' over time.

My child--he is no longer a child--was not exposed to only sign. He had HA, was exposed to AVT, Deaf Culture, and ASL. He was mainstreamed for a period, and then switched to enrollment in a reputable school for the deaf. And the whole point is, it is not the child's responsibility to adapt to the parent's situation, but the parent's responsibility to adapt to the child's situation. Rather than limiting my son's exposure to only my way of communication, I exposed him to that, plus the way of the Deaf. And it was exposure not just for him, but for me as well. And My son has proven that he can be, and is quite successful without the CI, as he attends a major university (hearing) with a terp and CART services, and maintains a gpa of 3. overall. And the child that is provided a CI with nothing other than AVT and placed in a strictly oral environment has less of a chance of developing the natural adaptive mechanisms that permit high level functioning. And once agian, I did not choose my son's mode of communication--he did. I simply adapted to his choices.

And why is it that deafness needs a solution?

 

[Cloggy]

Actually, in the United States, 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents. While all of those parents can be considered oral, all of their children are not. There are other cultures in the world that contain Deaf Cultures that parrallel the deaf culture in the United States, in that they are linguistically different from their majority culture. However, it is only in the Western world that the individuals who are identified as Deaf and therefore, sign based are considered to be deviant and in need of conversion to the oral majoritiy's method of communciation. I would suggest that you take the time to read about Deaf Culture in Bali, Indonesia, and the Deaf communities in indigenious areas of Mexico as a start. You will find that there are not only Deaf members of these communities, but hearing members as well, and that all children, both hearing and deaf, learn the native sign language as their mother language. The cultural construction of deafness as a medical condition that needs to be treated simply is not there, nor is the lack of acceptance for an idividual who communicates in an alternate method. These individuals function as well respected and complete members of the community. Therefore, your statement that 90-96% of the world is oral is erroneous. Once again, if you want to use statistics in a debate, please make sure that you have done your research and have knowledge about that of which you speak.

cloggy, cloggy, cloggy. You stated your percentages in reference to the world, and now you are using U.S. census information to support your claim. That is why your arguments are so easily refuted. U.S. census information applies only tothe United States, and not to the world's population. And then you attempted to validate your erroneous statistics by claiming that to be oral was human nature. That is another fallicy. Communication is human nature, language is human nature. For the hearing oral is human nautre. For the deaf, visual is human nature. A little study of the fields of cognitive and developmental psychology would provide you with the insight you need.

Jillio, Jillio, Jillio,
How you hate to be wrong, and what wonderful ways you have to disguise it....
Sure I could study,
But how is America different from the rest of the world. A deaf community in another part of the world does not shift the balance.

I said:

99+ % of the world is "oral-only"... It's human nature!

Why would it be incorrect to superimpose USA-numbers on the rest of the worls. You're nothing special.

We can safely assume that when one cannot hear, becoming oral is not a natural thing. Still, many profoundly deaf people still rely on oral communication.

So, if a study shows that 0.4% is not able to hear,
(U.S. Census Bureau ... Unable to hear normal conversation 832,000 0.4% )
then it is no stretch to assume that less than o,4% is "oral-only" since many do not sign.
Anyone that signs, can hear and speak is still oral-oriented.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but apart from diverting the subject, telling me to study and beautiful sentenses that look good in an essay, you haven't really been able to come up with anything.

99+ % of the world is "oral-only"... It's human nature!

 

[Cloggy]

Jillio:

Yes, we do have a deaf child approximately the same age. No, I did not deny my son a CI. Rather I researched thoroughly, all of the options and the educational consequences, not to mention the social consequences and issues surrounding adjustment and psychologocial development. Communication choice was bit a drop in the bucket of all of the issues considered when I decided to forego forcing a CI on my child based on my method of communciation and permitted him the freedom of deciding if and when he would find surgical alteration of a then very experimental procedure helpful in living a successful life. He has not, to date found it necessary, and yet he lives a quite successful life and interacts with the hearing world on a daily basis.

"Forcing CI on a child".... so that's how you view the decision of the parent...

"Limiting the choices for the child" is what I could call your decision....
make that "Limiting the choices for the child" is what I call your decision....

Sure, he's happy, etc, but does he really have a choice.....???? If he has, his opportunities have been reducing since you took the decision...

 

[jillio]

Jillio, Jillio, Jillio,
How you hate to be wrong, and what wonderful ways you have to disguise it....
Sure I could study,
But how is America different from the rest of the world. A deaf community in another part of the world does not shift the balance.

I said:


Why would it be incorrect to superimpose USA-numbers on the rest of the worls. You're nothing special.

We can safely assume that when one cannot hear, becoming oral is not a natural thing. Still, many profoundly deaf people still rely on oral communication.

So, if a study shows that 0.4% is not able to hear,
(U.S. Census Bureau ... Unable to hear normal conversation 832,000 0.4% )
then it is no stretch to assume that less than o,4% is "oral-only" since many do not sign.
Anyone that signs, can hear and speak is still oral-oriented.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but apart from diverting the subject, telling me to study and beautiful sentenses that look good in an essay, you haven't really been able to come up with anything.

Because, cloggy, the rest of the world does not adhere to the U.S. cultural construction of deafness. And because you cannot apply U.S. standards to the rest of the world because the rest of the world is not the U.S. It would seem that this would be obvious to you. And no, CODAs are actually sign based, as their first language is ASL, unless they were raised by oral deaf adults.

And, yes, you could study, but apparently you find that too great of a drain on your time, or see that by becoming more informed of the reality of the situation, you would perhaps have to adjust your position.

If I must explain to you how America is different from the rest of the world, you are obviously less in possession of critical thinking skills that I previously thought. And why is it, whenever your points are refuted with valid and creible arguments, it is only a diversion? The only diversion being created is the one in which you refuse to offer proof of your arguments and then bring up irrelevant points to redirect the issues.

 

[Tousi]

Because, cloggy, the rest of the world does not adhere to the U.S. cultural construction of deafness. And because you cannot apply U.S. standards to the rest of the world because the rest of the world is not the U.S. It would seem that this would be obvious to you. And no, CODAs are actually sign based, as their first language is ASL, unless they were raised by oral deaf adults.

And, yes, you could study, but apparently you find that too great of a drain on your time, or see that by becoming more informed of the reality of the situation, you would perhaps have to adjust your position.

If I must explain to you how America is different from the rest of the world, you are obviously less in possession of critical thinking skills that I previously thought. And why is it, whenever your points are refuted with valid and creible arguments, it is only a diversion? The only diversion being created is the one in which you refuse to offer proof of your arguments and then bring up irrelevant points to redirect the issues.

And dare I add (I really don't want to), what we have left is the ugly specter of audism? But that's your right, Cloggy. Why not just come right out and say that YOU, not Lotte, but YOU want nothing to do with the deaf world? I would still respect you more for harboring that feeling.

 

[MomToDeafChild]

My child--he is no longer a child--was not exposed to only sign. He had HA, was exposed to AVT, Deaf Culture, and ASL. He was mainstreamed for a period, and then switched to enrollment in a reputable school for the deaf. And the whole point is, it is not the child's responsibility to adapt to the parent's situation, but the parent's responsibility to adapt to the child's situation. Rather than limiting my son's exposure to only my way of communication, I exposed him to that, plus the way of the Deaf. And it was exposure not just for him, but for me as well. And My son has proven that he can be, and is quite successful without the CI, as he attends a major university (hearing) with a terp and CART services, and maintains a gpa of 3. overall. And the child that is provided a CI with nothing other than AVT and placed in a strictly oral environment has less of a chance of developing the natural adaptive mechanisms that permit high level functioning. And once agian, I did not choose my son's mode of communication--he did. I simply adapted to his choices.

And why is it that deafness needs a solution?

You gave your child all the tools you could, INCLUDING access to sound through hearing aids. You wanted him to hear something or else you would never have used the aids, right?

But what about the children who do not get ANY benefit from hearing aids? This was my daughter's situation. A hearing aid wasn't enough to give her ANY access to sound, but there was something, the CI, that would give her that access. I gave her the tool that would allow her to do exactly what you hoped hearing aids would do for your son.

You were able to expose your child to both the way of the deaf AND your own mode of communication. You were able to do that because with hearing aids, your child was ABLE to access your mode of communication. With no CI, my child cannot access my mode of communication. Should she be denied that?

Having the CI doesn't mean we don't utilize sign, or captioning, or any of the other tools that are available. The oral only approach does not work for every CI user, and while that is awesome if a child can get to that point where they don't need any additional tools, most will never get there, so to lump all CI users together is not right. Many of us DO take advantage, in some way or form, many of the other tools that are out there.

 

[shel90]

And dare I add (I really don't want to), what we have left is the ugly specter of audism? But that's your right, Cloggy. Why not just come right out and say that YOU, not Lotte, but YOU want nothing to do with the deaf world? I would still respect you more for harboring that feeling.

he even said he doesnt want a person who is deaf teaching his daughter cuz our speech is distorted. I think that says a lot right there but I am glad that he was honest about it instead of skirting around it like some of the other parents are when it comes to that question...

 

[jillio]

You gave your child all the tools you could, INCLUDING access to sound through hearing aids. You wanted him to hear something or else you would never have used the aids, right?

But what about the children who do not get ANY benefit from hearing aids? This was my daughter's situation. A hearing aid wasn't enough to give her ANY access to sound, but there was something, the CI, that would give her that access. I gave her the tool that would allow her to do exactly what you hoped hearing aids would do for your son.

You were able to expose your child to both the way of the deaf AND your own mode of communication. You were able to do that because with hearing aids, your child was ABLE to access your mode of communication. With no CI, my child cannot access my mode of communication. Should she be denied that?

Having the CI doesn't mean we don't utilize sign, or captioning, or any of the other tools that are available. The oral only approach does not work for every CI user, and while that is awesome if a child can get to that point where they don't need any additional tools, most will never get there, so to lump all CI users together is not right. Many of us DO take advantage, in some way or form, many of the other tools that are out there.

And I don't have a problem with that. And the posts that you are commenting on were directed not at CI, but at the strictly oral philosophy that follows so many children that are implanted. I do believe I have told you before that I don't view your approach as strictly oral, because you are utilizing all that is available.

Yes, my son used HAs as a child. No, he could not access my mode of communication through them, he could only perceive sound. They did not help with discrimination, only dB levels.

Once again, I will state here that it is not the CI that I oppose, it is the oralist philosophy that denies a deaf child access on all levels to that which is beneficial to the child. Please don't make the mistake of believing that I apply all these posts to CI users in general, because that is not the case. And if I say something regarding oralism that just happens to apply to a CI user, the same comment would apply to oralism in a non implanted individual. However, there is a definate correlation between implantation and oralism, and we can't get around that. But correlation does not imply all.

 

[MomToDeafChild]

he even said he doesnt want a person who is deaf teaching his daughter cuz our speech is distorted. I think that says a lot right there but I am glad that he was honest about it instead of skirting around it like some of the other parents are when it comes to that question...

Frankly, if my child had a HEARING teacher that had distorted speech, I think I'd have a problem with THAT. It just makes it more difficult for ANYONE to understand if they have to try and decipher someone's speech on top of trying to comprehend what is being taught.

I had a Calculus professor in college that kept saying alpher and theeter, and it took me a week to figure out he was saying Alpha and Theta!!