cochlear implants

Even if a parent (likely me) doesnt decide to get a CI for their child.... that is their choice, and that doesn't mean they want anything less for their child. I hope that is acknowledged as well... :D
 
That's generally what DOES happen if a child is born with a mild-moderate loss. But for severe/profound losses, a hearing aid doesn't always give them the full range of sounds for development. In that case, a CI would be better, giving them more options.
Click to expand...
HUH? I've NEVER heard of someone being implanted who has a mild-moderate loss. I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great) As virtually everyone knows, CI is covered by insurance...hearing aids aren't covered by insurance. There is a reason for that, and that's b/c only a small percentage of deafies can benifit from CI. More can benifit from hearing aids.
 
Originally posted by Liza
I am pro choice. Great if anyone benefits from CI. Sucks if you dont. Ultimately parents have the last word on their children. I support that, despite my funny feelings regarding children being involved. I wouldnt want people to question my authority either as a parent. I have never heard of a parent who hated his or her child... just because they made them get CI. Ultimately parents get the final word, no matter what you say about it. :)

I have learned so much from having interactions with other folks who had CI..... before "them" I didnt have much exposure on CI. I decided to do the research myself. It takes so much dedication and training, even after the operation.

I do understand, this technology has a lot of room for improvement.... my dad nixed against having it for me, because of that. I respect his decision. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say. I appreciate the clear headed/open minded thinking on CI's. Its a welcome change from others that generally post on CI hearing aids.
 
Originally posted by deafdyke
HUH? I've NEVER heard of someone being implanted who has a mild-moderate loss. I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great) As virtually everyone knows, CI is covered by insurance...hearing aids aren't covered by insurance. There is a reason for that, and that's b/c only a small percentage of deafies can benifit from CI. More can benifit from hearing aids.
Click to expand...

No, I meant that for children with a mild/moderate loss, hearing aids are used instead of a CI, but for severe/profound loss a CI is recommended instead of hearing aids.

"I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great)"

Wrong. Anyone with a 70dB loss or greater and with a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss. Those are the guidelines set by the FDA, but sometimes people with even more hearing than that are implanted outside of the guidelines, by signing a special FDA waiver, if there is reason enough for them to be implanted. Reasons can be because of ossification of the cochlear due to meningitis or people with Auditory Neuropathy sometimes have a loss of 20dB or less, but speech discrimination is terrible and are implanted to help stabilize their hearing.

You can find all this information and more on most cochlear implant informational websites and also on the FDA site.
 
a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss.
Click to expand...
Would that be aided or unaided? I was under the impression that only those who didn't get all that much benifit from aids (those that didn't have any residual hearing) were the only ones eligable. Have they changed eligbilty requirements for CI? I'm surprised as I would have thought that the insurance companies would have fought that tooth and nail. The reason why they cover CI is b/c only a very small percentage of deaf people can benifit from it. That way they don't have to pay out millions of dollars in insurance claims. A big reason why they don't cover hearing aids is b/c lots of people can benifit from aids.
Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)
 
Originally posted by deafdyke
Would that be aided or unaided? I was under the impression that only those who didn't get all that much benifit from aids (those that didn't have any residual hearing) were the only ones eligable. Have they changed eligbilty requirements for CI? I'm surprised as I would have thought that the insurance companies would have fought that tooth and nail. The reason why they cover CI is b/c only a very small percentage of deaf people can benifit from it. That way they don't have to pay out millions of dollars in insurance claims. A big reason why they don't cover hearing aids is b/c lots of people can benifit from aids.
Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)
Click to expand...

That would be aided. 70dB loss aided and a 40% or less speech discrimination aided. You're right, it's not for conductive loss, but for sensoneural loss, which is the most common form of hearing loss.

Insurance companies have fought it tooth and nail, but the results have been too good for them to deny. The benifit to the person is greater than the cost and a cochlear implant is classifies as a prothesis (like an artificial arm or leg) when filing for an insurance claim. It has nothing to do with how many people would benifit from it, it has to do with how it works and how it is classified. A CI is not a hearing aid- it's a prosthetic electro-medical device. That's why they cover it, not because "only a small percentage of Deaf people can benifit from it."

In certain cases of medical necessity, hearing aids are covered by insurance. Rarely, but it does happen. With CI's it's rare that they are turned down.
 
Originally posted by radiohead
No, I meant that for children with a mild/moderate loss, hearing aids are used instead of a CI, but for severe/profound loss a CI is recommended instead of hearing aids.

"I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great)"

Wrong. Anyone with a 70dB loss or greater and with a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss. Those are the guidelines set by the FDA, but sometimes people with even more hearing than that are implanted outside of the guidelines, by signing a special FDA waiver, if there is reason enough for them to be implanted. Reasons can be because of ossification of the cochlear due to meningitis or people with Auditory Neuropathy sometimes have a loss of 20dB or less, but speech discrimination is terrible and are implanted to help stabilize their hearing.

You can find all this information and more on most cochlear implant informational websites and also on the FDA site.
Click to expand...

I have said this many time in DN to CSN or anyone regarding 70db loss.. they don't believe me! :shrug:
 
Originally posted by radiohead
That would be aided. 70dB loss aided and a 40% or less speech discrimination aided. You're right, it's not for conductive loss, but for sensoneural loss, which is the most common form of hearing loss.

Insurance companies have fought it tooth and nail, but the results have been too good for them to deny. The benifit to the person is greater than the cost and a cochlear implant is classifies as a prothesis (like an artificial arm or leg) when filing for an insurance claim. It has nothing to do with how many people would benifit from it, it has to do with how it works and how it is classified. A CI is not a hearing aid- it's a prosthetic electro-medical device. That's why they cover it, not because "only a small percentage of Deaf people can benifit from it."

In certain cases of medical necessity, hearing aids are covered by insurance. Rarely, but it does happen. With CI's it's rare that they are turned down.
Click to expand...

That's right..
 
Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)
Click to expand...

you don't need any of this to qualify for CI! because CI bypasses those parts.. (outer and middle) the only thing it needs is cochlea itself which is inner ear!

you have 70db loss but need to be bilateral sensioneural hearing loss looks like yours is not bilateral then you won't qualify.

again, I have posted several links to requirements for everyone to check over at DN, so go there and do a search!
 
I myself would let my child make the decision, allow them to chart the cons and pros.
As in other terms, i wouldn't implant it when its a baby, I would let it grow up do be deaf and proud.. or.. well if its what they desire, then okay.
 
Originally posted by Amby
I myself would let my child make the decision, allow them to chart the cons and pros.
As in other terms, i wouldn't implant it when its a baby, I would let it grow up do be deaf and proud.. or.. well if its what they desire, then okay.
Click to expand...

Any mother that calls their baby an IT obviously doesnt care much about their baby anyway.

It doesnt surprise me that you would give up your parenting duties.
 
Originally posted by Cain Marko
Any mother that calls their baby an IT obviously doesnt care much about their baby anyway.

It doesnt surprise me that you would give up your parenting duties.
Click to expand...

Wha the?...... I do care about it, I would always.. geez Im sorry.
 
Originally posted by Amby
I myself would let my child make the decision, allow them to chart the cons and pros.
As in other terms, i wouldn't implant it when its a baby, I would let it grow up do be deaf and proud.. or.. well if its what they desire, then okay.
Click to expand...

Well, once agian....wouldn't it be better to have them implanted and let then have the best hearing they can, THEN when they get older they can chart the pros and cons of having an implant or not? Doesn't really make sense the other way around. Waiting till they are old enough may mean they won't get as much benifit from the implant since they will be out of the brain development stage. Otherwise, having them wiegh the pros and cons is a moot point. It's easy to be deaf at a late age, but alot harder to learn hearing.

It just doesn't make sense to wait.
 
Radio:

Actually, it makes more sense to let the parents choose whether it is CI or not.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that some people don't consider deafness as a bad thing, but as an integral part in their lives that they have chosen to be positive about it rather than seeing it as lacking in something? This doesn't mean your views are invalid, just different views to have that are working for YOU.

Having a CI or not having a CI doesn't make you less human, I believe so.
 
Originally posted by Liza
Radio:

Actually, it makes more sense to let the parents choose whether it is CI or not.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that some people don't consider deafness as a bad thing, but as an integral part in their lives that they have chosen to be positive about it rather than seeing it as lacking in something? This doesn't mean your views are invalid, just different views to have that are working for YOU.

Having a CI or not having a CI doesn't make you less human, I believe so.
Click to expand...

Thats all fine but just remember people with CI dont mean they have turned their backs on being deaf.
That isnt something you should assume....at least that is how I read your 2nd paragraph.
 
Originally posted by Liza
Radio:

Actually, it makes more sense to let the parents choose whether it is CI or not.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that some people don't consider deafness as a bad thing, but as an integral part in their lives that they have chosen to be positive about it rather than seeing it as lacking in something? This doesn't mean your views are invalid, just different views to have that are working for YOU.

Having a CI or not having a CI doesn't make you less human, I believe so.
Click to expand...

I AM Deaf...I don't consider it a bad thing- I like being Deaf with a CI.

And I think you are misreading my argument. It makes sense for the parent to choose- I never said any different. I'm pointing out the illogic behind those who say they want their child to have all choices available to them, by waiting till they are old enough.

If a parent decides they don't want to implant their child, more power to them. Same with those who choose to implant their children immediately. But those who want to give thier child a CHOICE, it only makes sense to go ahead and implant them in order that the child might have the choice. Make sense?

It's an inarguable right of the parent to makes decisions for the child- I'm not trying to infringe on that at all.
 
Boult, I am not eligable for a CI b/c I don't have s/n loss at all! There's nothing wrong with my coachlea, the reason I am deaf is b/c I don't have ear canals( aural atresia/ stenosis) or eardrums and the little bones of my middle ear are fused together!
If I were eligable for a CI I would get it in a flash so that I wouldn't have to spend the cost of a college education on my hearing aids!
I'm a little skeptical on the claim that all deaf people are eligable for a CI...there are MANY severely and profoundly deaf people who derive significent benifit from hearing aids. Even a hundred or fiftty years ago when the technology was a lot more primative then it is now, there were people with profound and severe s/n losses who
Don't you think that the hearing aid companies would fight tooth and nail against all deaf people being eligable for CI? Think about it!
 
I believe that it is up to the individual to choose whether they want a CI or not. It works for some people, and doesn't work for others.

I don't like the ideas of babies being implanted at an early age, and being told they are hearing as they get older. I also don't like them being denied the right to find more out about being Deaf etc. If the individual has a CI, fine, but - to some extent - they are still Deaf within themselves, for example if they take the CI off, they're Deaf...

Of course, I am worried about the increasing numbers of CI users, and I sincerely hope that someone out there will wake up and realise the beauty of being Deaf and the ever so awesome Deaf culture, and tell parents/individuals that it is OKAY to look at other options, other than getting CI. It is OKAY to be Deaf - some parents do not realise that. I think it all comes down to needing more resources, with more information about what you can do, for parents with a newborn Deaf baby.

But of course, it all comes down to THEIR choice. You cannot force people to have CI's - I understand that - but you also cannot force them to be Deaf, to live in the Deaf world, to act as a Deaf person. Everyone is different after all...
 
Originally posted by caffy
I believe that it is up to the individual to choose whether they want a CI or not. It works for some people, and doesn't work for others.

I don't like the ideas of babies being implanted at an early age, and being told they are hearing as they get older. I also don't like them being denied the right to find more out about being Deaf etc. If the individual has a CI, fine, but - to some extent - they are still Deaf within themselves, for example if they take the CI off, they're Deaf...

Of course, I am worried about the increasing numbers of CI users, and I sincerely hope that someone out there will wake up and realise the beauty of being Deaf and the ever so awesome Deaf culture, and tell parents/individuals that it is OKAY to look at other options, other than getting CI. It is OKAY to be Deaf - some parents do not realise that. I think it all comes down to needing more resources, with more information about what you can do, for parents with a newborn Deaf baby.

But of course, it all comes down to THEIR choice. You cannot force people to have CI's - I understand that - but you also cannot force them to be Deaf, to live in the Deaf world, to act as a Deaf person. Everyone is different after all...
Click to expand...


why do you go on and on about people having a choice or making their own individual decision than start talking out of the other side of your mouth and bash people that have decided to have a CI.

its sounds pathetic and 2 faced
 
Back
Top