Deaf Adoption: A Rhetorician's New Family

[kokonut]

And what I meant about learning to live as a deaf child is that, no matter what the technology used to increase sound perception, a deaf child will always be a deaf child. Unfortunately, they are too many times given the impression as young children, and the message is expanded upon during adolescense, that they are not whole deaf children, but hearing children with something wrong with them. Just yesterday, I read a post from a deaf teenager in AD stating that she was broken. She was anxious to get a CI. That attitude combined with too high expectations for technology without a realistic perspective on the limitations creates an atmosphere that does harm to the social and emotional development of deaf children. And until we attend to all aspects of deafness, we will not succeed in creating educational or linguistic environments that will allow them to achieve their full potential.

Again, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges between children with mild hearing loss versus those with profound hearing loss when it comes to the ability to communicate, hear, and understand spoken words alone. There are similarities, sure, but the gap is rather wide on both end of the hearing loss spectrum. I don't think it's about telling a child that she is not whole but rather it's about encouraging a child to take advantage of what's not "broken" on his/her own initiative along with positive support.
Nothing is ever easy and the process isn't so clear cut and simple. Again, there are more children with mild to moderate hearing loss than there are those with severe to profound.

 

[jillio]

What's wrong with not wanting to be deaf?
What's wrong with wanting to hear?

..which could take say 10-15 years.... years of first developing social problems, then years of solving them and when all's OK, and deafness is fully integrated in one's being, then, and only then, one can make a decision...
No thanks...

You did great with your child, based on YOUR decision. Not his.
Rick did great with his child, based on HIS decision. Not hers
I hope I will be just as fortunate as the two of you.... with the decision we took.

No, cloggy, you misunderstood what I was saying. That happens when you take things out of context.

And yes, I agree. I hope that Lotte will achieve the same level of success that my son has achieved to date. But, the good fortune is not mine, it is my son's.

And, what's wrong with being comfortable with your deafness? What's wrong with believing you don't have to be like the majority to be acceptable?

 

[Cloggy]

No, cloggy, you misunderstood what I was saying. That happens when you take things out of context.

Not taking anything out of context. But if that would explain why people do not understand what you are saying, that's fine. It's never your mistake is it....

And yes, I agree. I hope that Lotte will achieve the same level of success that my son has achieved to date. But, the good fortune is not mine, it is my son's.

And I believe that's where you are wrong. The parent is the most important influence in the childs life.... Without parent involvement, the childs chances will be greatly reduced. (Ask Kokonut..)

And, what's wrong with being comfortable with your deafness? What's wrong with believing you don't have to be like the majority to be acceptable?

Nothing, you looking too much from a black and white perspective, and taking things out of context when you don't like what is being said..

The one does not exclude the other... The main thing is that feelings of the person is respected and accepted.
Too many times, when someone said "I want to hear" the response was that the "first have to accept deafness." .... such a load of rubbish....

 

[jillio]

The ability to carry on normal conversations even with strangers? That's what I'm getting at. Let's say the test is to work at a job that involves phone conversations with people, take orders or whatever. Can this be done by those who wear a hearing aid who have severe or even profound hearing loss?

I'd agree that those with severe hearing loss may be able to do that but only on a limited basis but certainly not so for those with profound hearing loss. Name a person you know that has a profound hearing loss who uses his/her hearing aid and can use the phone without much problems and can carry on normal conversations even with strangers.

There are a select few that are able to do that, yes. And there are also numerous CI implantees that aren't able to accomplish those levels of communication with their CI.

My son.

 

[jillio]

Not taking anything out of context. But if that would explain why people do not understand what you are saying, that's fine. It's never your mistake is it....

No, cloggy, in this case it was not my mistake. You simply did not understand what I was saying, and that is evidenced by your response. It was not responding to what I was saying, but to another idea entirely.
And I believe that's where you are wrong. The parent is the most important influence in the childs life.... Without parent involvement, the childs chances will be greatly reduced.
Read some research. When controlled for in experimental studies, parental involvement is a confounding variable, but actually has no significant influence on results obtained regarding literacy rates and educational achievement. And besides, what does that have to do with my saying that my son's success was his good fortune, not mine? His success reflects on him, not me. It benefits him, not me. Why do we do what we need to do for our children? For their benefit, to improve their good fortune, not our own.
(Ask Kokonut..)
Nothing, you looking too much from a black and white perspective, and taking things out of context when you don't like what is being said..

It was your question in reverse cloggy. If your question is a valid one, so is mine.

The one does not exclude the other... The main thing is that feelings of the person is respected and accepted.

Are you able to do that?
Too many times, when someone said "I want to hear" the response was that the "first have to accept deafness." .... such a load of rubbish....

And it is not a load of rubbish, becasue without first accepting the deafness, one will never be able to accept the limitations involved in any attempt to use technology in mediating that deafness.

 

[ASLGAL]

Again, hearing loss range from mild to profound, and so therein lies the number of options best suited for that deaf or hoh child. It may be all of the tools in the toolbox, a few or just one. Just because a child does very well aurally only, for example, doesn't mean that sign language is necessary for language development in order to succeed. Or even needed for social reasons and so on. It's never so black and white all the time.

Through communication with the Deaf in the Deaf Community I believe that the idea of one form of communication is a ridiculous concept.

An elder lady who was forced to be Oral as a child learned ASL later in life so she could communicate with the world better. She remained very oral but ASL at the same time.

I cannot assume to know much about CI's but I would certainly hope a parent would not consider it the only means of communication their child needs

I agree with whoever stated - DeafDyke, I think - that a person needs all the tools in the toolbox and available to them.

 

[jillio]

Again, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges between children with mild hearing loss versus those with profound hearing loss when it comes to the ability to communicate, hear, and understand spoken words alone. There are similarities, sure, but the gap is rather wide on both end of the hearing loss spectrum. I don't think it's about telling a child that she is not whole but rather it's about encouraging a child to take advantage of what's not "broken" on his/her own initiative along with positive support.
Nothing is ever easy and the process isn't so clear cut and simple. Again, there are more children with mild to moderate hearing loss than there are those with severe to profound.

But the fact of the matter remains that even a child with a mild loss will miss information when it is presented in a purely auditory/oral format.

And I agree, we should always focus on a deaf child's strengths in order to facilitate both communication and education. Which is exactly why I advocate for both sign and speech to be offered.

I do however, disagree with the medicalized view of "broken". And simply because there are more children with mild to moderate losses is not sufficient reason to propose an oral only atmosphere, because even those chidlren with CI that are functionally hoh with their CI miss information, both on an incidental level and a formalized educational level, when restricted to oral alone.

 

[deafdyke]

and can carry on normal conversations even with strangers.

I can with a lot of people, but every so often there's people who cannot understand me worth shit, or who think I'm MR b/c of my voice.
And thank you jillo! Yes, why not give the KIDS the tools and let THEM make the decisions of how they want to use them? I mean hoh kids (including unilateral!) don't have particualrly impressive acheivement rates for oral only! Perhaps acheivement levels would RISE if hoh kids got the op to learn both English and ASL!!!!!

 

[kokonut]

There are a select few that are able to do that, yes. And there are also numerous CI implantees that aren't able to accomplish those levels of communication with their CI.

My son.

Like I said, name somebody who is profoundly deaf, wears a hearing aid, and is able to have normal conversations over the phone. In other words, what you are saying is that those few who are profoundly deaf, wears a hearing aid can have a word discrimination score around the 90s (percent) with it on? What you've said is hardly an anecdotal evidence to begin with. I'd love to talk to that person over the cell phone....voice that is.

 

[kokonut]

I can with a lot of people, but every so often there's people who cannot understand me worth shit, or who think I'm MR b/c of my voice.
And thank you jillo! Yes, why not give the KIDS the tools and let THEM make the decisions of how they want to use them? I mean hoh kids (including unilateral!) don't have particualrly impressive acheivement rates for oral only! Perhaps acheivement levels would RISE if hoh kids got the op to learn both English and ASL!!!!!

Oral only? You're not including aural? Is that what you're saying? Just a clarification here.

 

[kokonut]

But the fact of the matter remains that even a child with a mild loss will miss information when it is presented in a purely auditory/oral format.

Of course. Those with mild hearing loss have much more sound and speech information to go by than those with severe or profound hearing loss. It'd be perfectly fine for those with mild hearing loss to go by auditory alone with their hearing aid. No need for signing or cueing.

 

[jag]

There are a select few that are able to do that, yes. And there are also numerous CI implantees that aren't able to accomplish those levels of communication with their CI.

My son.

Your son can carry on conversations on phones with strangers with a HA or your son has a CI and has not been able to achieve being able to talk to strangers on the phone?

It it's he can carry on normal conversations using a HA on the phone with strangers I'm impressed. I hadn't been able to do that for years before my implant. Now I can. I can actually converse with my oldest daughter on the phone now and actually hear her just as well as her dad if not better. That's why the difference in the technology continues to amaze me.

 

[Opal]

Yes, that's true. No experiences are alike. However, it all has to do with early exposure and support. The key is earlier the better.

Let me tell you a true story. Back when I was about 4 or 5 years old there was another boy who lived a few houses down who had the same hearing loss as I did. My Mom and that kid’s Mom even compared their audiograms of us. We were nearly identical with near exact speech threshold diagram on the frequency part where speech would be most conducive. The problem was the other mother hardly helped her son develop any speaking or listening skills with his hearing aid. All he did was scream, point fingers and such. As for me, my mother encouraged and helped me develop my speaking and listening skill with the aid of my hearing aid and engaged me in such a way that I took advantage of my brain’s early plasticity on auditory development. As we grew older I pulled way out ahead of him where I ended up on par with my hearing peers in terms of language, reading, writing and the ability to communicate effectively. Him? He stayed well behind in grade level, never talked or improved his listening skills. His window of opportunity was simply gone. It’s a sad story.

Now, in my earlier post where I described for those who wear a hearing aid in the ability to talk, listen, use phone, listen to radio, etc, what would the hearing loss be like in order for that to be achieved successfully? Mild? Moderate? Moderately severe? Severe? Or Profound hearing loss?

Yes, same to my two deaf friends John and Mark their audiogram level is exactly the same, but they are very different in outcome because of :-

John is the son of Deaf Parents, and their first communication is sign language full time. He is the only child.

Mark was born deaf because of Rubella, and his Hearing Parents teach him to talk and listen at early age.

Now, John is lucky to hear, but cannot talk back on the phone and having trouble to communicate with hearing people with hearing aids on.

and Mark can talk and listen the phone, tv, radio, music with hearing aids on and communicate with people very well, a big thanks to his hearing parents.

John said to me he believe he would be the same as Mark if he has a Hearing Parents.

 

[shel90]

U say it is all about the parents' doing in whether the deaf child will be able to talk with hearing people? How do u explain this one.

My brother and I were born severley profound deaf with the exact same audiogram patterns. I was fitted with HAs at 1 year old since I was older and my deafness didn't get diagnosed but my brother was immediately tested after he was born and was fitted with HAs earlier.

We both r 4 years apart...both have the same parents..both lived in the same household.

I did well with developing speech skills and my brother was unable to no matter how hard my mom and the teachers who worked with me before tried.

the same thing happened to 2 of my deaf friends with their deaf siblings.

That's why I don't believe the parents' work are the ONLY reason.

However it is funy..my brother and my friends' siblings who cudnt develop spoken language all got sent to the deaf schools and now as adults. they have good command of both languages and grew up without too much emotional baggage while my 2 friends and I weren't exposed to asl and were mainstreamed and all 3 of us leanred ASL as adults leaving us wishing we had ASL exposure as kids. We agreed it would have been nice to have a healthy balance of both instead of constantly struggling with catching everything in oral language 24/7. Yes, we r happy we have good speech skills but we do really wish we were exposed to Deaf culture and ASL instead of all hearing people only.

 

[rockdrummer]

Actually, Boult, the art of rhetoric is actually the art of convincing argument and persuasion. Cicero's definition extends back to a time when such was done strictly through speech. The definition has been expanded. An orator is one who speaks well.

Actually Jillio, you are both correct. The definition below covers it and more.

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD
1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

Source : Definition of rhetoric - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

[jillio]

Like I said, name somebody who is profoundly deaf, wears a hearing aid, and is able to have normal conversations over the phone. In other words, what you are saying is that those few who are profoundly deaf, wears a hearing aid can have a word discrimination score around the 90s (percent) with it on? What you've said is hardly an anecdotal evidence to begin with. I'd love to talk to that person over the cell phone....voice that is.

I did name someone. And yes, I am saying that there are those who can accomplish that. There are exceptions in every category. Just as there are CI implantees who do not achieve discrimination scores sufficient to converse on a telephone. But then again, why is it so necessary to be able to carry on a converstion on the telephone, given the technological advances that have diverted that one oral method of communicaiton over distance?

 

[jillio]

Your son can carry on conversations on phones with strangers with a HA or your son has a CI and has not been able to achieve being able to talk to strangers on the phone?

It it's he can carry on normal conversations using a HA on the phone with strangers I'm impressed. I hadn't been able to do that for years before my implant. Now I can. I can actually converse with my oldest daughter on the phone now and actually hear her just as well as her dad if not better. That's why the difference in the technology continues to amaze me.

My son does not have a CI. And yes, he can carry on conversations onthe telephone when he needs to. But he prefers no use TDD or text. However, even as a teenager, he was able to take accurate messages for me over a telephone. And he has been severe to profound since birth.

 

[jillio]

Oral only? You're not including aural? Is that what you're saying? Just a clarification here.

The aural in the oral environment is implied, just as the visual in the sign environment is implied. Aural refers to the receptive nature of oral language. Visual applies to the receptive nature of manual language. Oral and manual, likewise, apply to the expressive naute of each.

 

[jillio]

Of course. Those with mild hearing loss have much more sound and speech information to go by than those with severe or profound hearing loss. It'd be perfectly fine for those with mild hearing loss to go by auditory alone with their hearing aid. No need for signing or cueing.

Even if they continue to miss information? Why is it all right to deny a child full access?

 

[kokonut]

The aural in the oral environment is implied, just as the visual in the sign environment is implied. Aural refers to the receptive nature of oral language. Visual applies to the receptive nature of manual language. Oral and manual, likewise, apply to the expressive naute of each.

Many practice the oral method but cannot do whit about the aural part. So, it's better not to assume that oral includes the aural aspect. If I want to make clear on the distinction of both I say "oral/aural". The two are not the same.