Nah, not setting out to prove u anything. Just simply stating the fact that we get some children who dont benefit from their CIs. Never said it was the CI that was the problem. Just told u that I dont know why cuz I am neutral about it.
Actually no, you are not neutral,
you have a hidden agenda which is passively and manipulatively proving that CI is not as useful as people say it is. Otherwise why would you just "state such fact"?
And for comparison - everybody knows the HAs do work, they do amplify sound all the same way,
and just because one person does not receive equal benefit from it as the next one doesn't meant "it does not work". The same applies to CI- just because SOME children in your workplace seem not to receive as much benefit from CI as they should, does not mean the CI is not as successful in restoring ability to hear as it is told.
Any hearing aid has an ability to assist with hearing in exactly the same way, how well will it work in practice for a person depends on the very person who wears it.
I know I receive far better benefits from my HA than a "born ASL" Hoh/deaf whose audio test clearly shows his hearing is much better than mine. Why is that? I have a lot more practice at hearing and speaking than that person, plain and simple.
U talked about saving money the earlier the better and compared to the essence of time in getting a CI so I am asking if u mean that if the child doesnt get a CI early, then it is wasteful living a life as being deaf? Simply asking ..all u had to say was yes or no.
Actually NO, I could not say yes or not to that because it has nothing to do with what I am saying.
HOW the child lives its life has nothing to do with having CI or not.
Have you asked me "did the child wasted TIME having its surgery done later than sooner?" - then yeah, I would answer YES, it did. Did the child wasted its life because of that "do it later decision" - I woulld say NO, not neccessarily. Too bad you can't see the difference of what you and I are saying. Please recognize that we are talking about different subjects here.
Hearing children naturally acquire spoken language thru their auditory channels and deaf children naturally acquire ASL through the visual channel and both are equally easy. Why should deaf children have to work harder while the hearing kids get the easy way out?
Sadly, because the deaf children live in overwhelmingly hearing enviroment, the enviroment that depends on ALL senses.
It is much simpler and better for the deaf person to acquire some hearing and speaking skills to live in such enviroment.
After all, if you go to the store or are plain out on the street, you have to speak, not sign, to people around you.
Too often, many deaf children are frustrated with trying to acquire language via the spoken form and by the time they enter school, their frustration level is so high ruining their motivation to learn.
I agree that the deaf children have a hard time learning spoken English and that is why I believe the CI is wonderful invention that would help these children acquire spoken language much easier.
but that's separate subject - At the same time I don't believe the deaf child HAS TO acquire the perfect spoken language ability. To me it's not neccessary. Indeed history shows the deaf are able to live independent lives wihout having to speak or hear. But, once again this is separate subject, one that
has nothing to do with the efficiency of HAs, CIs, or benefits of early implantation. Or even the benefits of acquiring speech.
Fuzzy
people and don't try to change us or fix us. It is not fair at all. 
