Designing A Hearing Baby

[jillio]

First, you have to ask the question - what good is that residual hearing anyway? as good as nothing. it's pathetic, it's grasping at straws.
A deaf person is as deaf as deaf goes with all that wonderful residual.
So if you destroy it thru implantation, you lose also nothing or very little.

In whose judgement is it as good as nothing? Especially in the case of infants, it is impossible to predict how well a child will be able to use that residual hearing until they have reached certain developmental stages, and that requires chronological advances. The ability to use even a smal amount of residual hearing is well documented in any number of cases, and is individual dependent. You can have 2 profoundly deaf individuals who test out to the same degree of residual hearing.....one is able to learn to use that residual hearing through HA and develops speech and listening skills. The other is not. Both come fromthe same environment. These are the variables that cannot be explained, but are mitigating in individual cases. If you implant a child at the age of six months, you do not know that they will not have benefited from HA and AVT. When you put a HA on an infant shortly after birth, you cannot definitively say that they are not benefitting fromthat devise, because they have not reached the developmental stages necessary to make that determination.
Actually, what I am talking about has nothing to do with the quality of education.
her hidden agenda, of which even she herself might not be fully aware, is showing CI in certain light, under pretenses of neutrality.

Shel has no agenda where CI is concerned, other than the effects it has on the education of deaf children. Simply because she points out the negative effects it has had on some of her students doesn't mean that she has a hidden agenda. Those who are attempting to portray CI as the miracle cure for deafness are the ones with the agenda. And it is obvious by the way they all become so defensive and agressive anytime the drawbacks are mentioned.


I am very careful of the words I chose.

Not careful enough. Who is to determine how much benefit one "should" receive from a CI, and on what basis?
By ability to HEAR and RECOGNIZE sounds and speech.

The hearing aid is able to provide the same level of benefit to EVERYONE.
But it's up to the individual how much benefit one receives from such aid. And that depends not only on the level of hearing loss, but also the ability to understand speech and sounds.

Hearing aids do not provide the same level of benefit to everyone, and the fact that you would even make such a false statement is indication of your total lack of knowledge onthe subject you are attempting to discuss.BTW, did you notice the hearing aids are all the same when it comes to the way they work?... All they can do, is merely, indifferently, amplify sound to x degree, reduce or not background noise,
switch to telephone mode, that's it.
The way they work has absolutely nothing to do with the level of benefit an idividual might or might not receive.
Exactly how do YOU determine the level of benefit?

From a linguistic, educational, psycho-social perspective. I see the deaf person as more than a set of ears. Therefore, benefit provided must encompass all of those areas,


TIMEWISE, they waste time.
But you must be aware that while ASL is relatively easy to learn and can be learned at any time, the ability to understand sound and speech and to speak dimnishes with age greatly.

Obviously, you are not fluent in ASL. And English can be learned at any time, as well. The second part of your statement is based on an oral/audist philosophy.



So, how do you communicate with hearing people, for example when you are forced to ask for directions - do you vibrate, lick, or expel strong meaningful odour?

Actually, I speak. I'm not deaf. But my son who is deaf communictes with hearing people all the time. If necessary, he will speak. He can also use pen and paper, text pager, or interpreter. Voice is not necessary. And I will thank you to keep your sarcastic, insulting remarks regarding non-verbal communication to yourself.



What about it?

I'm assuming that you are unable to answer the question.



Exactly, that's the whole point. Think about it.

Fuzzy

I have thought about it, fuzzy. I would caution you to do the same, rather than simply parroting the oral philosophies that you have heard and read about without actually attempting to synthesize them into real life situations.

 

[jillio]

Sure J...

So you're saying that the sounds made by a hearing child in it's first year of life, are the same as the sounds a deaf childs makes early in life...
Yeh.... right..!

"In addition, deaf children exposed to sign from infancy hand babble.".... I know... so you agree that "babbling" is an indicator of the language that will be used....
Like I said...


General attitude....

Just a thought.... The child is .... deaf...!!

Is it that you can't understand what I am saying, or that you don't want to understand? And yes, a deaf child will make, in infancy, many of the same babbling sounds that a hearing child makes. This fact has been responsible for many a delayed diagnosis. And no, it is not an indicator of the language that might be used later, but only an indication of the language to which the child is exposed.

 

[jillio]

Children will learn any language. My children speak Dutch, Norwegian, starting English, and they know some sign. Learning goes naturally.

But, when I had only taught them Dutch, and then told them to write Norwegian - without them speaking it, now that would be a stretch.
Or perhaps writing Russian would be a better comparison. Having to write with characters that you have no "sound-" connectio with.
(or even worse.... Chinese..)

So, when a child learns ASL, and then it needs to learn to write, it needs to learn another language in order to do this, without speaking the language it writes.
When a child learns to hear and speak, writing is just a natural flow...

So, when you choose ASL for your child, YOU are making it harder for the child. YOU make the child work harder...
And children will be able to do this... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf. And some don't.... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf.

Are you talking about your hearing children or your deaf child cloggy?

And the fact that yousay the choice for ASL makes it more difficult for a deaf child shows that you are not in the least interested int he liguistic issues surrounding a deaf child, but only in making that child communicate orally. No amount of research will ever change that ethnocentric attitude of yours. Despite you claims of being willing to discuss all of the issues from all sides in order to learn, you have just made it unquestionably obvious that oral language at all costs is your priority and that despite your claims to the contrary, you consider it to be superior to manual forms of language. Further, you have demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge regarding cognitive concerns.

 

[jillio]

"Gee, rick, I could offer the same suggestion to you. Why don't you make yourself deaf, get a CI, and then try to live in an oral environment 24/7 and then you will know what your daughter experiences firsthand?"

Well for starters since I would be receiving my implant as a lost-lingually late deafened adult, I would not have the same experiences as my daughter since she received hers as a prelingually deafened toddler. As I have yet to see what advantages there are to be gained by affirmatively depriving myself or my child of the use of one the primary senses, I will pass on your suggestion. I am just surpised how you have not taken that route as you appear to believe that denying a child the opportunity to develop the use of a primary sense is more beneficial then providing that opportunity to a child. I guess when it comes down to it, your money is not where your mouth is but I will be all ears awaiting your response.

How do you see that I have denied a child the opportunity to develop one of his senses? I really would like for you to expalin that one. My son was provided HAs and AVT, he has excellent oral skills, and he is also natively fluent in sign. Having been raised in an environment that provided stimuli for all of his senses, he was able to develop all of his sensory functions to the utmost. He was deprived of nothing. He is fully bilingual and bicultural. How have I deprived him of a primary sense, praytell? Circumstances of his birth already did that.

How is restricting a child with impaired auditory function to an environment that relies solely on the impaired sense providing more opportunity than providing an environment that utilizes all of the senses? How is refusing to refusing to encourage and nurture the use of the visual processing that is naturally available to a deaf child providing increased opportunity? How is it that providing a child with only one way to communicate and understand the world around them, and the weakest way they have to boot, less limiting than providing all that child needs to use all of their abilites to communicate and understand the world around them?

Frankly, rick, you make no sense. One is more than two. Your reasoning does not hold up logically or mathematically.

And, to your way of reasoning, I too, would be a post lingually deafened adult. If the suggestion does not hold true for you,then neither would it for me. Please, stop going in circles.

 

[jillio]

"The same way a parent tries to make their child hearing...through surgical intervention and lingustic restrictions."

What surgery is it that can make a deaf child hearing? I must of missed it while I was researching the cochlear implant. So by imposing linguistic restrictions on my hearing daughter I have made her deaf. Wait till she hears that!

There isn't a surgery that can make a deaf child hearing. Why don't you spread the word the next time you are at one of your CI or oralist conventions.

No, by imposing liguistic restrictions on your daughter, you have limited her opportunites. She was born deaf.

 

[jillio]

"Here's the scenario: HEARING parents of deaf children get the CI for their child. Someone was wondering out loud this one: Why can't DEAF parents who have HEARING children make their children deaf?

This is interesting in itself but I am asking if it would even be legal?"

The attempt to compare two unlike events in an attempt to prove that they are actually the opposite of each other is not an example of irony but rather one of flawed reasoning. The cochlear implant is a recognized and approved medical device or prosthesis that can only be given to people through a surgery and, at least in the United States, has been given approval by the FDA after years of medical trials and research. I am not aware of any surgical procedure to affirmatively destroy a child's otherwise viable hearing that has been approved by either the FDA or any governmental regulatory entity worldwide. Are you?

Therefore, it seems that the Deaf parent's options are to somehow ram some sort of sharp instrument into their child's ears in the hopes of destroying that child's otherwise viable hearing while hopefully causing no other injury or trauma to the child they allegedly profess to love.

No irony involved at all. There is no incongruity involved, in one instance a deaf child remains a deaf child but is given the possiblility to hear and to acquire speech and in the other, a hearing child is made deaf and can no longer hear adn without some intervention have speech skills that begin to deteriorate. The cochlear implant is a legally recognized exercise of parental rights. Your scenario would be considered the crime of assault under virtually all penal codes.

Actually rick, even though you have gone to the dictionary and picked out a lot of nice flowery language in an attempt to illustrate your point, this is not a fallicious argument. Your prior comparison of a CI to a pacemaker is fallicious. To attempt to change hearing status, either from a negative or a postive, is not fallicious. It is a true comparison.

And the key phrase you used, is "hopefully". It is quite obvious that your audist attitude is behind your statements as you refuse to see the incongruity of destroying any natural residual hearing in the process of implantation, so that an attempt to provide hearing to a deaf child actually makes them more deaf than prior to the surgery. Nor can you see that it is incongruent to attempt a surgical procedure in order to allow a child to participate inthe culture of your choice, but to deny a surgical procedure to allow a child to particpate in a culture of another's choice.

And I doubt that the Deaf parents you spoke of would be "ramming a sharp instrument intotheir child's ear". Were the procedure ever to be done, I'm sure a surgeon would be required. Just as a surgeon is required to cut on and ram a sharp instrument into the deaf chid's ear to implant a CI. Why is it okay to do that to a deaf child to "give them the gift of hearing", but not okay to do that to a hearing child to "give them the gift of deafness?" Is it because you see one as giving, and one as taking away? It's all a matter of perspective, and yours is obviously audist.

 

[Cloggy]

Originally Posted by Cloggy
What's the success rate of deaf children growing up Deaf.... especially "when the parameters are narrowed"...???

And how would you narrow those parameters, cloggy..

Well, for instance... deaf children who's mother is not Jillio...

Originally Posted by Cloggy : So, if a child is not implanted, and is unable to fully function in an oral environment, it is that child's fault?That was a question addressed to another poster who made a statement implying such. Your response is both inappropriate and unnecessary.

So, basically - you cannot answer that question...
Not the first time you avoid answering a direct question....

 

[Cloggy]

Are you talking about your hearing children or your deaf child cloggy? ...........

Regarding knowing Dutch and Norwegian: All three.
Regarding knowing some sign: All three...

 

[Cloggy]

...................No, by imposing liguistic restrictions on your daughter, you have limited her opportunites. She was born deaf.

... she can hear!

So, not teaching her ASL is "imposing liguistic restrictions "
so then not teaching her Russian is also "imposing liguistic restrictions"
and don't forget Spanish... again "imposing liguistic restrictions "
And how about Zulu and Hottentot.. again... imposing liguistic restrictions

Rick... you should be ashamed of yourself... !!!!!
Your daughter might be able to speak and write English, but actually... you are really "imposing liguistic restrictions "!!!

 

[jillio]

"Once again, I offer technology to you. CI is but one form of technology, and it is a technology designed only to assist in providing hearing. Many other forms of technology actually bridge the communication gap."

There you go again with the audist thinking. The issue is not hearing, it is communcation. Hearing is not mandatory for effective communication, nor is it mandatory for an individuql to live a comlete, fulfilling, and successful life. All of theother technolgies I mentioned in my previous post allow the deaf to effectively communicate with the hearing, and vice versa despite hearing status. Evidently, your focus is on hearing and speaking, not communication.

Name one that provides the profoundly deaf person with as much access to sound as the cochlear implant.

Once again, sound is not necessary to communication.

Anyone who has any degree of knowledge in this area will tell you that if you can increase the person's ability to hear, especially if you can get it into the "speech banana" then there is a greater probability that the person can develop speech, so the two are intrinsically linked together not separate as you erroneously attempt to argue.

Speech is not mandatory for communication. Have you been in that oralist box of yours so long that you are trapped in there?
Call a locksmith, for god's sake, and find a wider perspective.
"The CI provides a degree of auditory perception, only. It does not necessarily follow that an implanted child will learn to speak. And that assumption in and of itself is the reasonthat so many CI mplanted children are now being transferred to deaf schools so language deprived that the probability is high that they will ever be able to catch up developmentally."

Wrong-see above and where are you getting your facts? The number of mainstreaming children is increasing while the enrollment in deaf schools has continued to decline.
Yes, the number of children being mainstreamed has gone up, and with that there has been an ever increasing decline in literacy rates and academic achievement. I suppose you find it accepteable to continue to undereducate children as long a they can hear and speak to some degree?

Cite your source for the number of ci children being transferred to deaf schools and please do not use Shel as your source as she has already demonstrated her true feelings about the ci. Cite facts.

Why? Do you cite your sources? My statements are based on actual experience in the field of education. I see it on a daily basis. I am directly involved with deaf students. I am directly involved in data collection. I am stating facts gained through many years of experience and education. They do not require citation. It is called sythesized knowledge, something that you are quite obviously lacking in. And of course, you once again resort to personal insults in regard to shel, as well as false assumptions. Keep it up and your manner of attack will result in another thread being closed.

Imagine a teacher in a deaf school who has implanted children not wearing them or not using them to the best of their ability and she does not care to know why. "Too busy"? Give me a break!

It is not shel's business to determine the usefullness of a CI or the reason why the child may or may not be wearing them. It is her buisiness to educate those children no matter what their hearing status. It is the parents job to determine the rest, along with those experts they put so much faith in.

 

[jillio]

Well, for instance... deaf children who's mother is not Jillio...
So, basically - you cannot answer that question...
Not the first time you avoid answering a direct question....

I see successful deaf student that are ASL based on a daily basis, and their mothers are not Jillio. Likewise, I see Deaf educators on a daily basis who are ASL based whose mothers are not Jillio.

That particular question wa not for me to answer, cloggy. It was addressed tosomeone else. Stop being so obtuse. Your agenda is showing.

 

[jillio]

... she can hear!

So, not teaching her ASL is "imposing liguistic restrictions "
so then not teaching her Russian is also "imposing liguistic restrictions"
and don't forget Spanish... again "imposing liguistic restrictions "
And how about Zulu and Hottentot.. again... imposing liguistic restrictions

Rick... you should be ashamed of yourself... !!!!!
Your daughter might be able to speak and write English, but actually... you are really "imposing liguistic restrictions "!!!

Yes, cloggy, refusing to allow a child with impaired auditory function access to language through the visual sense to compensate for the impaired auditory sense, even when aided with CI, is linguistically restricting. Do you understand it now?

 

[Cloggy]

..........
Why? Do you cite your sources? My statements are based on actual experience in the field of education. I see it on a daily basis. I am directly involved with deaf students. I am directly involved in data collection. I am stating facts gained through many years of experience and education. They do not require citation.
..........

"Collecting data"... " Actual Field experience"... "years of experience".... Impressive..... yet we see nothing of it...

And the best you leave 'till the end:
Your info "... do not require citation." !!

No matter what they say about you... this shows you DO have a sense of humor....

 

[jillio]

"Collecting data"... " Actual Field experience"... "years of experience".... Impressive..... yet we see nothing of it...

And the best you leave 'till the end:
Your info "... do not require citation." !!

No matter what they say about you... this shows you DO have a sense of humor....

If you continue to resort to your usual insulting remarks, rather than sticking to the topic of discussion, I will report your posts to the moderators.

 

[rick48]

If you continue to resort to your usual insulting remarks, rather than sticking to the topic of discussion, I will report your posts to the moderators.

Oh please don't! they'll put us on double secret probation!

I'll get to your latest round of gibberish later but BTW my daughter was not born deaf, get your facts straight and stop spreading lies. Typical Jillio, just make it up to fit your argument, Shel will just agree with you later anyway.

And she doesn't need a "pen and paper" to communicate with the over 99% of the country that does not know ASL, she can just talk to and with them--much better method.

What is that surgical procedure that makes a deaf child hearing? A hackey sack implant? How has my hearing daughter been made deaf through linguistic restrictions?

Still "all ears"

 

[shel90]

Oh please don't! they'll put us on double secret probation!

I'll get to your latest round of gibberish later but BTW my daughter was not born deaf, get your facts straight and stop spreading lies. Typical Jillio, just make it up to fit your argument, Shel will just agree with you later anyway.

And she doesn't need a "pen and paper" to communicate with the over 99% of the country that does not know ASL, she can just talk to and with them--much better method.

What is that surgical procedure that makes a deaf child hearing? A hackey sack implant? How has my hearing daughter been made deaf through linguistic restrictions?

Still "all ears"

What's up with bringing my name up? Was that neccessary? It seems like u r trying to provoke something with me so is that what u r trying to do by bringing up my name? If so, iam not interested. This is getting old..all the bullying.

 

[shel90]

Many of u brought up my name..interesting.

First of all...it is a fact that there r children who don't get benefit from their CIs. Does that mean it is the CI's fault? Who knows. I can't answer that cuz I would be making assumptions.

Some of u implied that it was BS that iam too busy. Ok whatever.

Do I care why their CI are not benefitting them? To be honest , not really cuz I care more about their language development and literacy skils than their ability to hear. Does that mean I have a hidden agenda about CIs? Up to u whether u want to believe it or not. I really don't care.

I know some of u dislike me cuz I don't value being able to hear which is fine.

Some u seem to not like it that I posted about working with children that don't benefit from their CIs without stating the real reason. Too bad cuz that is a fact. iam not an audiologist so iam not trained in the area of the mechanics of the CIs.

All I care is about the children's academic and social well being. I tried asking about the reasons for the CIs not working and all I got were "don't know" so I gave up asking.

If u all take great offense to that..oh well.

 

[shel90]

It is not shel's business to determine the usefullness of a CI or the reason why the child may or may not be wearing them. It is her buisiness to educate those children no matter what their hearing status. It is the parents job to determine the rest, along with those experts they put so much faith in.

Thank you..those records of what happened with the CI and the child before coming to my school arent accessible. I would need a good reason to get access to them and the process is very time consuming. U know how busy being a teacher is especially a teacher who has to modify the lessons to make them visually accessible for deaf/hh children. I have been bringing work home to plan my lessons cuz I dont have enough time in the day to do it all. It is tough so of course, I have priorities as described on my job duties and I have to meet those priorities first even it means bringing them home. My job is not to investigate the reason for the failure of the CIs. I find it funny that so many assumptions were made about me. Wow..

If I get "I dont knows" from the parents or the school's audiologists it either means they dont know themselves or they dont want to share the real reasons.

Many of those people have forgotten that I have put posts of children who have benefitted from their CIs...seems like they dont want me to say anything about those who didnt. It makes me wonder why.

 

[jillio]

Oh please don't! they'll put us on double secret probation!

I'll get to your latest round of gibberish later but BTW my daughter was not born deaf, get your facts straight and stop spreading lies. Typical Jillio, just make it up to fit your argument, Shel will just agree with you later anyway.

And she doesn't need a "pen and paper" to communicate with the over 99% of the country that does not know ASL, she can just talk to and with them--much better method.

What is that surgical procedure that makes a deaf child hearing? A hackey sack implant? How has my hearing daughter been made deaf through linguistic restrictions?

Still "all ears"

Okay then, prelingually deaf. Feel better? Would it be so horrible if she had been born deaf. Not much difference in born that way and prelingual.

Your true colors are showing again.

 

[rick48]

Okay then, prelingually deaf. Feel better? Would it be so horrible if she had been born deaf. Not much difference in born that way and prelingual.

Your true colors are showing again.

So are yours, stop making up lies about her.