Does CI person need interpreter?

[neecy]

The earlier one is implanted with the CI, the more time they have to work with the device. It is not like flipping on a switch three weeks after the surgery. CI's have more success rates if they are given as soon as possible. It's not a rush to make the child more "normal" but it's a rush to make sure the child/adult has the most out of their device.
People can be successful without CI's, that is true. However, you do not know her son like she, his MOTHER does, and you would not go to the ends of the earth for this child. When parents choose CI's for their babies/children/teens, they do not "force." I was 17 when I was considered a candidate. My parents did NOT force me. It took them fifteen years to be comfortable with the idea of a CI. It was my choice, and they supported me wholeheartedly, even giving up most of their retirement money for MY benefit because they love me. My parents and whole family are hearing and never had any contact with the deaf world. It's ridiculous, are parents torturing their children when they give them glasses at the age of two if their vision is extremely impaired? Is it torture to give your blind baby new retinas? Blind people are just as capable as deafies to be successful because we are all intelligent creatures. If you are going to use the argument that deaf people are just as good as everybody else (which, THEY ARE), then every other disability/problem that doesn't limit one's mental abilities has to be under that category.
What about that child in India that was born with 8 legs? Were her parents taking away her "identity" by having them removed?
Deafness is not an identity for everyone. I accept and am fine with my being deaf, it is a part of who I am, but it is not WHO I am.
Trying to define a baby's identity is just as bad as accusing parents of trying to make their baby's identity with a CI.
Stop attacking deaf and hearing parents who implant their babies. They are doing what they feel is best for their child! It isn't an easy decision, ever. The reality is that this world is mostly run on the basis that anybody you pass on the street can hear. It's sad, but it's the truth.

Wonderful posting!

 

[TheIronQueen]

Perhaps you need to go back and familiarize yourself with my posts. I do not "attack" parents who choose to implant their children. I support parental choice in this matter. What I do not support is parents of implanted children stating that their children are superior to those that are not implanted.

Comparing deafness to blindness is fallicious. The whys and wherefores of the fallicous nature of this argument has been explained in numerous posts over time.

You received your implant at the age of 17, and have stated that you were fully involved in the decision. Therefore, your experience does not, in any way, parrallel that of early infant implantation.

I'm glad that you feel your parents have gone above and beyond their duty. However, there are also children whose parents have chosen not to implant that feel their parents have gone above and beyond their duty in addressing that child's needs. Likewise, there are those who have been implanted that feel that their needs were not fully addressed. And those that have not been implanted that feel their needs have not been addressed.

Where exactly, did you see me state that I know the child you refer to better than his mother?

Perhaps you should make certain that you know exactly what my position is prior to making recommendations for what I should, and should not, do.

Likewise, the post I responded to was making a prediction for someone else's child, not thier own child. And it was a prediction that cannot, in any way, be made accurately because there is no comparison basis.

My entire post was not directed at you, jillio.
Blindness, loss of limbs, cerebral palsy, ect. are all disabilities that must be accommodated in a world of mostly hearing and fully able bodied people. Deafness is also something that has to be accommodated.
Infants cannot make the right decisions for themselves, because they do not have the mental capability to. That is why children have PARENTS who have lived longer and know the way life is. Barring abuse and neglect, the parents have a God-given right to make decisions for their babies and young children. Its ridiculous to say that infants' rights are being violated because there is no desire to harm or hurt the child. Surgery is tough, but there are thousands of skilled surgeons, anesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgical technicians that work together to make surgeries go safely. I myself have had 3 operations on my ears, wisdom teeth removal and deep skin layer removal for cancer. I am alive, hearing and straight teethed today because of all of them.
There are people with CI's that don't like them. They are far and in between, and I have noticed most of them are those who have been raised in the deaf community and receive the implant in their preteen years, not when they were infants.
You did not state that you knew the child better than the mother, but those who say that CI's are bad for every infant need to check themselves. They are not the parents who would do anything for the baby, they are just people with strong opinions who feel the need to force them on everyone else. It's offensive to those who do enjoy their implants, because we do not force CI's on you!

 

[jillio]

My entire post was not directed at you, jillio.
Blindness, loss of limbs, cerebral palsy, ect. are all disabilities that must be accommodated in a world of mostly hearing and fully able bodied people. Deafness is also something that has to be accommodated.
Infants cannot make the right decisions for themselves, because they do not have the mental capability to. That is why children have PARENTS who have lived longer and know the way life is. Barring abuse and neglect, the parents have a God-given right to make decisions for their babies and young children. Its ridiculous to say that infants' rights are being violated because there is no desire to harm or hurt the child. Surgery is tough, but there are thousands of skilled surgeons, anesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgical technicians that work together to make surgeries go safely. I myself have had 3 operations on my ears, wisdom teeth removal and deep skin layer removal for cancer. I am alive, hearing and straight teethed today because of all of them.
There are people with CI's that don't like them. They are far and in between, and I have noticed most of them are those who have been raised in the deaf community and receive the implant in their preteen years, not when they were infants.
You did not state that you knew the child better than the mother, but those who say that CI's are bad for every infant need to check themselves. They are not the parents who would do anything for the baby, they are just people with strong opinions who feel the need to force them on everyone else. It's offensive to those who do enjoy their implants, because we do not force CI's on you!

As you quoted me in your response, it was natural to assume that your post was directed at me.

While deafness does have to be accommodated, it is also the only classified disability that involves a culture separate from the majority. Because of that, it is also classifed as a cultural and linguistic minority, and those belonging to that culture have suffered the same type of discrimination, as a group, that other minority cultures have suffered and continue to suffer.

Parents, I will agree have a right to make decisions for their child. I have never stated otherwise. However, it is a legal right.

Unfortunately, intent is not always the defining criteria in whether an action is harmful or not. I am not, in any way, saying that applies to decisions to implant. But intent is only part of the equation.

Perhaps you have not seen the same population as I have. While there are many, many who are satisfied with their implants...and I have never denied that...there are just as many who have not received the anticipated benefit they were led to believe they would. There are jsut as many that still require the same accommodations that HA users require. There are many who still require the same accommodations that those who use no assisitive technology require. That is not to say that they receive no benefit. However, there are still far too many children who are not being given adequate access academically based on the erroneous belief that their CI allows them to function on a totally oral basis.

My problem is not with implantation. My problem is with implantation being used as an excuse not to provide the child with a visual means of communication, contact with peers, and access to deaf adults.

I'm glad that you believe that your CI makes you hearing. My concern is the children who are still deaf.

 

[TheIronQueen]

Jillio, I don't believe my implant makes me hearing. I know my implant makes me hear in the 25 db range, which is much more than I ever got with my HA.

 

[Cheri]

i.The main point i was trying to make is that people shouldn't get so worked up about ci or no ci or ha no ha or OMG the baby is only a year old you can't do surgery on a young girl/boy like that...surgery is done everyday, people take risks themselves and for their children. .

You claimed that surgeries are done everyday? Not really, I haven't had no surgeries in my entire life. I support life saving surgeries for children, but not un-life saving surgeries. How is cochlear implants surgery is a way to correct the child's health problem? Being deaf is not a disease nor a seriousness illness that requires surgery. How can someone put a baby through so much complications during surgery for just a cochlear implant? It's not even necessarily. How can cochlear implant ensure the quality of the child's life in the future? Having hearing does not ensure the quality of life. Does babies deserved to go through such as bleeding, infection, problems with anesthesia or healing, dizziness, or injury to the facial nerve for a purpose to hear? That's nonsense. I'm sorry.

babies do not have right of choice these days, it's the same as abortion, mothers have the right to aborted their baby, again the baby has no say in that choice. What a sad world we are living in.

 

[Drew's Dad]

You claimed that surgeries are done everyday? Not really, I haven't had no surgeries in my entire life. I support life saving surgeries for children, but not un-life saving surgeries. How is cochlear implants surgery is a way to correct the child's health problem? Being deaf is not a disease nor a seriousness illness that requires surgery. How can someone put a baby through so much complications during surgery for just a cochlear implant? It's not even necessarily. How can cochlear implant ensure the quality of the child's life in the future? Having hearing does not ensure the quality of life. Does babies deserved to go through such as bleeding, infection, problems with anesthesia or healing, dizziness, or injury to the facial nerve for a purpose to hear? That's nonsense. I'm sorry.

babies do not have right of choice these days, it's the same as abortion, mothers have the right to aborted their baby, again the baby has no say in that choice. What a sad world we are living in.

Let's hope none of these children need to have an impacted tooth removed, surgery to repair a broken bone, cleft palate surgery, or any other of the many non-life saving surgeries that can make a difference in their life.

 

[Cheri]

any other of the many non-life saving surgeries that can make a difference in their life.

How much different, I'm curious.

I just don't understand what's so different between being deaf and a child with cochlear implant? their learning experience won't be much different from each others, a deaf person can be able to speak without the needed to hear, a deaf person can be taught the same as any other person that can be taught. I don't see how much differences it can make in their life expect to hear maybe more, but again maybe the same.

 

[Drew's Dad]

How much different, I'm curious.

I just don't understand what's so different between being deaf and a child with cochlear implant? their learning experience won't be much different from each others, a deaf person can be able to speak without the needed to hear, a deaf person can be taught the same as any other person that can be taught. I don't see how much differences it can make in their life expect to hear maybe more, but again maybe the same.

I'm not sure how you got this question from my prior post talking about non-life saving surgeries, but in answering your question I can only say that I don't understand why you can't see a difference between being able to hear and not being able to hear.

No disrespect to you, but their learning experiences, ability to speak, and way they are taught can and most likely will be very different. Perhaps it is not better when hearing, but it is most certainly different -and I don't see how one could not agree.

 

[shel90]

I'm not sure how you got this question from my prior post talking about non-life saving surgeries, but in answering your question I can only say that I don't understand why you can't see a difference between being able to hear and not being able to hear.

No disrespect to you, but their learning experiences, ability to speak, and way they are taught can and most likely will be very different. Perhaps it is not better when hearing, but it is most certainly different -and I don't see how one could not agree.

Can u elabortate on what you mean by "different"?

Cheri is right, many deaf people were able to develop good oral skills without implants. I am one of them despite having a bilateral hearing loss of 120 dB since birth.

 

[Drew's Dad]

Can u elabortate on what you mean by "different"?

Cheri is right, many deaf people were able to develop good oral skills without implants. I am one of them despite having a bilateral hearing loss of 120 dB since birth.

I wasn't planning on elaborating, I think it's pretty obvious what the difference is between hearing and not hearing. For example, everyone knows it's easier to communicate through the use of speech when you can hear. It's easier to learn in a class that is taught through speech when you can hear.

I'm not trying to get complicated here...

 

[shel90]

I wasn't planning on elaborating, I think it's pretty obvious what the difference is between hearing and not hearing. For example, everyone knows it's easier to communicate through the use of speech when you can hear. It's easier to learn in a class that is taught through speech when you can hear.

I'm not trying to get complicated here...

Ok..no problem.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

I'm not sure how you got this question from my prior post talking about non-life saving surgeries, but in answering your question I can only say that I don't understand why you can't see a difference between being able to hear and not being able to hear.

No disrespect to you, but their learning experiences, ability to speak, and way they are taught can and most likely will be very different. Perhaps it is not better when hearing, but it is most certainly different -and I don't see how one could not agree.

You are so right that eaching a deaf child that signs is different then teaching an oral deaf students. Can you image me an oral teacher of deaf going to teach at a school for the deaf. My credential says I can do it but can you image at a school that teaches in sign language or Shel with my students. The education I got is completely different then what Shel got. I personally would never teach a school for the deaf because it would be a completel waste of the students and my time.

 

[shel90]

You are so right that eaching a deaf child that signs is different then teaching an oral deaf students. Can you image me an oral teacher of deaf going to teach at a school for the deaf. My credential says I can do it but can you image at a school that teaches in sign language or Shel with my students. The education I got is completely different then what Shel got. I personally would never teach a school for the deaf because it would be a completel waste of the students and my time.

It is too bad that deaf kids are being divided up like that. That's why I advocate for the use of both approaches. Oh well.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

It is too bad that deaf kids are being divided up like that. That's why I advocate for the use of both approaches. Oh well.

How do you think that should be done. You are not quailified to teach deaf children to be oral just as I am not quailified to teach deaf children to sign. I know that I would never go and teach at a school that teaches sign language not because I do not believe that some deaf children should learn in sign language because I know what teachers who believe in sign language for all deaf children feel about me and decisions I have made for my children and what I do for a living. So you would never ge a quailified oral teacher of the deaf to teach at your school.

 

[Cheri]

I wasn't planning on elaborating, I think it's pretty obvious what the difference is between hearing and not hearing. For example, everyone knows it's easier to communicate through the use of speech when you can hear. It's easier to learn in a class that is taught through speech when you can hear.

I'm not trying to get complicated here...

It may be easier but there are deaf people that developed very good oral skills you'll be surprise.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

It may be easier but there are deaf people that developed very good oral skills you'll be surprise.

I have no doubt that they can what I know is that it is very hard for them. I also know that a profoundly deaf person cannot have a complete conversation on the phone. There are just certain things that no matter how hard a profoundly deaf person tries they cannot do it.

 

[shel90]

How do you think that should be done. You are not quailified to teach deaf children to be oral just as I am not quailified to teach deaf children to sign. I know that I would never go and teach at a school that teaches sign language not because I do not believe that some deaf children should learn in sign language because I know what teachers who believe in sign language for all deaf children feel about me and decisions I have made for my children and what I do for a living. So you would never ge a quailified oral teacher of the deaf to teach at your school.

I have a degree in Deaf ed. I am qualified to teach deaf children using any approach. My degree and certification is not limited to ASL only. Yes, I am qualified to teach oral deaf kids...I just dont want to.

We have speech therapists working at our program...nobody has put them down. We have an audi with bilateral CIs..nobody has put her down. U never know how people will react to you until u try so u cant make these kinds of assumptions.

 

[Cheri]

You are so right that eaching a deaf child that signs is different then teaching an oral deaf students. Can you image me an oral teacher of deaf going to teach at a school for the deaf. My credential says I can do it but can you image at a school that teaches in sign language or Shel with my students. The education I got is completely different then what Shel got. I personally would never teach a school for the deaf because it would be a completel waste of the students and my time.

I can't believe you comparing you as a teacher against Shel as a teacher. it's ashamed that you have to be this way, it's almost sounding like you're being discriminate. I just hope not.

 

[shel90]

I have no doubt that they can what I know is that it is very hard for them. I also know that a profoundly deaf person cannot have a complete conversation on the phone. There are just certain things that no matter how hard a profoundly deaf person tries they cannot do it.

I can have a complete conversation on the phone thanks to technology.

 

[Drew's Dad]

It may be easier but there are deaf people that developed very good oral skills you'll be surprise.

I understand what you're saying, but remember all I was saying is that there are differences between hearing and not hearing. I didn't say that a Deaf person could not do a particular thing.