Early Implantation

[jillio]

my post was in response to deafdyke's comment of


My point is just because somebody READS something doesn't necessarily mean they subscribe to the same philosophies. Often people read things to see "the other side" of different issues.

And reading a publication is quite different than being a member of an organization. This is a publication for members.

 

[jag]

\

Actually, I said "Volta Voices" but that is not relevent to this topic so please take your nit-picking comments elsewhere.

On topic....I only have the one quote you put in your post. IT's interesting, but I wonder how far they're going to go for early implantation. With the article somewhere else that said some babies begin to test as having more hearing after a few months it may not be that bad to wait until closer to a year old, but then again just because the hearing might improve over a few months does that mean that what was there was useful? Hmm. I think the answer will be very individual for each family.

 

[jillio]

Did you know that Alexander Graham Bell went to Boston to open a school for teachers of the deaf. During that time he met Mabel Hubbard. Mabel, become deaf at the age of four due to scarlet fever. Five years later they married. At the wedding ceremony Alexander Graham Bell gave Mabel Hubbard a gift of almost all the stock shares in the newly formed company called Bell Telephone Company. They had three sons.

Yes, I am aware that Bell had a deaf wife. Are you aware that he also forced her to function in a completely oral environment? His mother, as well, was deaf, yet he proposed sterilization of deaf woment to prevent genetic trasmission of deafness, as well as forbidden inter-marriage between two deaf consenting adults to prevent genetic trasmission of deafness. He proposed the practice of the well-born....a soft eugenic philosophy. He saw the offspring of his and Mabel's union as acceptable because he was hearing.

I suggest you do a little more research, because the dark side of A.G, Bell reveals a eugenicist whose basic theories of genetics were extremely flawed.

Regarding the school he opened to train TODs....all teachers were hearing and the only method used was strict oralism. This was the beginning of the professionalization of deaf education that has resulted in the decline of the education of deaf children. That is not opinion, it is historical fact.

 

[neecy]

And reading a publication is quite different than being a member of an organization. This is a publication for members.

And its not possible that he knows somebody or a group that has a membership and was able to read a copy of the magazine? I am able to read copies of magazines I don't personally have a subscription/membership to at Dr's offices, my Audie's office, etc....and often articles that I read there stick in my head too.

 

[jillio]

And its not possible that he knows somebody or a group that has a membership and was able to read a copy of the magazine? I am able to read copies of magazines I don't personally have a subscription/membership to at Dr's offices, my Audie's office, etc....and often articles that I read there stick in my head too.

Which is exactly why I asked him to address the issue of whether or not he was amember of the organization. He has not taken the opportunity to deny membership, therefore, one can safely assume that he is a dues paying member.

 

[shel90]

Did you know that Alexander Graham Bell went to Boston to open a school for teachers of the deaf. During that time he met Mabel Hubbard. Mabel, become deaf at the age of four due to scarlet fever. Five years later they married. At the wedding ceremony Alexander Graham Bell gave Mabel Hubbard a gift of almost all the stock shares in the newly formed company called Bell Telephone Company. They had three sons.

I read somewhere that AGBell forbidded his wife from using sign language and made her oral so when he was successful with that, he demanded that all deaf people become oral. That alone has made me lose respect for him or any foundation with his name on it.

 

[rick48]

\



On topic....I only have the one quote you put in your post. IT's interesting, but I wonder how far they're going to go for early implantation. With the article somewhere else that said some babies begin to test as having more hearing after a few months it may not be that bad to wait until closer to a year old, but then again just because the hearing might improve over a few months does that mean that what was there was useful? Hmm. I think the answer will be very individual for each family.

jag,

Thanks for getting back to the topic. I am not certain how many parents will actually be ready to do the necessary research into cochlear implants, make the decision and complete the pre-implant process much before a year is out but it really does show the downside of waiting years to make the decision.

I know Drew's Dad and Mom were able to and Drew's progress is fantastic.

That these kids are actually developing languge at the same rate as their hearing peers is truly amazing.
Rick

 

[R2D2]

Yes, I am aware that Bell had a deaf wife. Are you aware that he also forced her to function in a completely oral environment? His mother, as well, was deaf, yet he proposed sterilization of deaf woment to prevent genetic trasmission of deafness, as well as forbidden inter-marriage between two deaf consenting adults to prevent genetic trasmission of deafness. He proposed the practice of the well-born....a soft eugenic philosophy. He saw the offspring of his and Mabel's union as acceptable because he was hearing.

I think he was a child of his times. Back then everyone thought that way not just about deaf but also black people and other groups. I've read literature from around that time nothing to do with deafness and the commonly held views would disgust us today. Nazism didn't arise from a vacuum but reflected the mainstream scientific thinking of that day.

If Bell had been around today, he might not have had the same ideas. In forming our values, we are heavily influenced by our environment and social setting. I know we'd romantically think that if we had been born back in time that we'd be different but who's to say that we would still have the same beliefs as today?

I can understand though why you might not see him as someone to aspire to. I think it would be wise for a group of people who did not share his ideas on eugenics but who wanted to provide information on oralism to drop the name from the title of the organisation.

 

[R2D2]

jag,

Thanks for getting back to the topic. I am not certain how many parents will actually be ready to do the necessary research into cochlear implants, make the decision and complete the pre-implant process much before a year is out but it really does show the downside of waiting years to make the decision.

I know Drew's Dad and Mom were able to and Drew's progress is fantastic.

That these kids are actually developing languge at the same rate as their hearing peers is truly amazing.
Rick

Despite popular belief, I think that hearing parents are understandably reluctant to put their child through surgery and that's part of the reason for the delay. I remember quoting a study a while ago here that interviewed parents and came to that conclusion.

Also, hearing parents spend a while in denial and trying to grapple with their grief when they first discover that their child is deaf. That's understandable as most people have no experience with deafness, but unfortunately it costs time in terms of language development. I read somewhere that one of the reasons why they think that deaf children with deaf parents do well is because this delay period of grieving is not there. This article said that both oral and signing deaf families do better language wise than hearing families on the whole but I've never actually seen that in a study - does anyone know anything?

 

[deafdyke]

With the article somewhere else that said some babies begin to test as having more hearing after a few months it may not be that bad to wait until closer to a year old, but then again just because the hearing might improve over a few months does that mean that what was there was useful?

jag are you saying that its not vital to implant ASAP? I gotta say the mood for EI, seems to be "Oh no! If Wittle Trendy Name isn't implanted/aided ASAP, they won't function as well in society."
Early intervention is good, but I mean superearly intervention is relatively new.
rick, actually the results are very mixed. And yes....I know that you've met a ton of sucessful oral kids, who were implanted early, but thirty years ago you prolly would have met a ton of sucessful oral HA kids.

 

[Tousi]

It should be ascertained beyond the shadow of a doubt that the child is in fact hearing impaired to the extent minimally allowed for approval of the implantation.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

jag are you saying that its not vital to implant ASAP? I gotta say the mood for EI, seems to be "Oh no! If Wittle Trendy Name isn't implanted/aided ASAP, they won't function as well in society."
Early intervention is good, but I mean superearly intervention is relatively new.
rick, actually the results are very mixed. And yes....I know that you've met a ton of sucessful oral kids, who were implanted early, but thirty years ago you prolly would have met a ton of sucessful oral HA kids.

It's not only about "functioning well in society", Dd.
I think it's common sense to implant early if the studies show clearly the sooner the better. Why waste such an opportunity if the success of CI depends largely on the time of implanation. Like I've said before, it's just a piece of technology, but use it to its' best potential.

Fuzzy

 

[jag]

jag are you saying that its not vital to implant ASAP? I gotta say the mood for EI, seems to be "Oh no! If Wittle Trendy Name isn't implanted/aided ASAP, they won't function as well in society."
Early intervention is good, but I mean superearly intervention is relatively new.
rick, actually the results are very mixed. And yes....I know that you've met a ton of sucessful oral kids, who were implanted early, but thirty years ago you prolly would have met a ton of sucessful oral HA kids.

I think that the hearing loss needs to be proven and that as quickly as possible to do the implant to get the best advantage from it. I also think that parents need to be given realistic expectations.

I have no doubt that deaf people 'function well in society' but if one takes a little trip into the ADA forums here one can see the advantage of being able to hear fairly well even if it's through something like a CI. And the best results in learning oral language with a CI is if the child is implanted early.


To me the chance of not having to rely on interpetors (sees they're getting harder to get since their either aren't enough or they're taking better paying jobs) not having to worry about confidentiallty regarding phone calls or being hung up on by someone who doesn't understand or whatever the process...and those are just some of the things I would concider it a possitive thing to have a CI and have learned to hear and speak.

Is it necessary to have the ability to hear and speak? Probably not but oh boy I think that giving a child the chance to learn to hear and speak so they can do those things would be a great gift. Will it work with every child?

And yeah I know many of you disagree.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Membership in a particular organizations says alot about the philosophies of the individual posting reference to any particular article, that's why. An article published in an A.G. Bell publication is inherently biased toward the oralist philosophy. A member of the A.G. Bell Association who receives their publications is quite obviously biased toward the oral philosophy. Knowing this allows for proper evaluation of the article referenced.

Let go of the defensiveness, fuzzy. It is a relevent and appropriate question, and it was addressed to rick48.

I am not being defensive. I am tired of you derailing every valuable discussion with your unneccessary and personal asumptions. I don't give fiddle whether Rick or Harry or Jack is a member of AGB or IRA of KKK or if he is a skinehad.

His thread is about early implantation and if you wish to address this issue you can do it without personal and unproven accusations.
And I will reply to any thread as I see relevant. I am entitled to it.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I think that the hearing loss needs to be proven and that as quickly as possible to do the implant to get the best advantage from it. I also think that parents need to be given realistic expectations.

I have no doubt that deaf people 'function well in society' but if one takes a little trip into the ADA forums here one can see the advantage of being able to hear fairly well even if it's through something like a CI. And the best results in learning oral language with a CI is if the child is implanted early.


To me the chance of not having to rely on interpetors (sees they're getting harder to get since their either aren't enough or they're taking better paying jobs) not having to worry about confidentiallty regarding phone calls or being hung up on by someone who doesn't understand or whatever the process...and those are just some of the things I would concider it a possitive thing to have a CI and have learned to hear and speak.

Is it necessary to have the ability to hear and speak? Probably not but oh boy I think that giving a child the chance to learn to hear and speak so they can do those things would be a great gift. Will it work with every child?

And yeah I know many of you disagree.

I agree that establishing early hearing loss as permanent may be sometimes tricky, but I think the cases of miracle hearing loss reversed are rare. I think it's safe to say 98%- 99.99% of children born deaf remain deaf.

Like you I feel that being able to hear and speak is important and well worth the effort, even though this is not the only reason of undividual being successful - but it does helps immensely. Like you I agree it is terrific not to being forced to relay on interpreters, and having a "third party" particpating in your phone conversations.
Not to mention a simple joy of hearing sounds.

And since many studies are showing more and more that the earlier a child is implanted, the better are the results - I think it's only logical to consider it as most valid argument for early implantation.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

jag,

Thanks for getting back to the topic. I am not certain how many parents will actually be ready to do the necessary research into cochlear implants, make the decision and complete the pre-implant process much before a year is out but it really does show the downside of waiting years to make the decision.

I know Drew's Dad and Mom were able to and Drew's progress is fantastic.

That these kids are actually developing languge at the same rate as their hearing peers is truly amazing.
Rick

Non-CI implanted chidlren acquire and develop langauge at the same rate as their hearing peers if they are provided with the appropriate models. How do you answer the studies that show that CI implanted children test out most closely to hearing peers when provided an environment that includes speech and sign?

 

[jillio]

I think he was a child of his times. Back then everyone thought that way not just about deaf but also black people and other groups. I've read literature from around that time nothing to do with deafness and the commonly held views would disgust us today. Nazism didn't arise from a vacuum but reflected the mainstream scientific thinking of that day.

If Bell had been around today, he might not have had the same ideas. In forming our values, we are heavily influenced by our environment and social setting. I know we'd romantically think that if we had been born back in time that we'd be different but who's to say that we would still have the same beliefs as today?

I can understand though why you might not see him as someone to aspire to. I think it would be wise for a group of people who did not share his ideas on eugenics but who wanted to provide information on oralism to drop the name from the title of the organisation.

I agree. I was simply addessing another psters questions regarding the fact that Bell had a deaf wife. And the sad fact is, the organization that bears his name is still very much an oralist organization.So, in light of the research and knowledge of today, Bell himself might have had different views, but the organization is still founded on his outdated belief system.

 

[jillio]

Despite popular belief, I think that hearing parents are understandably reluctant to put their child through surgery and that's part of the reason for the delay. I remember quoting a study a while ago here that interviewed parents and came to that conclusion.

Also, hearing parents spend a while in denial and trying to grapple with their grief when they first discover that their child is deaf. That's understandable as most people have no experience with deafness, but unfortunately it costs time in terms of language development. I read somewhere that one of the reasons why they think that deaf children with deaf parents do well is because this delay period of grieving is not there. This article said that both oral and signing deaf families do better language wise than hearing families on the whole but I've never actually seen that in a study - does anyone know anything?

I couldn't agree with you more on the grief issues. Which is why, as soon as a child is diagnosed, parents and siblings, as well as the deaf child, need to be referred for counseling services that will not only provide support during this period, but also with a list of resources, as well. We are dropping the ball when it comes to that step, and it is a step that could make a huge difference not just for the deaf child, but for their families, as well.

 

[jillio]

It should be ascertained beyond the shadow of a doubt that the child is in fact hearing impaired to the extent minimally allowed for approval of the implantation.

Absolutley. And infant assessments are not always reliable.

 

[jillio]

I agree that establishing early hearing loss as permanent may be sometimes tricky, but I think the cases of miracle hearing loss reversed are rare. I think it's safe to say 98%- 99.99% of children born deaf remain deaf.

Like you I feel that being able to hear and speak is important and well worth the effort, even though this is not the only reason of undividual being successful - but it does helps immensely. Like you I agree it is terrific not to being forced to relay on interpreters, and having a "third party" particpating in your phone conversations.
Not to mention a simple joy of hearing sounds.

And since many studies are showing more and more that the earlier a child is implanted, the better are the results - I think it's only logical to consider it as most valid argument for early implantation.

Where did you get your percentages? If you are talking about infants that do not pass newborn screenings, then you are in error in your estimates. And even if one accepts your estimates, if we implant 2% of children who would have later passed a screening, we have implanted 2% too many. That error rate is simply unacceptable.