FDA-Shocking Results on CI Statically

[shel90]

Iam just skeptical when anyone says that teachers rejects students. Maybe one or two but all of them? Iam not inclined to believe in that statement.

 

[deafdyke]

Would you agree that a child with a severe-profound hearing loss does not have full access to spoken language with hearing aids?

FYI, there's a significent percentage of kids with severe-profound losses who can pick up speech by hearing aids alone. There WERE oral sucesses back in the '40's, 50's and '60's you know. I have to say that I think you may have really overestimated how well a CI works for deaf kids. It can make some kids "almost hearing".....but the majority still cannot understand speech by listening alone. Even a lot of just hoh folks cannot understand speech without listening alone. Matter of fact, HEARING people speechread. There are sounds which can't be discriminated by sound alone.

 

[deafdude1]

FYI, there's a significent percentage of kids with severe-profound losses who can pick up speech by hearing aids alone. There WERE oral sucesses back in the '40's, 50's and '60's you know. I have to say that I think you may have really overestimated how well a CI works for deaf kids. It can make some kids "almost hearing".....but the majority still cannot understand speech by listening alone. Even a lot of just hoh folks cannot understand speech without listening alone. Matter of fact, HEARING people speechread. There are sounds which can't be discriminated by sound alone.

Great post! I was able to pick out some speech in the past, although today my hearing and speech scores are lower. I don't struggle much since im great at reading lips. My mom, whos hearing has some ability to read lips. She even reads the CC as she doesn't understand 100%, I bet very few hearing people can hear every single word on TV, radio, phone, etc. A speech score of 100% in a soundproof booth using an easy test doesn't translate to 100% understanding in every real world situation. In fact using harder speech tests, including CNC, hearing people score 80-90%.

Some people think a CI is pratically a "cure" and that it will make you hear as good as your hearing friends. Truth is less than 10% with CI hear well enough to understand alot of speech on phones. They function as hard of hearing. You don't hear music, speech or sounds anywhere close to a hearing person. CI's frequency range is typically 188Hz to 6000Hz while a hearing person can hear 16Hz to 16KHz and discriminate way more pitches than CI. 4% hear worse with CI than HA from objective tests and another 10% say they consider their HAs as better than CI subjectively. Me and my friend agree that 25% could be hearing with proper HAs too much to be CI candidates! Until you have tried every decent HA out there, you can not judge if a different HA won't be much better because it very well could be!

 

[KarissaMann05]

Iam just skeptical when anyone says that teachers rejects students. Maybe one or two but all of them? Iam not inclined to believe in that statement.

Me either. I won't believe in any one will make that such claim. In my former deaf school, I NEVER saw any teacher rejected students. It was not matter if they have a kind of disability and their deafness...

 

[Phi4Sius]

Why don't they have those stats? I don't wanna just hear a success rate, I wanna see ALSO a failure rate as well. A one sided stats isn't gonna fly.

Me thinks the FDA has something to hide.

Yiz

Yiz - And y'know what? In the booklets (one 60-ish page and one 30-ish page booklet) I received from Beike- they're brutally honest about EVERYthing. You want to see the American Doctor's point of view on Stem Cells and warning patients not to go to China? You'll see it. You want to see how everyone doubts the effectiveness of stem cells until they go over there? You'll see it. You'll see all the negative and the positive as well - including every complete percentage of total possible side effects that people exhibit (and this percentage references all patients that have EVER been treated there for ALL possible conditions and diseases- not just a cross section).

Now why doesn't the FDA do that for CIs?

 

[deafdude1]

Phi4Sius, I am online! I don't trust the FDA because they have approved elective/cosmetic surgeries that no one needs! Botox? People have died from that. Lasik? People have gone blind from that. Breast implants? They leak and make you disabled for life. Tattoos? The long term risks aren't pretty, they cause cancer. None of those options are medically necessary either nor do they improve anything, not even your own self esteem. People rarely stop at one elective/cosmetic surgery. They find something else that's imperfect to obsess about.

I love Beike's honesity! Once more people get stem cells for hearing loss/deafness and Beike discloses their results and audiograms and the majority are getting good results, me and you will be next after the pioneers go first. It could be less than two years or more than five years depending how fast this moves and how many pioneers go ahead before us.

 

[DURAY]

I don't have CI, Someone asked me if insurance can paid for two CI at the same time for both ears?

 

[rick48]

Because, in the case of a CI, you are also taking away, destroying residual hearing.

Many, many kids being implanted could and do benefit from HAs but are implanted anyway. I know of at least 2 non-profound infants who were implanted without even doing a HA trial. Why not develop what was there to start with?

I would like to comment on the point you made about residual hearing. It is my observation that you are placing too much emphasis on the alleged loss of residual hearing and attempting to assign a negative connotation about it's loss to the cochlear implant.

There are people, including a few on this forum, who have stated that even after they received their cochlear implants they did not lose their residual hearing. Also, your reliance on its retention is misplaced, especially for those with profound hearing losses. For example, my daughter's loss is so profound that she derived no benefits from either HAs or FM auditory trainers. Whatever residual hearing she had was both realistically and functionally useless to her.

The cochlear implant did not "take away" her residual hearing, it did not "take away" anything from her. What it did was to enhance her life, to add value to it by allowing her access to sounds that she would never have otherwise been able to access. It is through the cochlear implant that she is able to hear sounds that enable her to process and understand those sounds as speech.

While you have already stated that you do not place much value on the ability to communicate orally, I respect your honesty in saying so and do not wish for you to view my comments as being critical with your decision. However, I trust that you also recognize and respect that there are others, such as my wife and I, for whom we do place a significant value on the ability to communicate orally as our daughter was born hearing, into a hearing family and into a world that overwhelmingly relies on an oral language as the primary means of communication. For our daughter, who through her cochlear implant has been able to acquire the ability to easily and fluently communicate orally, the cochlear implant has been the tool accompanied with a lot of love and dedication that has made that possible.

I hope that I did not offend you for that has not been my intention and I wish you, your child and your family all the best.
Rick

 

[rick48]

I think it's fine if someone wants to get the CI. Everyone knows what's right for them. What I have a hard time with is choosing for one's child. I know a child can't make the decision on their own, but I would discuss it with my child and ask them if they want to hear better or if they're happy being deaf with sign. Or if they want to give it some time. I know it's not an easy decision, but that's why for my child, I wouldn't want to just make it for him.

As FJ has previously stated, you are contradicting yourself as you have no problems making other decisions for your child without discussing those decisions with the child first. Sometimes being the parent means you have the obligation to your child to make not just the easy decisions but the difficult ones as well.

 

[CJB]

As FJ has previously stated, you are contradicting yourself as you have no problems making other decisions for your child without discussing those decisions with the child first. Sometimes being the parent means you have the obligation to your child to make not just the easy decisions but the difficult ones as well.

I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. I would discuss those decisions with my child too. I know that it is my obligation as the parent to make a lot of those decisions, but I would not want to do so without some input from my child.

My parents tried so hard to make me into a sighted person as a child and they never even though of asking me if I wanted to be sighted. For me it was easier and more natural to be legally blind. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and energy if they had just stopped to ask me what I thought.

I want to be able to do that for my child. I don't want to assume what his wants or desires are without consulting him. I don't want to force my own agenda on her. Sign language isn't a forced agenda because it occurs naturally in Deaf children. Deaf babies babble with their hands and naturally discover language through their hands. The CI on the other hand doesn't occur naturally. I don't see how sign language is a choice I made any more than parents of hearing children "choose" for their children to use spoken language.

 

[rick48]

I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. I would discuss those decisions with my child too. I know that it is my obligation as the parent to make a lot of those decisions, but I would not want to do so without some input from my child.

My parents tried so hard to make me into a sighted person as a child and they never even though of asking me if I wanted to be sighted. For me it was easier and more natural to be legally blind. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and energy if they had just stopped to ask me what I thought.

I want to be able to do that for my child. I don't want to assume what his wants or desires are without consulting him. I don't want to force my own agenda on her. Sign language isn't a forced agenda because it occurs naturally in Deaf children. Deaf babies babble with their hands and naturally discover language through their hands. The CI on the other hand doesn't occur naturally. I don't see how sign language is a choice I made any more than parents of hearing children "choose" for their children to use spoken language.

So, if your child has a cleft palate then you would do nothing to correct it, same with eye glasses for impaired sight, hearing aids are out too, if your child has a club foot, do nothing, maybe he or she really wants that club foot!
By the way, why stop there, maybe your child does not want to be educated so why bother sending him to school? Afterall, we do not "naturally" acquire knowledge about history, mathematics, science, etc. Forget about religion, wouldn't want to "force" that agenda on a child, you could be denying his atheist tendencies.

The truth is that by denying your child a cochlear implant when it could benefit his or her ability to acquire access to spoken language--you are "forcing" your agenda on your child--your term, not mine.
Rick

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

So, if your child has a cleft palate then you would do nothing to correct it, same with eye glasses for impaired sight, hearing aids are out too, if your child has a club foot, do nothing, maybe he or she really wants that club foot!
By the way, why stop there, maybe your child does not want to be educated so why bother sending him to school? Afterall, we do not "naturally" acquire knowledge about history, mathematics, science, etc. Forget about religion, wouldn't want to "force" that agenda on a child, you could be denying his atheist tendencies.

The truth is that by denying your child a cochlear implant when it could benefit his or her ability to acquire access to spoken language--you are "forcing" your agenda on your child--your term, not mine.
Rick

Rick, you have some serious ego problem here. I am suspecting you didn't like how other people treat you in the past, so you are treating other people like they treated you. You are better than that.

Deafness and blindness are not a deformity. They don't interfere with someone's quality of life. They can dress themselves, they can feed themselves, they can get job, they can acquire languages, they can acquire cultures and most importantly they are not bonded to the bed. They can do anything a regular person can do except hear or see. They won't be out-casted for their physical appearance as well since deafness or blindness have no visual marks. So I find it offensive you compared deafness and blindness with physical deformities.

Whither or not the person get CI, laser eye surgery or spoken language doesn't matter at all. It is that parent's choice. My parents never gave me a cochlear implants because they didn't believe they have the right to interfere with my "temple;" only I, and I alone can choose what to do with it. Meaning no surgery, unless it is life-threatening-- which I did have life-threatening conditions that warranted invasive surgeries, no tattoos, no piercings. Simply pure.

Regarding education, at least the person can choose to regret everything they learn if they choose to do so. That include languages. I was raised to speak English, French and Low German along with ASL. Over the years I chose to use English as my primary communications during my school years, however out there in the real world-- I am choosing to be non-oral and rejecting English in favour of other languages. In fact, I am starting class to learn Dutch and Ukrainian, something that I wish I had a chance to learn.

My parents raised me to be a communal left-liberal with strong Christian undertone, although they tried to keep it secular as possible, but instead what happened? I became a hard right-liberal who is leaning toward Daoism. These are choices I made, regardless of what I was raised. I went through traditional schooling because my family are largely uneducated and were intellectually unable to give me the education they wanted me to have-- so they left it to the government.

So don't EVER compare giving someone a cochlear implant with education. It is a personal choice of the parents. If they want to give a cochlear implant to their children, that is fine. If they don't want to, that is fine. Yes, it gives people more hearing, but they are still functionally deaf. Period, and it is not wrong if a person doesn't want to get a CI or if they don't want their children to have a CI because they are still on the same playing field as other people-- including implantees.

So if CJB want to raise his child deaf and or blind, then that is fine. That is HIS choice, not YOURS. So please get off his back. You are not gaining anything by attacking his methods.

Education != Medical

"!=" means "does not equal"

And if I get banned for this post, so be it.

 

[sr171soars]

...

The truth is that by denying your child a cochlear implant when it could benefit his or her ability to acquire access to spoken language--you are "forcing" your agenda on your child--your term, not mine.
Rick

I agree and concur with this conclusion.

This comes close to the crux of the matter about the whole subject of CIs in young children which always has been a hotly heated and debated subject (which I much prefer to stay out of). Any decision a parent makes whether to do or not to do an action thought to benefit a child is forcing their agenda on that child whether the child likes it or not. Nor does the child understand all the ramifications of that decision until they are much older.

The thing that makes this really a difficult decision is the fact that it is difficult to know or determine whether it will be the best decision for the child. There are no guarantees with CIs. But to put this in perspective, their are a lot of other things in which there are no guarantees either. So, a parent has to think long and hard about all these things they may have to consider for their child. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

The real issue isn't about CIs in children but basically whether a parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. One can't argue that parents don't have that right where CIs are concerned but have that right in everything else. It is an either or proposition.

The bottomline is that everybody needs to understand for most parents really try to do what is best for their children. Parents are human and will make mistakes. Most children turn out okay in general.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I agree and concur with this conclusion.

This comes close to the crux of the matter about the whole subject of CIs in young children which always has been a hotly heated and debated subject (which I much prefer to stay out of). Any decision a parent makes whether to do or not to do an action thought to benefit a child is forcing their agenda on that child whether the child likes it or not. Nor does the child understand all the ramifications of that decision until they are much older.

The thing that makes this really a difficult decision is the fact that it is difficult to know or determine whether it will be the best decision for the child. There are no guarantees with CIs. But to put this in perspective, their are a lot of other things in which there are no guarantees either. So, a parent has to think long and hard about all these things they may have to consider for their child. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

The real issue isn't about CIs in children but basically whether a parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. One can't argue that parents don't have that right where CIs are concerned but have that right in everything else. It is an either or proposition.

The bottomline is that everybody needs to understand for most parents really try to do what is best for their children. Parents are human and will make mistakes. Most children turn out okay in general.

 

[CJB]

So, if your child has a cleft palate then you would do nothing to correct it, same with eye glasses for impaired sight, hearing aids are out too, if your child has a club foot, do nothing, maybe he or she really wants that club foot!
By the way, why stop there, maybe your child does not want to be educated so why bother sending him to school? Afterall, we do not "naturally" acquire knowledge about history, mathematics, science, etc. Forget about religion, wouldn't want to "force" that agenda on a child, you could be denying his atheist tendencies.

The truth is that by denying your child a cochlear implant when it could benefit his or her ability to acquire access to spoken language--you are "forcing" your agenda on your child--your term, not mine.
Rick

I never said I wouldn't give my Deaf child hearing aids. HA's aren't a magnet in your head. I would give my child HA's cause at least she has the choice to take them out if she wants.

Club foot and cleft palate impair functionality in a way deafness and blindness don't have to if we give the child sign language and braille.

Education and religion are completely different matters and can't be compared to the CI.

 

[CJB]

The thing that makes this really a difficult decision is the fact that it is difficult to know or determine whether it will be the best decision for the child. There are no guarantees with CIs. But to put this in perspective, their are a lot of other things in which there are no guarantees either. So, a parent has to think long and hard about all these things they may have to consider for their child. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

The bottomline is that everybody needs to understand for most parents really try to do what is best for their children. Parents are human and will make mistakes. Most children turn out okay in general.

Excellent points.

 

[ref74]

I agree and concur with this conclusion.

This comes close to the crux of the matter about the whole subject of CIs in young children which always has been a hotly heated and debated subject (which I much prefer to stay out of). Any decision a parent makes whether to do or not to do an action thought to benefit a child is forcing their agenda on that child whether the child likes it or not. Nor does the child understand all the ramifications of that decision until they are much older.

The thing that makes this really a difficult decision is the fact that it is difficult to know or determine whether it will be the best decision for the child. There are no guarantees with CIs. But to put this in perspective, their are a lot of other things in which there are no guarantees either. So, a parent has to think long and hard about all these things they may have to consider for their child. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

The real issue isn't about CIs in children but basically whether a parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. One can't argue that parents don't have that right where CIs are concerned but have that right in everything else. It is an either or proposition.

The bottomline is that everybody needs to understand for most parents really try to do what is best for their children. Parents are human and will make mistakes. Most children turn out okay in general.

You could not say it better.
Parents decide for CI or for no-CI, everybody is free to use his own arguments and opinions. All of them will do what they think is the best for the child. That's the point. The CI discussion under this perspective is a non-sense...

 

[shel90]

Rick, you have some serious ego problem here. I am suspecting you didn't like how other people treat you in the past, so you are treating other people like they treated you. You are better than that.

Deafness and blindness are not a deformity. They don't interfere with someone's quality of life. They can dress themselves, they can feed themselves, they can get job, they can acquire languages, they can acquire cultures and most importantly they are not bonded to the bed. They can do anything a regular person can do except hear or see. They won't be out-casted for their physical appearance as well since deafness or blindness have no visual marks. So I find it offensive you compared deafness and blindness with physical deformities.

Whither or not the person get CI, laser eye surgery or spoken language doesn't matter at all. It is that parent's choice. My parents never gave me a cochlear implants because they didn't believe they have the right to interfere with my "temple;" only I, and I alone can choose what to do with it. Meaning no surgery, unless it is life-threatening-- which I did have life-threatening conditions that warranted invasive surgeries, no tattoos, no piercings. Simply pure.

Regarding education, at least the person can choose to regret everything they learn if they choose to do so. That include languages. I was raised to speak English, French and Low German along with ASL. Over the years I chose to use English as my primary communications during my school years, however out there in the real world-- I am choosing to be non-oral and rejecting English in favour of other languages. In fact, I am starting class to learn Dutch and Ukrainian, something that I wish I had a chance to learn.

My parents raised me to be a communal left-liberal with strong Christian undertone, although they tried to keep it secular as possible, but instead what happened? I became a hard right-liberal who is leaning toward Daoism. These are choices I made, regardless of what I was raised. I went through traditional schooling because my family are largely uneducated and were intellectually unable to give me the education they wanted me to have-- so they left it to the government.

So don't EVER compare giving someone a cochlear implant with education. It is a personal choice of the parents. If they want to give a cochlear implant to their children, that is fine. If they don't want to, that is fine. Yes, it gives people more hearing, but they are still functionally deaf. Period, and it is not wrong if a person doesn't want to get a CI or if they don't want their children to have a CI because they are still on the same playing field as other people-- including implantees.

So if CJB want to raise his child deaf and or blind, then that is fine. That is HIS choice, not YOURS. So please get off his back. You are not gaining anything by attacking his methods.

Education != Medical

"!=" means "does not equal"

And if I get banned for this post, so be it.

This poster has a tendency to do this..

 

[rockdrummer]

..........The truth is that by denying your child a cochlear implant when it could benefit his or her ability to acquire access to spoken language--you are "forcing" your agenda on your child--your term, not mine.
Rick

QFT. You make a decision either way. It amazes me that every discussion about a CI ends up like this. It makes me want to go pull the posts from previous threads to answer the same questions over and over again. I just don't have the time.

 

[rockdrummer]

I agree and concur with this conclusion.

This comes close to the crux of the matter about the whole subject of CIs in young children which always has been a hotly heated and debated subject (which I much prefer to stay out of). Any decision a parent makes whether to do or not to do an action thought to benefit a child is forcing their agenda on that child whether the child likes it or not. Nor does the child understand all the ramifications of that decision until they are much older..........................

Some people just don't get that a parent makes a decision either way. And some people also forget that language aquisition should happen early in a child's life. The earlier the better.