FDA-Shocking Results on CI Statically

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafdyke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Speech sounds? That's not true.
 
faire_jour said:
Speech sounds? That's not true.
Click to expand...

Um. Some people can't pathologically hear if they are not looking at someone's face. I had a Mauritian teacher that you need to look at her in order to talk. Her hearing is perfect, but if you talk behind her head-- she only would get 50% of what you are saying. She doesn't lipread though or have a hearing loss.

It was because of her, I learned not to stare at the floor so much (which is a blind tendency) and look at people's faces when they are talking.

Many hearing people who are visually-orientated have the same issues. It's just that their brain don't like having audio-only.
 
rockdrummer said:
Some people just don't get that a parent makes a decision either way.
Click to expand...

Yep, my point exactly.

rockdrummer said:
And some people also forget that language aquisition should happen early in a child's life. The earlier the better.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the case. But they also get tangled up with the difference between learning how to do speech from a vocalization standpoint vs learning to listening to speech. They are two distinct things. The critical component is learning to listen to speech and that window is when one is young not later on where it is extremely problematical.
 
souggy said:
Um. Some people can't pathologically hear if they are not looking at someone's face. I had a Mauritian teacher that you need to look at her in order to talk. Her hearing is perfect, but if you talk behind her head-- she only would get 50% of what you are saying. She doesn't lipread though or have a hearing loss.

It was because of her, I learned not to stare at the floor so much (which is a blind tendency) and look at people's faces when they are talking.

Many hearing people who are visually-orientated have the same issues. It's just that their brain don't like having audio-only.
Click to expand...


What if you looked at her face then tell her to close her eyes but you remind her you are still looking at her face? If she isn't reading lips, she may be reading facial expressions and emotions for speech cues. Does she have difficulty hearing phones and TV without CC? This is why I stand by how important reading lips are. I can understand way more than 50% speech that way. Your Mauritian teacher who understands only 50% without looking at faces, that isn't enough. It's possible I may relay on reading lips for the rest of my life. Stem cells very well could give me the same 50% speech that she gets without looking at faces but it's so much eaiser for me to read lips.
 
deafdude1 said:
What if you looked at her face then tell her to close her eyes but you remind her you are still looking at her face? If she isn't reading lips, she may be reading facial expressions and emotions for speech cues. Does she have difficulty hearing phones and TV without CC? This is why I stand by how important reading lips are. I can understand way more than 50% speech that way. Your Mauritian teacher who understands only 50% without looking at faces, that isn't enough. It's possible I may relay on reading lips for the rest of my life. Stem cells very well could give me the same 50% speech that she gets without looking at faces but it's so much eaiser for me to read lips.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't know. She never had closed captions on any of the movies she showed in class (if I am not present in class. And she can talk on the phone fine and can carry long conversations. She can also have group conversations-- many people with even mild hearing loss are limited to one-on-one conservations. The rest of the staff and my interpreter said she was fully-hearing.

It just-- she's visually-orientated. She's not a type that you can talk to on the other side of the room without being able to see each others' faces. I met other hearing people like this-- those ones I prefer because they are not an ass enough to be talking from the bathroom or kitchen while you're in the living room.
 
Yea, across the room may be too far to hear properly even for hearing people. She hears phones and TV fine without looking at faces. I also am visually orientated, but then that's common for the deaf
 
souggy said:
It was because of her, I learned not to stare at the floor so much (which is a blind tendency) and look at people's faces when they are talking.

Many hearing people who are visually-orientated have the same issues. It's just that their brain don't like having audio-only.
Click to expand...

I learned the same thing from many of my teachers. Even though I can't see them to make direct eye contact, if I face their general direction, it's easier to hear what they're saying and therefore to focus on what they're saying.

Another thing I learned is that if people talk facing the wall, the sound bounces off the wall and makes it impossible for me to understand. So I ask them to look at me when they're talking to me so the sound can come directly to my ears. It confuses a lot of people because they think, "But it's not like you can see me!" :giggle:
 
Souggy,

There is no "serious ego problem" here nor do I want to turn this into a referedum about me as Shel so often tries to do. However, I think you have missed my point as to the inherent contradiction in CJB's position. As subsequent posters pointed out, one of whom you agreed with, the issue is about parental choice and the fact that the decision not to implant a child is every bit a personal parental decision as is the decision to implant one's child. Whether one attempts to cloak it under the guise of letting the child decide when he or she is older, it is still a parental decision.
Rick
 
Then it would be better to pick a more relevant example rather than taking a basket of oranges and setting it beside a basket of apples. Compare cochlear implants to eye surgery.

They both can improve hearing and vision, but they don't fix them. They are both amending non-life threatening conditions. They both have risks and same potentially (negative) long-term consequences. Parents choose CI and eye surgeries in hope that their children will fare better in life.

If my children have vision loss, or sight loss, I would be hard-pressed to give them eye surgeries or something like that. I am not sure what my decision would be once it come down to it. I know I say that I believe in personal liberty and individualism, however theory does not always translate into practice. So, I will have to see when the "brown matters hit the fan." I would like to believe I would leave the kid alone, but I have doubts that I would practise my belief when it come down to it.

Sorry CJB.
 
rick48 said:
Souggy,

There is no "serious ego problem" here nor do I want to turn this into a referedum about me as Shel so often tries to do. However, I think you have missed my point as to the inherent contradiction in CJB's position. As subsequent posters pointed out, one of whom you agreed with, the issue is about parental choice and the fact that the decision not to implant a child is every bit a personal parental decision as is the decision to implant one's child. Whether one attempts to cloak it under the guise of letting the child decide when he or she is older, it is still a parental decision.
Rick
Click to expand...


Not forcing CI on your child is the safe choice. HAs could probably give him some benefit. He can learn sign language, read lips and probably speech with some effort. Ok, so it's a decision not to implant the child. No child has ever regretted not being "forced" CI but plenty have regretted having CI forced on them as they grow.
 
Perfect world

If we lived in a perfect world everthing would be accomidating to hearing loss & all other physical challenges, but we do not. It is hard out here even if you have your hearing. Has anyone ever considered that the reason some parents choose to have their kids implanted is because they already know that even without thier disability life is gonna be rough enough sometimes?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that your daughter's generation's implant canidacy was a lot stricter. Only kids who couldn't benifit from HA AT ALL could get implanted.Now canidacy is a lot more loose, so that even a lot of kids who wouldn't have been implanted at ALL, are now getting implanted.
The CI is AWESOME for those who cannot benifit at ALL from tradtional hearing aids.
And Fair jour....yes there are speech sounds which can only be differentated by reading lips. For example th and p. Seriously....the CI really can give good hearing......but the majority of pediatric implantees will have access to different sounds from being mildly hoh to awareness of enviormental sounds and everything in between..........Just like the hearing results were with hearing aids. There are some kids who are superstars with HA (with severe-profound losses) but there are also kids who can only get a small percentage of speech or enviormental sounds....Just like with CI!
 
deafdude1 said:
Not forcing CI on your child is the safe choice. HAs could probably give him some benefit. He can learn sign language, read lips and probably speech with some effort. Ok, so it's a decision not to implant the child. No child has ever regretted not being "forced" CI but plenty have regretted having CI forced on them as they grow.
Click to expand...

<Heavy sarcasm> "The world according to Garp!"

It is your opinion that it is safer not implanting a child with a CI. Fine, so be it. But let's quit beating a dead horse. It all comes down to a parent's decision for better or worst. We need to learn to respect that and move on.

If one has never been a parent (I'm a parent with two kids), you cannot say for absolute certainty what you will and will not do. Life has a way of throwing curves at you forcing one to reevaluate previously held convictions. Sometimes they change and sometimes they don't. I guarantee that you will not be the same person before kids as compared to after kids.
 
C-NICE said:
If we lived in a perfect world everthing would be accomidating to hearing loss & all other physical challenges, but we do not. It is hard out here even if you have your hearing. Has anyone ever considered that the reason some parents choose to have their kids implanted is because they already know that even without thier disability life is gonna be rough enough sometimes?
Click to expand...

My perfect world would be that no kids are put at risks for language delays for the sake of "hearing". I dont care if kids get CIs but pls expose them to ASL and the Deaf community.
 
For me the most important thing is that a Deaf child is exposed to sign language and Deaf culture, CI or no CI.
 
sr171soars said:
<Heavy sarcasm> "The world according to Garp!"

It is your opinion that it is safer not implanting a child with a CI. Fine, so be it. But let's quit beating a dead horse. It all comes down to a parent's decision for better or worst. We need to learn to respect that and move on.

If one has never been a parent (I'm a parent with two kids), you cannot say for absolute certainty what you will and will not do. Life has a way of throwing curves at you forcing one to reevaluate previously held convictions. Sometimes they change and sometimes they don't. I guarantee that you will not be the same person before kids as compared to after kids.
Click to expand...

I second everything you say, including the heavy sarcasm!
 
The one thing I must wonder about is what happens if a CI isn't the best choice? The reason I say that is that I have worn HAs all my 39 years. I carefully researched a CI last year (I have written about this many times already in previous threads so feel free to check some of my older postings about tests results, etc. if you like) and met with a CI audi (with my family). The results were that I was far deaf enough to qualify, and that I would gain a lot in environmental sounds, but not so in speech discrimination. Based on that I opted not to get one. I plan to stick with my HAs for the time being. So for some, would HAs be the better way to go? Just food for thought.
 
souggy said:
Then it would be better to pick a more relevant example rather than taking a basket of oranges and setting it beside a basket of apples. Compare cochlear implants to eye surgery.

They both can improve hearing and vision, but they don't fix them. They are both amending non-life threatening conditions. They both have risks and same potentially (negative) long-term consequences. Parents choose CI and eye surgeries in hope that their children will fare better in life.

If my children have vision loss, or sight loss, I would be hard-pressed to give them eye surgeries or something like that. I am not sure what my decision would be once it come down to it. I know I say that I believe in personal liberty and individualism, however theory does not always translate into practice. So, I will have to see when the "brown matters hit the fan." I would like to believe I would leave the kid alone, but I have doubts that I would practise my belief when it come down to it.

Sorry CJB.
Click to expand...

You still are missing the point, its about the decision not the implant itself. But others are right, this horse has been beaten dead. When and if you have kids, you might have a better understanding.
 
One thing I've being noticing lately from a good number of posters are the complaints about a parent's choice to implant their child, or complaints about stem cell posts, or complaints about CI posts, etc. I personally feel it is up to each individual or family to make their own choices. I wish the "you shouldn't do this" or "stop posting about this!" would stop because it would be nice if each of us felt we had the opportunity to make our own choices to better, or leave alone, our deafness/hearing. What works for some does not make for a majority, it is entirely a personal decision for everyone, including parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top