Ill do the same as my parents did for me. My parents gave me the best HAs(at the time anyway) and sent me to a speech therapist twice a week. They also trained me to speak clearly and understand some speech. I thaught myself to read lips, if not, they would teach me that too. None of this carries any real risk. It's hard work however!
They gave you the best they had at that time. CI was not an option. Conservative choices (wihout associated risks) are not always correct.
People can decide not to go for a CI, obviously, but it is the best technology now available. The risk of not going for it is exposing the child to a much higher unsuccess probability in developing speech. Nothing to do with health, OK.
Because being deaf is not a health issue. It's "inconvenient" but hard work and training can compenstate nicely for this disability. Many Deaf people don't even consider their deafness a disability but just a normal alternative to being hearing. I would want my child to have the best possible hearing but what if this isn't what my child wants? Alot of the Deaf on Alldeaf have no interest in a CI or even stem cells, they are perfectly happy/fine just the way they are and that's their choice!
What about those who are not happy with their status? I read a lot of people here saying they love to hear and they would like to hear better. You are among those. In principle those people are not perfectly fine with their hearing impairment.
Accessing CI or stem cells too late limit the potential to use the hearing you get at its best. In other words the probability to get the best out of it is STRONGLY decreased. This is not questionable.
Obviously I do not think deafness is bad by itself, the only bad aspect is that it may force to loose a significant part of the social world (the hearing one).
My personal and very humble opinion is that it is really ideal to accept our own status and live happy with it, nevertheless many deaf people happy with their deafness would be happy to be hearing if they could have access to it in the past, somehow... I do not want to think for any other, and I do not want to offend anybody!! This is just a personal opinion.
Because there's no health risk to any of the above! But when the children become adults, they get to choose all of this and can always change.
This is not true. Parent's cultural decisions cannot always be changed. The way children are grown up is so important for the persons they will become. Only a few can really change completely who they are.
OK, there is not health involved here, but nobody can tell me that these things are less important.
For life or health preserving medical decisions, me and the doctor decide. For anything elective, the child decides when he's older or an adult. Cochlear implants(and stem cells for the matter) are borderline elective. They are a "want" rather than a "need" since it's been proven that deaf people are just as capable(saying they are less than capable would offend them) I developed spoken language just fine and every deaf child can develop language with speech training and going the oral route. Some parents choose both oral and sign language. I was never denied sign language, I simply chose on my own.
You did it, but it is simply not true that every deaf child can do it. Of course a lot is due to the family and support, but it is pretty clear that for profound hearing loss only a minority does it.
Choosing for CI (or stem cells when will be available) does not neglect the access to signing language at all. Do not choose CI can neglect access to speech.
Anyway there is nothing wrong with the decision to neglect speech. I was questioning the decision to postpone the decision, simply because this can have important effects.
The choice to sign was left to me and I decided no at a young age. I taught myself to read lips and it's as natural to me as signing and speech is to others. Because a CI is permanent, you can never undo this. The child can always get a CI as an adult but can never undo CI if forced on the child as residual hearing goes bye-bye. Ive read around and there has never been a child who regretted not being forced with a CI, in fact they are thankful that the CI decision was left to them to decide when they were old enough. But ive read many children who stopped wearing CI and resent their parents for forcing CI on them. If CI(and stem cells) opens doors, I will let the child open the doors himself.
The internal part of CI is permanent, but I do not see the problem. You can decide not to wear the outer processor and you're not hearing anymore. Thinking you are "marked" because you have something in your head sounds a bit like a extreme religious concept and can be translated to other things like metal plates for healing bone fractures (also bone fractures usually are not life threatening and can be considered an "inconvenience", but I doubt somebody will refuse to get a metal part to be able to walk again)...
Anyway, the internal part can be removed. It's surgery, but pretty simple.
Loosing the residual hearing is not a problem if it is negligible or absent and nobody can state it cannot be restored in the future with stem cells/gene therapy... It's pure speculation. Moreover, if anybody wants to go for stem cells, it's pretty clear he/she is not so fine with deafness. Finally, without access to spoken language by CI, for many people (deaf or with very profoundly hl) stem cells could be good for accessing to sounds and noises only.
OMG! I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what ive been trying to say repeatedly!