"Fixing" the child or not?

I agree that Shel is the most understanding person because she explains it very clear and loud in a mature enough to have a conversation. True.
 
Again, the question is not whether shel is willing to listen, but whether you are willing to listen.
 
A said:
Most I read is "Stop TRYING to fix" meaning don't make them something they are not. They know CI is not perfect. accept them as they are, and don't focus on perfection (hearing and speech). I don't think they think CI fix/cure deafness. But some hearing people do.
Click to expand...

A, if I left Li-Li 'as is,' without intervention she would have no access to language. She spent a year in an institution without access to language, I feel very strongly that leaving her be -- without a means to communicate -- is not allowing her to be who she is, it's locking her in a cage.

It's not just my right, but it's my responsibility to provide access best as I possibly can.
 
This thread is just to explain some Deaf people's perspective on the purpose of CI surgery and how whenever they say that it is fixing deafness, they are told that they are wrong or that they are insulting people. What if it just a different point of view simply because of what surgery means to them. To me, it means to fix something and CI surgery is a surgery so therefore CI surgery has the purpose of fixing deafness.

Not about parents' view on CI surgery.
 
You know, I can't understand why so many insults are thrown around here....
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jillio, but you are hearing and Shel was born deaf?

Jillio, if you lost ur hearing, and the best doctors told you a CI would help you, would you go for it?....(Even ur deaf son, would you agree to it?) How about you, Shel?...Since you were born deaf, never heard a sound or music, ur kids, etc....would you agree to the surgery?

I'm late deafened, and not eliglble for a CI....and yes, I was very depressed over that.

And if I had a deaf child, and knew the CI would give him some benefit of "sound", I would do it....Knowing it could possibly give my child a better quality of life. That's how I see it.

So many CI users here at AD have said they were happy with their CI's....especially Ron Jaxon....

I feel it's those who were born deaf, never heard a sound in their lives, think it's completely "normal" to live in "silence".....and are happy living that way. Many hearing people feel it's "tragic" to live in a world of silence. Everybody has a different set of opinion.....
 
GrendelQ said:
A, if I left Li-Li 'as is,' without intervention she would have no access to language. She spent a year in an institution without access to language, I feel very strongly that leaving her be -- without a means to communicate -- is not allowing her to be who she is, it's locking her in a cage.

It's not just my right, but it's my responsibility to provide access best as I possibly can.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more specific to say that she would have had no access to spoken language? As you also were using ASL, she did have access to language prior to implant, just not spoken language.
 
jillio said:
Wouldn't it be more specific to say that she would have had no access to spoken language? As you also were using ASL, she did have access to language prior to implant, just not spoken language.
Click to expand...

But Grendel is providing access to ASL as well. It doesn't just magically happen when a child is deaf. For the child to learn ASL, the parents must work their butts off to provide that. It is an intervention too.
 
rockin'robin said:
You know, I can't understand why so many insults are thrown around here....
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jillio, but you are hearing and Shel was born deaf?

Jillio, if you lost ur hearing, and the best doctors told you a CI would help you, would you go for it?....(Even ur deaf son, would you agree to it?) How about you, Shel?...Since you were born deaf, never heard a sound or music, ur kids, etc....would you agree to the surgery?

I'm late deafened, and not eliglble for a CI....and yes, I was very depressed over that.

And if I had a deaf child, and knew the CI would give him some benefit of "sound", I would do it....Knowing it could possibly give my child a better quality of life. That's how I see it.

So many CI users here at AD have said they were happy with their CI's....especially Ron Jaxon....

I feel it's those who were born deaf, never heard a sound in their lives, think it's completely "normal" to live in "silence".....and are happy living that way. Many hearing people feel it's "tragic" to live in a world of silence. Everybody has a different set of opinion.....
Click to expand...

Good question, RR. No, I don't think I would go for it, and here is the reason. I am perfectly comfortable within deaf culture, and I am fluent in ASL. I don't see that loosing my hearing would create that much of a trauma for me. I've been shown far too many times that sound perception is not the advantage that some believe it is, nor is it necessary to live with as much quality in one's life as some would believe.

Now, someone who was born hearing and views loosing their hearing as a tradgedy might answer opposite to me. I see only that it would create a change, but not a change that would require surgical intervention because I already possess the coping skills to deal with it.
 
shel90 said:
This thread is just to explain some Deaf people's perspective on the purpose of CI surgery and how whenever they say that it is fixing deafness, they are told that they are wrong or that they are insulting people. What if it just a different point of view simply because of what surgery means to them. To me, it means to fix something and CI surgery is a surgery so therefore CI surgery has the purpose of fixing deafness.

Not about parents' view on CI surgery.
Click to expand...

But how do you have a discussion about childhood implantation without parents?
 
faire_jour said:
But Grendel is providing access to ASL as well. It doesn't just magically happen when a child is deaf. For the child to learn ASL, the parents must work their butts off to provide that. It is an intervention too.
Click to expand...

Still not paying attention, I see. That was my point. The child had access to language through ASL. The CI provided access to spoken language. So saying that she would not have access to language without a CI is a bit of a stretch.

BTW...might want to try following your own demands. I addressed this question to GrendelQ. I would prefer that you not answer for her.
 
faire_jour said:
Are you saying that kids with CI's aren't deaf?
Click to expand...

Yes and No. That's a very complicated and debatable issue coming from the deaf community.

But, at the same time, it doesn't mean that it takes away the "nature" of what they are born with.

Yiz
 
jillio said:
Still not paying attention, I see. That was my point. The child had access to language through ASL. The CI provided access to spoken language. So saying that she would not have access to language without a CI is a bit of a stretch.

BTW...might want to try following your own demands. I addressed this question to GrendelQ. I would prefer that you not answer for her.
Click to expand...

She didn't say her child couldn't access language with the CI, she said she couldn't without intervention.
 
faire_jour said:
She didn't say her child couldn't access language with the CI, she said she couldn't without intervention.
Click to expand...

And she also spoke of "leaving the child as she was."

Again,this was a question posed to GrendelQ. I would prefer that she answer it. You are simply interjecting your perspective on something that you cannot fully answer. Again.
 
shel90 said:
The parents' are entitled to their view and so does the Deaf community. If we see something like CI surgery is a procedure to fix something, then why r we getting told we are wrong or insulting people? It is just how CI surgery are viewed and a majority of society sees deafness as broken ears when the Deaf community doesn't see it that way.

Nobody is putting any blame on anyone nor telling what parents should think ..just trying to get people to understand why we use that terminology.
Click to expand...

I understand this. And I agree that it's true in some cases: there are probably many people who think of deafness as broken ears and think that by popping on a CI they are no longer deaf. I want to counter that as much as you, I don't want my daughter seen as broken. And I don't want people thinking she's been 'fixed.'

But there are others who don't see it that way, who think of themselves as deaf, and yet still get CIs to add a channel through which they can access sound. There are parents who think that adding a CI is like adding French or Spanish to a child's curriculum to expand their means of communicating with more people, with more family members. That adding another language is not insulting to or repudiating their native study of English or Mandarin, but complements it. And that someone with only 1 language is not broken vs. someone with 2 languages.

I just think that this perspective that any parent who opts for a CI wants to fix his child and sees the child as broken is a generalization that doesn't apply to people on this board -- everyone here identifies as part of the deaf community, so much so that we even have some deaf-wannabe parents :) . But most of all Shel, I see the pain that this perspective causes you, and I don't want you to think that's my motivation, just as I would never want my child to feel the same. So I want to argue against it as much as I can, and keep the thought that this is everyone's motivation behind a CI from seeping into the community.
 
jillio said:
And she also spoke of "leaving the child as she was."

Again,this was a question posed to GrendelQ. I would prefer that she answer it. You are simply interjecting your perspective on something that you cannot fully answer. Again.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'm sure she'll be back. (And I bet we agree :D)
 
jillio said:
Wouldn't it be more specific to say that she would have had no access to spoken language? As you also were using ASL, she did have access to language prior to implant, just not spoken language.
Click to expand...

No. Do you see some way that she could have picked up ASL from her Chinese caretakers? Or from the sheets on her bedding at home? ASL is not incidental in most households. I very intentional meant any language.
 
GrendelQ said:
No. Do you see some way that she could have picked up ASL from her Chinese caretakers? Or from the sheets on her bedding at home? ASL is not incidental in most households. I very intentional meant any language.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. And so you provided ASL as access to language. So the CI, in addition, was to provide access to spoken language, was it not?
 
jillio said:
Exactly. She is refusing to see the fact that CI is an invasive surgery. And that has to be taken into account when looking at the perspective.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who has looked into getting a CI thinks there's not surgery involved, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's some kind of topical ointment or anything.

Is your argument with the idea that a parent would intervene in how a child would access language or is it just with allowing medical treatment for a child. Do you object to all other invasive medical processes such as vaccinations, prescription medicine, filling cavities, circumcision, removing tonsils, removing wisdom teeth, inserting ear tubes or is there some line of demarcation?
 
GrendelQ said:
I don't think anyone who has looked into getting a CI thinks there's not surgery involved, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's some kind of topical ointment or anything.

Is your argument with the idea that a parent would intervene in how a child would access language or is it just with allowing medical treatment for a child. Do you object to all other invasive medical processes such as vaccinations, prescription medicine, filling cavities, circumcision, removing tonsils, removing wisdom teeth, inserting ear tubes or is there some line of demarcation?
Click to expand...

:gpost::gpost:
 
Back
Top