Hearies view on a CI kid... its a bummer

[shel90]

And you Shel, do YOU?
do you understand what I wrote in my post to Cheri???


Fuzzy

Pls quote what u posted to Cheri cuz there are so many posts and I dont want to assume the wrong one.

 

[jillio]

Huh? So, u mean that children with CIs have free will to choose to be in both worlds while children without CIs dont have that? I was forced to grow up in the hearing world growing up and I dont have a CI. If I had the opportunity to explore the Deaf world, I would have had the free will to choose either one or to be in both. CI wouldnt have made anything different so that doesnt make sense.

Exactly. CI has nothing to do with it. Language philosophy and cutural implications of that is the deciding factor.

 

[shel90]

Exactly. CI has nothing to do with it. Language philosophy and cutural implications of that is the deciding factor.

Why am I getting the feeling that some members here are giving the impression that the quality of life of CI users are better than non CI users. I really seriously hate that kind of attitude!!!

 

[jillio]

Tsk, tsk, tsk no need to insult someone is there? After all, you are the one saying that you want to promote civil discussions?

I got the point, just showed it can be applied to a different philosophy, sorry if that offends you. Or do you think its permissible for only certain children to struggle?

Please re-read my post I said that we did not use AVT and you are wrong, my daughter was deafened prelingually, a fact I have stated many times.

I don't think its permissable for any deaf child to struggle with language...that was the whole point of the post.

Your child was implanted, but you provided no support services?

And you have said that your daughter was not born deaf. At what age did she loose her hearing? At what age was she aided? At what age did she receive her implant.

And, in applying my statement to a different philosophy, you used a faliicious comparison.

How is it that you interpret questions as insulting?

 

[jillio]

Jackie, shame on you! Have you forgotten that we are not allowed to speak about our children--only Jill is allowed to tell us about her child and her parenting skills.

Actually, the initial post is about some unidentified woman in a school. We are not even told what her position is. She is in fact, talking about an individual child with a cochlear implant.

It was you and the usual suspects who bootstrapped the comment into an indictment of all educators in the mainstream and in oral programs. So in fact, actually Jackie, as both an educator in an oral school and the parent of two children with cochlear implants, has a point of view that is the most credible on this issue. Instead of trying to prevent her from discussing her point of view, you should have asked her to expand upon it.
Rick

Jackie, I'm going to ask that you simply ignore this juvenile attempt to divide sides and start a war. We are having a productive discussion, and I have enjoyed your taking part in that. We can all learn from each other if we manage to keep an open mind. I think we have demonstrated that recently. You are not being disloyal to your philosophy by discussingthe issues openly.

 

[jillio]

And how does a child make that choice? A child, by virtue of being a child, cannot make that choice because the child lacks the maturity and intelligence required to make a well informed and reasoned decision to implant or not to implant.

That is why parents make that decision for their children.
Rick

The child can't make the choice if the parent refuses to provide the opportunity for choice. It has nothing to do with intelligence or maturity. If that were the case, numerous parents would be prevented from making choices for their chidlren.

 

[jillio]

Why am I getting the feeling that some members here are giving the impression that the quality of life of CI users are better than non CI users. I really seriously hate that kind of attitude!!!

Its that old attempt to divide up sides and start a war. All that accomplishes is lack of progress on real issues....realistic perspectives and improved education. Best to ignore it.

 

[shel90]

Its that old attempt to divide up sides and start a war. All that accomplishes is lack of progress on real issues....realistic perspectives and improved education. Best to ignore it.

Not only that but if that is going to be the general attitude out there on children with CIs, that is going to do a lot of injustice to those who dont have CIs. The point is the public needs to stop obsessing with equalizing one's ability to hear to one's ability to lead a successful and productive life. No wonder deaf ed is screwed up! :rl:

 

[jillio]

Not only that but if that is going to be the general attitude out there on children with CIs, that is going to do a lot of injustice to those who dont have CIs. The point is the public needs to stop obsessing with equalizing one's ability to hear to one's ability to lead a successful and productive life. No wonder deaf ed is screwed up! :rl:

Exactly, I agree with you 100%. The point is that improving auditory status does not achieve equality in education. Improved opportunity does, and improved opportunity is achieved by utilizing the accommodations that allow access.

If you'll notice through out this thread, the attitude of CI=more success is in the minority. We've been able to have a discussion of the issues of improved opportunity and equal access to quality education whether the child is implanted or not. While there are still those that are very pro childhood implantation, we have all been able to find a point of agreement....that the deaf child should optimally be exposed to both languages and provided everything that could make even a samll amount of differnce in academic and personal achievement. It just seems that the flaming posts are more reaction producing. And that is exactly why they are made. To provoke retalitory attacks so it can be pointed out how unreasonable and insulting we are. Don't let 'em get to you. Its not worth it.

 

[rick48]

I don't think its permissable for any deaf child to struggle with language...that was the whole point of the post."

Neither do I and that is why I agreed with you.

"Your child was implanted, but you provided no support services?"

So we are on the same page, what do you mean by "support services"?

"And you have said that your daughter was not born deaf."

Many, many times.

" At what age did she loose her hearing?"

Ten months from meninngitis

"At what age was she aided?"

Thirteen months

"At what age did she receive her implant."

2 and a half

"And, in applying my statement to a different philosophy, you used a faliicious comparison."

Nope

"How is it that you interpret questions as insulting?

Is was not the questions I found insulting but your comment that I "do not understand, as usual". Which in addition to being insulting was wrong on both counts.

So, do you want to argue or discuss--your choice.

Rick

 

[shel90]

Exactly, I agree with you 100%. The point is that improving auditory status does not achieve equality in education. Improved opportunity does, and improved opportunity is achieved by utilizing the accommodations that allow access.

If you'll notice through out this thread, the attitude of CI=more success is in the minority. We've been able to have a discussion of the issues of improved opportunity and equal access to quality education whether the child is implanted or not. While there are still those that are very pro childhood implantation, we have all been able to find a point of agreement....that the deaf child should optimally be exposed to both languages and provided everything that could make even a samll amount of differnce in academic and personal achievement. It just seems that the flaming posts are more reaction producing. And that is exactly why they are made. To provoke retalitory attacks so it can be pointed out how unreasonable and insulting we are. Don't let 'em get to you. Its not worth it.

I think it is more of the fact that their posts reminded me of the general attitude out there that I have been dealing with when it comes to CIs. There is this underlying message that getting a CI would improve lives of many deaf children. This thread was started about the same thing anyway.

Thanks for the words of encouragement.

 

[rick48]

The child can't make the choice if the parent refuses to provide the opportunity for choice. It has nothing to do with intelligence or maturity. If that were the case, numerous parents would be prevented from making choices for their chidlren.

OK, explain how a parent provides the opportunity for choice to a 2 and a half year old for that child to make a mature, well informed and reasoned decision whther or not to receive a cochlear implant.

 

[jillio]

I think it is more of the fact that their posts reminded me of the general attitude out there that I have been dealing with when it comes to CIs. There is this underlying message that getting a CI would improve lives of many deaf children. This thread was started about the same thing anyway.

Thanks for the words of encouragement.

I know. It is just eveidence that the attitude people keep telling us doesn't exist is alive and well.:rl:

 

[rick48]

Cheri, before I start commenting on your replies ANSWER THIS, please:

Do you understand what that means:

Do you understand that there is practically NO POINT in implanting born deaf a child PAST the age of THREE?



Fuzzy

Fuzzy,

I agree with you that the closer a parent chooses to implant their child to the onset of that child's deafness, the greater the probablility there will be that the child will receive more benefits from the implant. However, I would not go so far as to say that there is practically no point in implanting a child born deaf past the age of three for I know many kids who fall into that category who are doing very well with their implants.

I do agree with you that to deny your child a cochlear implant under the pretense that the child can make decision for themselves later, is for all intents and purposes, a bogus one. A child who waits until his teens or early adulthood to have an implant will most probably derive no benefit from the implant and certainly not the benefits he would have gotten had he been implanted years earlier.
Rick

 

[jillio]

OK, explain how a parent provides the opportunity for choice to a 2 and a half year old for that child to make a mature, well informed and reasoned decision whther or not to receive a cochlear implant.

Why? You wouldn't be able to understand the explanation.

 

[rick48]

I think it is more of the fact that their posts reminded me of the general attitude out there that I have been dealing with when it comes to CIs. There is this underlying message that getting a CI would improve lives of many deaf children. This thread was started about the same thing anyway.

Thanks for the words of encouragement.

You are a proponent of a deaf child being exposed to both a manual and a spoken language. For the profoundly deaf child who does not derive any benefits from HAs what better method is there for that child to have meaningful exposure to a spoken language than a ci?

If the ci then allows that profoundly deaf child the ability to acquire spoken language in addition to the manual one, how then has the cochlear implant not improved the life of that child?
Rick

 

[rick48]

Why? You wouldn't be able to understand the explanation.

You know, I could say something very nasty and sarcastic but there is no need to lower myself to your level for it will never top your response above as proving to everyone what I have known about you all along.

Thanks, people like you always show their true colors in the end.

 

[jillio]

You know, I could say something very nasty and sarcastic but there is no need to lower myself to your level for it will never top your response above as proving to everyone what I have known about you all along.

Thanks, people like you always show their true colors in the end.

Take a Midol, dude.

 

[rick48]

Take a Midol, dude.

Nah you don't give me a headache just a laugh as you prove me right everytime. Well, just going to grab me a cold Bud and watch the end of the Yankees game.

 

[shel90]

You are a proponent of a deaf child being exposed to both a manual and a spoken language. For the profoundly deaf child who does not derive any benefits from HAs what better method is there for that child to have meaningful exposure to a spoken language than a ci?

If ci then allows that profoundly deaf child the ability to acquire spoken language in addition to the manual one, how then has the cochlear implant not improved the life of that child?
Rick

With the assumption that manuel meaning ASL. I was given the opportunity to learn it growing up. Finally learned it at 28 years old. That doesnt make me a proponent of a deaf child being exposed to both. I was denied exposure to Deaf culture cuz the specialists told me that I was too smart for them and didnt need ASL so I believed them. That was very unethical of them and I wish I knew what I know now back then cuz I would have reported them.

If the CI is the only thing capable of allowing the profoundly deaf children the ability to acquire spoken language then why were many profoundly deaf people without CIs, like me, were able to acquire spoken language and many implanted children not able to acquire spoken language? I think it all depends on the children themselves not the device but for those who have the mechanics to acquire spoken language, then the CI would make it easier, sure but not improve their lives. It is all about how one views him/herself.