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

[rick48]

You are wrong about me, Don't assume me of being anti-CI, I've said this more than thousand times that I'm against implant on children/babies, not the implant itself. Understand the differences?

A abused baby can smile on camera too, pictures don't always tell that this child or person is happy. Don't be so naive.

So a child with a cochlear implant is an abused child? Yes or no.

And if yes, then that child's parents are child abusers? Yes or no.

 

[fredfam1]

CI manufacturers make profits (no different to HA manufacturers) but surgeons, hospitals and audies lose money on CIs. They are no more evil than other medical professionals.



Audies also work with hearing aids as well and who's to say they don't make a profit on them when they sell them? Most of us here had to trial hearing aids before we could qualify for a CI and in some cases, audies push hearing aids more than CIs. The reason for the return visits for the CI as explained to you before is because the CI has to be reprogrammed several times. There is no dark, evil purpose to squeeze money out of us, it's just the way it is.

I did not mean to imply that there is some evil plot out there. And there are many people who are helped by CI. AND what ever a parent chooses for their
child is their choice. My parents made choices I would not have made involving me, but it did make me who I am today. And I like me. However there is NOTHING done in research for alturistic reasons. Someone, somewhere is makeing money off the thing. And
Deaf people as well as Hearing people need to look at all aspects of the issue issue in order to not be manipulated.

My mother was told that she needed a heart valve. She trusted her doctor
and had the surgery. Now we are told that with the problem she had it is
possible she could have, with excellent nutrition, and physical therapy lived
out her normal life span. But what have the "experts" given us instead? Forever she must take blood thinners to prevent clots but that has side effects. Forever she is a high risk for surgeries, if she breaks anything or needs dental surgery. Forever her nutritional status is compromised
because she must keep certain vitamins like K low in order to prevent clots.
But low vitamin K prevents fracture healing. I could go on and on. If she had
gotten another opinion she may have made a different choice. Maybe not. But the choice was hers and there are consequences with any surgery.
Buyer Beware, and be on guard to keep from having your emotions manipulated because your babies are involved.

 

[rick48]

Remember, your daughter did not have AVT. She had speech and language therapy. You are attempting to extrapolate on something you have never even used, or been exposed to. Give it up. This is nothing more than a thinly disquised attempt to manipulate jackie back into thinking that you are on her side.

Oh why don't you just sit on it. I do not care whether Jackie is on my "side" or not. This is not a game and we are not five year olds asking people to choose one person or the other.

You are right, we did not use AVT as Jackie did, rather we used primarily an auditory-oral approach but if you knew anything about either Spoken Language approach then you would know that the common factor in either approach is to talk, talk, talk to your child and then talk some more.

That is what we did to our daughter and apparently what Jackie and her husband did to their children and that is why we understand exactly what the other one is saying and you do not.

 

[rick48]

I agree,shel It is nothing short of cruel.

Then why did you allegedly choose it for your son? And since AVT requires parental involvement why did you participate in the sessions? Exactly how many years did you subject your son to this form of "cruel" therapy?

 

[R2D2]

I did not mean to imply that there is some evil plot out there. And there are many people who are helped by CI. AND what ever a parent chooses for their
child is their choice. My parents made choices I would not have made involving me, but it did make me who I am today. And I like me. However there is NOTHING done in research for alturistic reasons. Someone, somewhere is makeing money off the thing. And
Deaf people as well as Hearing people need to look at all aspects of the issue issue in order to not be manipulated.

I agree, I am all for informed choice and education about all the issues and viewpoints involved with cochlear implantation and there is difficulty with people (deaf and hearing) getting accurate information because all sources have bias and contamination depending on their viewpoint. For example, I am positive about CIs because I've had a positive experience with hearing, so to some degree I'm biased and someone researching CIs should not just talk to me. Whereas another person who believes that CIs for example, is a subtle form of eugenics, is also not appropriate as the sole information source about CIs, because their viewpoint is biased as well.

So to get an overall picture, a person needs to extensively research to get all the facts.

The difficulty is though is when people present incorrect information as if they were facts. It's hard and confusing for the reader to know what is true and what isn't.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

So what I'm hearing, is that since CI's improve the quality of life,

You WAS hearing and now you can hear with the help from CI.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I do understand the window opportunity but not every child can do the same amount as another child with implant. Every person is different, so please remind yourself don't expect so much out of cochlear implant, just the same goes for hearing aids.

Yes I know what you are talking about *sigh* I repeated the same thing here and other CI threads that each person is different and have different moviation, not CI and HA itself. Some people still can't get it but they think we can't get it... The problem is we talk different as them.

Some people would want to hear but on the other hand there are some people who don't think it is even necessary to hear in order to have a successful language development, Deaf people can have a successful language development without the need of use of cochlear implant. I for one don't think it is necessary for me to hear. It's a choice, Do you want to hear or you don't.

Exactly! I am for language development, not hear development.

If you think having hearing is so important to you, then why don't you get a cochlear implant.

If I remember correctly that she was denied for want to have CI in some CI threads but she stated other general thread that she suffer severe migraine and afraid to go for CI. *shrug*

 

[flip]

wow, I didn´t know that you are anti-CI. I thought you are neutral to CI issues like rest of us accord your posts. Only 2 anti-CI person, I know is sweetmind and Kaslista but I didn´t know that you are also, too.

It doesn´t mean that I am anti-CI because I am against CI on babies/toddler and beleive to support child/adult´s choice.

Ok, it makes three anti-CI'ers here then My point with beeing against CI is to make people aware that there exists an rational and philosophical standpoint against CI. This standpoint comes from the discourse on "neturality of technology". For exaple, many in the western countries belives information technology-aid to places in central and east africa is a way to help them out of poverty. The success of this kind of aid have not been significant, and we can ask questions like "did those africaans wanted this ICT themselves? Was they involved in an dicussion on what they need? Are ICT the backbone and a tool of expanding capitalism/imperalism?" and so on. I belive we can apply the same dicussion to CI and deaf people. Many people do, and also know hearies that have promoted this view. I think this view will be one to consider, when goverment tries to save money in a global economical regression, like the UK goverment does right now, evaluating if it's really necessary to implant all those kids.

And, I enjoy beeing around people with CI(and without, too), and really have nothing agaist the device only itself, or people enjoying it.

Hope this clarified my standpoint!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

So a child with a cochlear implant is an abused child? Yes or no.

And if yes, then that child's parents are child abusers? Yes or no.

I don't know if your question refer to Cheri only or everyone here in general?

I was like :roll: to see some hearing people accused deaf people for abuse their deaf babies for deny CI techology. Anyway, I can't answer on your both questions because I didn't know you well enough. Let someone to answer your questions when they know your posts more than me. (I didn't visit CI threads for a long time until last month).

I would say there're form of abuse if the hearing parents deny to expose their deaf children into their own world, example: learn sign, learn to understand, mix with all children etc. but re-implant their deaf children because their old CI doesn't work and "fix" them because they should be hearing like their parents.

I would not say it's abuse if the hearing parents decide for CI and expose their children into their own world, learn sign for their children, etc.

I would like to ask you a general question and like to have your POV on this...


A Cat with Cochlear Implants «
Some former ADers made their comments in those links... Interesting...

Anyway, did you know that the youngest patient who first receive CI in the world is 2 babies between 4 or 5 months old in Germany in 2004.


What do you think of this?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Ok, it makes three anti-CI'ers here then My point with beeing against CI is to make people aware that there exists an rational and philosophical standpoint against CI. This standpoint comes from the discourse on "neturality of technology". For exaple, many in the western countries belives information technology-aid to places in central and east africa is a way to help them out of poverty. The success of this kind of aid have not been significant, and we can ask questions like "did those africaans wanted this ICT themselves? Was they involved in an dicussion on what they need? Are ICT the backbone and a tool of expanding capitalism/imperalism?" and so on. I belive we can apply the same dicussion to CI and deaf people. Many people do, and also know hearies that have promoted this view. I think this view will be one to consider, when goverment tries to save money in a global economical regression, like the UK goverment does right now, evaluating if it's really necessary to implant all those kids.

And, I enjoy beeing around people with CI(and without, too), and really have nothing agaist the device only itself, or people enjoying it.

Hope this clarified my standpoint!

Yes I can understand your point...

Read those link, I provide in my response post toward Rick48. I think you would interesting. that's why I don't support CI on babies/toddlers until the child itself decides.

I rather to wear HA on babies because they are risk-free.

 

[R2D2]

Ok, it makes three anti-CI'ers here then My point with beeing against CI is to make people aware that there exists an rational and philosophical standpoint against CI. This standpoint comes from the discourse on "neturality of technology". For exaple, many in the western countries belives information technology-aid to places in central and east africa is a way to help them out of poverty. The success of this kind of aid have not been significant, and we can ask questions like "did those africaans wanted this ICT themselves? Was they involved in an dicussion on what they need? Are ICT the backbone and a tool of expanding capitalism/imperalism?" and so on. I belive we can apply the same dicussion to CI and deaf people. Many people do, and also know hearies that have promoted this view. I think this view will be one to consider, when goverment tries to save money in a global economical regression, like the UK goverment does right now, evaluating if it's really necessary to implant all those kids.

And, I enjoy beeing around people with CI(and without, too), and really have nothing agaist the device only itself, or people enjoying it.

Hope this clarified my standpoint!

Thanks for explaining and it's an interesting viewpoint. That would include all other devices, including hearing aids as well, I presume? Oh well, the greater range of views on here the more stimulating the discussion

 

[Maria]

Yes I can understand your point...

Read those link, I provide in my response post toward Rick48. I think you would interesting. that's why I don't support CI on babies/toddlers until the child itself decides.

I rather to wear HA on babies because they are risk-free.

I agree. I would do the same as you.

 

[jillio]

But why force those at the higher end of hearing losses to struggle with hearing aids? Hearing aids don't work very well for the profoundly deaf as you well know. My nephew tried them and then stopped by the time he was four. The CI is only designed for people with losses at that end of the spectrum, it's not meant to be interchangeable with hearing aids.

When my hearing loss increased I suppose I could have continued to wear a hearing aid, I mean it did amplify something but it sounded so distorted and it was painful too. I notice that quite a few ADer no longer wear hearing aids, basically because it does nothing for them and it's too much effort. I don't blame them! The CI takes so much hard work out of hearing compared to HAs at the hearing loss that I had.

I'm not attempting to force anyone to do anything, R2D2. Just bring out a little honesty in the discussion. Is the motivation simply to provide sound perception, or is it to provide sound percpetion leading to spoken language? When someone says that their motivation was nothing more than to allow their child to hear, but then contiunually focuses on nothing more thanthat child's ability to speak, there is an incongruency in their claims. And the truth of the actual motivating factor carries many many messages regrading attitude.

I don't have a problem with you choosing CI, nor if my son ever chooses to have CI, would I have a problem with that. But you have a full understanding of theother implications,and a realistic perspective regarding your deafness, as does my son. My problem is when the choice is made by another under perhpas less than honest motivation.

 

[jillio]

CI manufacturers make profits (no different to HA manufacturers) but surgeons, hospitals and audies lose money on CIs. They are no more evil than other medical professionals.



Audies also work with hearing aids as well and who's to say they don't make a profit on them when they sell them? Most of us here had to trial hearing aids before we could qualify for a CI and in some cases, audies push hearing aids more than CIs. The reason for the return visits for the CI as explained to you before is because the CI has to be reprogrammed several times. There is no dark, evil purpose to squeeze money out of us, it's just the way it is.

I hate to be so blunt about this, but if surgeons, audies and hospitals were loosing money on CI surgeries, they would not continue to promote and perform these surgeries at the rate they do. They have to make money in order to stay in business, and they are not going to continue a practice that puts hospital and private practice in danger of closing due to finanacial loss. And yes, HA users have appointments with audies. However, they do not have appointments at the same frequency as do CI users. One appointment=$100/per patient. Six appointments=$600/patient. Not that I am presenting those figures as actual costs, but simply using an arbitrarty amount to indicate that the number of appointments necessary increases income and is therefore a consideration. So which would an audie prefer....the patient who brings in less income, or the patient that brings in greater income?
There is a huge cost difference between hearing aids and the total cost of surgery and a new CI speech processor plus follow up visits. So making a comparison between the two is not quite fair. Having said that, we have the Let them Hear Foundation which fights insurance battles and manufacturers have donated to this. I believe that Advanced Bionics has donated CIs to overseas recipients as well.

Yes, there is a huge difference int he cost, and that is exactly my point. CI has the potential to provide a much greater profit margin for the practitioner. Why is it that you think the insurance companies are reluctant to pay for CI. It causes them to spend a greater amount, thus reducing their profit margin. Same situation in the reverse. And, inthe U.S., there are tax breaks for a manufacturer that donates devises, so that is a financial consideration as well.

 

[jillio]

CI manufacturers make profits (no different to HA manufacturers) but surgeons, hospitals and audies lose money on CIs. They are no more evil than other medical professionals.



Audies also work with hearing aids as well and who's to say they don't make a profit on them when they sell them? Most of us here had to trial hearing aids before we could qualify for a CI and in some cases, audies push hearing aids more than CIs. The reason for the return visits for the CI as explained to you before is because the CI has to be reprogrammed several times. There is no dark, evil purpose to squeeze money out of us, it's just the way it is.

I did not mean to imply that there is some evil plot out there. And there are many people who are helped by CI. AND what ever a parent chooses for their
child is their choice. My parents made choices I would not have made involving me, but it did make me who I am today. And I like me. However there is NOTHING done in research for alturistic reasons. Someone, somewhere is makeing money off the thing. And
Deaf people as well as Hearing people need to look at all aspects of the issue issue in order to not be manipulated.

My mother was told that she needed a heart valve. She trusted her doctor
and had the surgery. Now we are told that with the problem she had it is
possible she could have, with excellent nutrition, and physical therapy lived
out her normal life span. But what have the "experts" given us instead? Forever she must take blood thinners to prevent clots but that has side effects. Forever she is a high risk for surgeries, if she breaks anything or needs dental surgery. Forever her nutritional status is compromised
because she must keep certain vitamins like K low in order to prevent clots.
But low vitamin K prevents fracture healing. I could go on and on. If she had
gotten another opinion she may have made a different choice. Maybe not. But the choice was hers and there are consequences with any surgery.
Buyer Beware, and be on guard to keep from having your emotions manipulated because your babies are involved.

Exactly, fredfam. I never implied a dark, eveil plot. Simply that motivations are not always honestly portrayed.

 

[Tousi]

I'm not attempting to force anyone to do anything, R2D2. Just bring out a little honesty in the discussion. Is the motivation simply to provide sound perception, or is it to provide sound percpetion leading to spoken language? When someone says that their motivation was nothing more than to allow their child to hear, but then contiunually focuses on nothing more thanthat child's ability to speak, there is an incongruency in their claims. And the truth of the actual motivating factor carries many many messages regrading attitude.

I don't have a problem with you choosing CI, nor if my son ever chooses to have CI, would I have a problem with that. But you have a full understanding of theother implications,and a realistic perspective regarding your deafness, as does my son. My problem is when the choice is made by another under perhpas less than honest motivation.

Just a quick question, Jillio. Don't hearing and speaking (to the extent learning how to doesn't impede the person's over-all development) go hand in hand?

 

[jillio]

Just a quick question, Jillio. Don't hearing and speaking (to the extent learning how to doesn't impede the person's over-all development) go hand in hand?

Not neccesarrily, and that is a mistake that is made when making the decision to implant. If one takes it only at face value, there would appear to be a poxitive correlation.....however, it does not hold up to closer scrutiny. There are those with HAs who have very poor perception in the speech range that have developed adequate speech skills, and there are those with CI who have increased perception in the speech ranges that are unable still to develop adequate speech skills. One does not always lead to the other.

 

[Tousi]

Not neccesarrily, and that is a mistake that is made when making the decision to implant. If one takes it only at face value, there would appear to be a poxitive correlation.....however, it does not hold up to closer scrutiny. There are those with HAs who have very poor perception in the speech range that have developed adequate speech skills, and there are those with CI who have increased perception in the speech ranges that are unable still to develop adequate speech skills. One does not always lead to the other.

Hmmmm, I'm having a hard time here....why wouldn't one's former poor speech skills improve now that, with the CI, one's auditory perception, thru hard work has improved, too?

 

[jillio]

Hmmmm, I'm having a hard time here....why wouldn't one's former poor speech skills improve now that, with the CI, one's auditory perception, thru hard work has improved, too?

Because hearing speech and producing speech are inter related, but are two separate functions. Just as an aphasic can understand what is being said from an auditory perspective, they cannot reproduce what it heard.

 

[Tousi]

Because hearing speech and producing speech are inter related, but are two separate functions. Just as an aphasic can understand what is being said from an auditory perspective, they cannot reproduce what it heard.

Ok, so why wouldn't one be able to produce the appropriate speech when one clearly can hear it?