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

[Liebling:-)))]

***psssttt*** Accord Alex, we should not talk about God/Jesus yet...

 

[Angel]

Hope everyone enjoyed the show....​

 

[Cloggy]

***psssttt*** Accord Alex, we should not talk about God/Jesus yet...

It's OK, we are talking about healing deafness....

 

[jillio]

Ah, I guess this is you being intelligent..
OK, I'll join you...

Existence of god: it has been proven that he does not exist.
Recall: 1 post was about that... then things move on.. Try to keep up...
Sticking to the topic: "Hearies view on a CI kid... its a bummer" vs "god heals".... yeh, let's stick to the topic.
Divert: No, just following your lead....

Just brainstorming here.....
EH, yes, jesus was brought up; healing deaf people. The argument is that in that case, god does not mind healing deafness. It can also imply that deafness is not a gift from god... Otherwise.... why take it away again..
This leads to the argument used by some people that "Deafness is a gift of god" and that you have to accept it. But... god heals deafness... The bible.... the exact word of god.. says it heals... so - it must be a desease, a handicap...

So you took away the argument that god wants deaf people to be deaf... He does not. He heals them.....

And, cloggy, you just stated that it has been proven that god does not exist. In light of that, the rest of your argument is moot. If god does not exist, god has nothing to do with anything, much less deafness. And, if god does not exist, he most certainly could not have been father to a son that healed deafness. Point, counterpoint.

 

[jillio]

What's with all the corners and "relpying" "yorself" etc...

Gracious recovery..... oh my god.... Eh, from what.?

Now take your red hair out of the corner of your mouth and write something constructive..

There you go agian....resorting to an attempt at sarcasm and personal attack when you run out of replies. Typical.

 

[Cheri]

Don't get me started on God now since you both brought that up to this topic. So, stop while you're ahead.

 

[fredfam1]

Why Early Implantation Works Better

Yes, I am aware of that, but again what does this have to do with language development? I'm not talking about speech, that's a whole different subject.

Have you noticed that there are some hearings out in the world who cannot read or write but they can hear.

Cheri maybe I can explain. Early implantation is necessary for OPTIMAL results. The brain has areas that are activated and developed from certain
stimuli. If there is no hearing, (detection of sound), if the sound waves or
vibrations do not reach that area of the brain, then that area does not
develope. Just like if you don't use a muscle it will not develope. The CI will "bridge the gap" and allow sound waves to reach that area of the brain
and stimulate it. If an implant is done later, the brain is not as flexible and
unable to process the information it is recieving.

I only explain the thinking and theory process here, not condone it. And
while I understand and support a parents decision to have this done I would
not do it to one of my children and I would not advise people to have it
done.

It does not help Language Aquisition. ASL does that much quicker and much better which is one reason I taught it to my children from birth even though we are all hearing. The CI facilitates the understanding and the
ability to use oral language, and allows the brain to process sound.

If I can further explain any of the above please ask.

 

[LTHFAdvocate]

Another philosophical argument that I will probably regret stepping into, but based on the derivation of my employer's name, I believe I have a unique perspective on this issue. Many times in the bible (and for the record, I am not religious, I am citing this as I would cite to a research article on PubMed) it says:

"Let He Who Has Ears, Let Him Hear"

(in a couple of places it says "an ear" as opposed to the plural "ears")

It does not say "let he who has a well-formed cochlea/functioning hair cells/8th cranial nerve" Let Him Hear. Therefore, one could interpret form this particular use of language that it is God's intent for people with ears to have functional hearing.

The name of the Let Them Hear Foundation derives from these scriptures. Our founder, a well known otologist and cochlear implant surgeon, believes he is following God's will by performing cochlear implants, so the recipients can hear the word of God. I will not debate the existence of God or any other religious issue related to this, I just want to point out why it is perfectly reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that cochlear implants are part of God's will.

Sheri

Where in the Bible does it say that God "cured a man from deafness in order to take away his disease and make him well?"

 

[jillio]

Another philosophical argument that I will probably regret stepping into, but based on the derivation of my employer's name, I believe I have a unique perspective on this issue. Many times in the bible (and for the record, I am not religious, I am citing this as I would cite to a research article on PubMed) it says:

"Let He Who Has Ears, Let Him Hear"

(in a couple of places it says "an ear" as opposed to the plural "ears")

It does not say "let he who has a well-formed cochlea/functioning hair cells/8th cranial nerve" Let Him Hear. Therefore, one could interpret form this particular use of language that it is God's intent for people with ears to have functional hearing.

The name of the Let Them Hear Foundation derives from these scriptures. Our founder, a well known otologist and cochlear implant surgeon, believes he is following God's will by performing cochlear implants, so the recipients can hear the word of God. I will not debate the existence of God or any other religious issue related to this, I just want to point out why it is perfectly reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that cochlear implants are part of God's will.

Sheri

That is, if one interprets the words in that particular book literally, which is a very dangerous thing. That volume is written in metaphor. And I think the discussion started over someone's claim that deafness was God's will.

And, the oralists thought they were following God's will, so that deaf people would be forced to speak in order to "confess" their sins and be saved fromthe damnation of hell. And we all know how much damage the oral philosophy has done to individuals within the deaf community.

 

[jillio]

Don't get me started on God now since you both brought that up to this topic. So, stop while you're ahead.

Sorry, Cheri. It was actually rick48 who brought it up in response to one of my posts, though, and then fuzzy resurrected it. I was jsut responding tothe questions posed to me. But I'll stop now.

 

[LTHFAdvocate]

Some of us also know how much good the oral philosophy has done for individuals in the deaf community. I personally am acquainted with over 1000 people who are thrilled to have cochlear implants. I have yet to do an appeal (almost 800 now and counting) for anyone who has gotten the implant and then said "you know what, I wish I could give it back" I get e-mails literally almost every single day from people telling me how my program (which appeals insurance denials for CIs and other hearing treatment) has changed their lives (or their children's lives) for the better, sometimes drastically better. I've had two people tell me that my winning their appeals and their getting treatment they were being denied stopped them from committing suicide. Explain to me how this constitutes "damage"?

sheri

And we all know how much damage the oral philosophy has done to individuals within the deaf community.

 

[jillio]

Some of us also know how much good the oral philosophy has done for individuals in the deaf community. I personally am acquainted with over 1000 people who are thrilled to have cochlear implants. I have yet to do an appeal (almost 800 now and counting) for anyone who has gotten the implant and then said "you know what, I wish I could give it back" I get e-mails literally almost every single day from people telling me how my program (which appeals insurance denials for CIs and other hearing treatment) has changed their lives (or their children's lives) for the better, sometimes drastically better. I've had two people tell me that my winning their appeals and their getting treatment they were being denied stopped them from committing suicide. Explain to me how this constitutes "damage"?

sheri

Well, for one, you are assuming that everyone with a CI subscribes to the oralist philosophy. That is far from correct.

Secondly, the oralist philosophy is the single most important variable in declining literacy rates and the undereducation of deaf children historically.

Perhaps you've missed the posts of a couple of posters here who have wished to have their implants removed.

For those that are happy with their implants, wonderful. I do not doubt that you provide a valuable service in your advocacy efforts. However, there are still those children who are unable to succeed in the oral environment despite implantation. It is not the implant that is at fault, it is the mistaken impression that an implant automatically translates to success in an oral environment.

You are confusing 2 issues here.......CI and oralism.

 

[fredfam1]

Another philosophical argument that I will probably regret stepping into, but based on the derivation of my employer's name, I believe I have a unique perspective on this issue. Many times in the bible (and for the record, I am not religious, I am citing this as I would cite to a research article on PubMed) it says:

"Let He Who Has Ears, Let Him Hear"

(in a couple of places it says "an ear" as opposed to the plural "ears")

It does not say "let he who has a well-formed cochlea/functioning hair cells/8th cranial nerve" Let Him Hear. Therefore, one could interpret form this particular use of language that it is God's intent for people with ears to have functional hearing.

The name of the Let Them Hear Foundation derives from these scriptures. Our founder, a well known otologist and cochlear implant surgeon, believes he is following God's will by performing cochlear implants, so the recipients can hear the word of God. I will not debate the existence of God or any other religious issue related to this, I just want to point out why it is perfectly reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that cochlear implants are part of God's will.

Sheri

Just for clarification I beleive this portion of Scripture would more accurately
mean: " any person have understand, allow him understand" MGBTI

 

[LTHFAdvocate]

Perhaps you've missed the posts of a couple of posters here who have wished to have their implants removed.

Maybe I'm not an oralist by your definition because I don't believe in ramming cochlear implants down people's throats if they don't want them. Perhaps you missed my post where I supported SmithTR in his implant removal, and even offered advice on his appeal to the Canadian government prior to his getting permission to have it removed. Clearly you missed the fact that my post stated that no one of the several hundred people *I've* worked with on an appeal in the past two years has wanted their implant removed once they got it. People who want something and can't get it work super-hard once they've got what they want. Maybe that's why there are no unsuccessful CI users amongst the hundreds of users whom I have helped get insurance approval for their implants.

No one at our clinic would ever be stupid enough to state that "an implant automatically translates to success in an oral environment" Our position is one implant (preferably two, when the circumstances warrant it) plus hard work, follow up therapy, and appropriate support services can lead to success in an oral environment.

My HI daughter and my hearing daughter both attended an oral school for the deaf. Every single CI user in my hearing daughter's 4 year old classroom got placed in mainstream kindergartens this fall, 50 % of them not requiring any support services. My HI daughter is now a junior at an extremely competitive high school, and does amazingly well. Not everyone struggles, not everyone fails.

Twelve years ago when we thought her hearing loss was going to progress more quickly than anyone would have liked, I inquired about learning sign language as a backup form of communication. We had the door slammed in our faces by every government agency we contacted, including the local ASL school, as well as every organization for the Deaf in our region. Apparently, we just weren't "deaf enough", because my daughter still had residual aided hearing, because I was not shy about my preference for her to receive a cochlear implant if her loss progressed to the profound level. I ended up paying out of pocket for the person who taught ASL at one of the local junior colleges to come to our house and give us private lessons. Today, my HI daughter, who is considered "hearing" by most of the deaf community, is the head of the sign language club at her high school.

 

[fredfam1]

Maybe I'm not an oralist by your definition because I don't believe in ramming cochlear implants down people's throats if they don't want them. Perhaps you missed my post where I supported SmithTR in his implant removal, and even offered advice on his appeal to the Canadian government prior to his getting permission to have it removed. Clearly you missed the fact that my post stated that no one of the several hundred people *I've* worked with on an appeal in the past two years has wanted their implant removed once they got it. People who want something and can't get it work super-hard once they've got what they want. Maybe that's why there are no unsuccessful CI users amongst the hundreds of users whom I have helped get insurance approval for their implants.

No one at our clinic would ever be stupid enough to state that "an implant automatically translates to success in an oral environment" Our position is one implant (preferably two, when the circumstances warrant it) plus hard work, follow up therapy, and appropriate support services can lead to success in an oral environment.

My HI daughter and my hearing daughter both attended an oral school for the deaf. Every single CI user in my hearing daughter's 4 year old classroom got placed in mainstream kindergartens this fall, 50 % of them not requiring any support services. My HI daughter is now a junior at an extremely competitive high school, and does amazingly well. Not everyone struggles, not everyone fails.

Twelve years ago when we thought her hearing loss was going to progress more quickly than anyone would have liked, I inquired about learning sign language as a backup form of communication. We had the door slammed in our faces by every government agency we contacted, including the local ASL school, as well as every organization for the Deaf in our region. Apparently, we just weren't "deaf enough", because my daughter still had residual aided hearing, because I was not shy about my preference for her to receive a cochlear implant if her loss progressed to the profound level. I ended up paying out of pocket for the person who taught ASL at one of the local junior colleges to come to our house and give us private lessons. Today, my HI daughter, who is considered "hearing" by most of the deaf community, is the head of the sign language club at her high school.

As always when humans are involved there can be discrimination on both sides of the fence. Perhaps your care and concern as a parent in providing
as many resources as you were able to for your daughter, will help her
to be one of those who bridge and repair the fences. I am glad you worked
so hard in advocation for her.

 

[R2D2]

Maybe I'm not an oralist by your definition because I don't believe in ramming cochlear implants down people's throats if they don't want them. Perhaps you missed my post where I supported SmithTR in his implant removal, and even offered advice on his appeal to the Canadian government prior to his getting permission to have it removed. Clearly you missed the fact that my post stated that no one of the several hundred people *I've* worked with on an appeal in the past two years has wanted their implant removed once they got it. People who want something and can't get it work super-hard once they've got what they want. Maybe that's why there are no unsuccessful CI users amongst the hundreds of users whom I have helped get insurance approval for their implants.

No one at our clinic would ever be stupid enough to state that "an implant automatically translates to success in an oral environment" Our position is one implant (preferably two, when the circumstances warrant it) plus hard work, follow up therapy, and appropriate support services can lead to success in an oral environment.

My HI daughter and my hearing daughter both attended an oral school for the deaf. Every single CI user in my hearing daughter's 4 year old classroom got placed in mainstream kindergartens this fall, 50 % of them not requiring any support services. My HI daughter is now a junior at an extremely competitive high school, and does amazingly well. Not everyone struggles, not everyone fails.

Twelve years ago when we thought her hearing loss was going to progress more quickly than anyone would have liked, I inquired about learning sign language as a backup form of communication. We had the door slammed in our faces by every government agency we contacted, including the local ASL school, as well as every organization for the Deaf in our region. Apparently, we just weren't "deaf enough", because my daughter still had residual aided hearing, because I was not shy about my preference for her to receive a cochlear implant if her loss progressed to the profound level. I ended up paying out of pocket for the person who taught ASL at one of the local junior colleges to come to our house and give us private lessons. Today, my HI daughter, who is considered "hearing" by most of the deaf community, is the head of the sign language club at her high school.

Wow!

I have to say I'm very thankful for my CI.

 

[LTHFAdvocate]

Yeah, well, if you are an insurance company or a school district I am the *last* person you want to come up against in a dark alley (or a courtroom). In less than two years, our program has gotten 8 insurance companies representing 126 million insured Americans to change their policies to include coverage for bilateral implants. Plus we've gotten huge companies like Sun Microsystems, 7-Eleven, Clear Channel, T-Mobile, Harrahs, Conseco, KLA-Tencor, UPS, etc. etc. (over 30 total) to drop cochlear implant exclusions from their health insurance plans.

Sheri

 

[jillio]

Maybe I'm not an oralist by your definition because I don't believe in ramming cochlear implants down people's throats if they don't want them. Perhaps you missed my post where I supported SmithTR in his implant removal, and even offered advice on his appeal to the Canadian government prior to his getting permission to have it removed. Clearly you missed the fact that my post stated that no one of the several hundred people *I've* worked with on an appeal in the past two years has wanted their implant removed once they got it. People who want something and can't get it work super-hard once they've got what they want. Maybe that's why there are no unsuccessful CI users amongst the hundreds of users whom I have helped get insurance approval for their implants.

No one at our clinic would ever be stupid enough to state that "an implant automatically translates to success in an oral environment" Our position is one implant (preferably two, when the circumstances warrant it) plus hard work, follow up therapy, and appropriate support services can lead to success in an oral environment.

My HI daughter and my hearing daughter both attended an oral school for the deaf. Every single CI user in my hearing daughter's 4 year old classroom got placed in mainstream kindergartens this fall, 50 % of them not requiring any support services. My HI daughter is now a junior at an extremely competitive high school, and does amazingly well. Not everyone struggles, not everyone fails.

Twelve years ago when we thought her hearing loss was going to progress more quickly than anyone would have liked, I inquired about learning sign language as a backup form of communication. We had the door slammed in our faces by every government agency we contacted, including the local ASL school, as well as every organization for the Deaf in our region. Apparently, we just weren't "deaf enough", because my daughter still had residual aided hearing, because I was not shy about my preference for her to receive a cochlear implant if her loss progressed to the profound level. I ended up paying out of pocket for the person who taught ASL at one of the local junior colleges to come to our house and give us private lessons. Today, my HI daughter, who is considered "hearing" by most of the deaf community, is the head of the sign language club at her high school.

Once again, you are confusing 2 issues. Oralism and implantation. Oralism has nothing todo with "shoving implants down anyone's throat".

Perhaps the door was slammed in your face because you approached sign as "back-up communication."

CI is not a prerequisite for oralism, nor vice versa.

My son had residual aided hearing; the deaf school accpeted his enrollment gladly, as it did the CI users who also used sign.

And success can be achieved in an oral environment without CI given all of the variables you cited.

However, research has shown, and continues to show,that as a group, the highest achievers academically are those deaf children with CI that are exposed to both sign and speech on a consistent basis.

 

[R2D2]

Well, for one, you are assuming that everyone with a CI subscribes to the oralist philosophy. That is far from correct.

Secondly, the oralist philosophy is the single most important variable in declining literacy rates and the undereducation of deaf children historically.

How would you explain underachievement in non oral programs because it does happen? My nephew's school is a "bilingual" school and he was the very first child in the school's history to achieve a national exam result that is standard in mainstream hearing schools. He also lost many of his friends, from culturally Deaf families who were transferred to a well thought of oral residential school by their parents because of the poor standard at that school.

And then on the other hand, we have Shel's accounts of the poor oral program in the public schools there where she lives and kids are coming to her school in droves.

I don't think all programs whatever "ism" they are, are created equal. Some are underfunded, some are taken over by extremists or idealists, some are not staffed by suitably qualified teachers and so on. Every program has to be examined on its own merits. I know that you for example, moved a considerable distance to get to a good Bi Bi program, you would not have just taken any old one and I think this is true of any program.

 

[jillio]

How would you explain underachievement in non oral programs because it does happen? My nephew's school is a "bilingual" school and he was the very first child in the school's history to achieve a national exam result that is standard in mainstream hearing schools. He also lost many of his friends, from culturally Deaf families who were transferred to a well thought of oral residential school by their parents because of the poor standard at that school.

And then on the other hand, we have Shel's accounts of the poor oral program in the public schools there where she lives and kids are coming to her school in droves.

I don't think all programs whatever "ism" they are, are created equal. Some are underfunded, some are taken over by extremists or idealists, some are not staffed by suitably qualified teachers and so on. Every program has to be examined on its own merits. I know that you for example, moved a considerable distance to get to a good Bi Bi program, you would not have just taken any old one and I think this is true of any program.

I agree with you 100% that there are variances in any program. I was speaking from an historical perspective, and an overall view of the peaks and valleys that have been seen in the education of deaf children over time.

Unfortunately, deaf ed, at least in States, as that is my experience, has been convoluted and distorted to the point that many programs claim to adhere to a specific philosphy, but it practice, do not. Right now, particularly inthe mainstream, kids get a hodge podge. The push for inclusion and mainstreaming without insuring that first there are qualified educators to address those students who are coming into the classrooms adds further complication. Add to that social attitudes and parental attitudes and you have the mess we are dealing with currently.