i saw in a article

[Grummer]

The choice to implant is also life altering and must be made without consulting the child.


Don you think it's a violation of some sort ? does it depends where you live?
and also

there was no consideration what so ever on how a child is feeling about all this......


Id stay away from ethics - too complex
however,

dont you think something's missing , or rather, HIDDEN ?
like

loaded questions would engineer the desired response to get 'permission'

to perform the implantation, as well as to 'affirm' to wind up parents into making a commitment.....

what do you make of that?
i dont expect this threads to last long for any usefulness to me, so a quick reply is good, but I am not going to get into debates right now, or in this hread,
whole point of my started this thread with a question of denying the rights of a child to be asked what they feel, think .......Especially its a major surgey, with major commitment entailed, so for that reason alone, i found it's strange to by-pass the child completely.
Ok you may say, even parents dont ask the child if they happy with a glasses to wear, since they Need it, to see, ready, watch tv, so in same vain similar can be said abotu cochlear implants, bu then its not
for its a WHOLE slew of oralist tradition as part of the package... that again it seems unfair for the child to be subjected to countless minutes, hours, and days, months, even years just to commit to the drills in order to be 'normalise' or rather, "hearing-ised"

must go now,
cheers

Grum

 

[Kaitin]

I would LOVE full text of these but I only found abstract:

Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: a review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective.

Lane H, Bahan B.

Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

This article examines ethical dilemmas related to cochlear implant surgery in children. These dilemmas arise from the existence of a linguistic and cultural minority called the Deaf World. Organizations of culturally Deaf adults in the United States and abroad, as well as the World Federation of the Deaf, have, on ethical grounds, strongly criticized the practice of cochlear implant surgery in children. Three ethical dilemmas are examined. (1) The surgery is of unproven value for the main significant benefit sought, language acquisition, whereas the psychological, social, and linguistic risks have not been assessed. Thus the surgery appears to be innovative, but innovative surgery on children is ethically problematic. (2) It is now widely recognized that the signed languages of the world are full-fledged natural languages, and the communities that speak those languages have distinct social organizations and cultures. Deaf culture values lead to a different assessment of pediatric cochlear implant surgery than do mainstream (hearing) values, and both sets of values have standing. (3) The fields of otology and audiology want to provide cochlear implants to Deaf children but also, their leaders say, want to protect Deaf culture; those appear to be conflicting goals in principle because, if there were perfect implants, the ranks of the Deaf World would diminish.

---

Informed parental consent for cochlear implantation of young deaf children: social and other considerations in the use of the 'bionic ear'.

Hyde M, Power D.

School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia.

This paper examines the social parameters surrounding the management of informed consent procedures for the parents of young deaf children for the surgical fitting of a cochlear implant ('bionic ear') to their child. Although most observers of this remarkable and well publicised medical development only see benefits in its use, the authors examine the nature of the conflict which has emerged between medical and media portrayals of the 'miracle' device and contrasting social, cultural and linguistic views of many Deaf people. The paper analyses the components of parental consent procedures for surgical implantation of their child, covering the risk-benefit analysis and, in particular, the information base that is provided for parents about the social construction of a 'Deaf life' by many Deaf people.

"Bionic ear"?

---

Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal - Volume 7, Number 3, September 1997, pp. 231-251

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Harlan Lane and Michael Grodin - Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7:3 Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7.3 (1997) 231-251 Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child Harlan Lane and Michael Grodin Abstract. This paper examines ethical issues related to medical practices with children and adults who are members of a linguistic and cultural minority known as the DEAF-WORLD. Members of that culture characteristically have hearing parents and are treated by hearing professionals whose values, particularly concerning language, speech, and hearing, are typically quite different from their own. That disparity has long fueled a debate on several ethical issues, most recently the merits of cochlear implant surgery for DEAF children. We explore whether that surgery would be ethical if implants could deliver close to normal hearing for most implanted children, thereby diminishing the ranks of the DEAF-WORLD. The ethical implications of eugenic practices with the DEAF are explored, as are ethical quandaries in parental surrogacy for DEAF children, and their parallels in transracial adoption. Conventional wisdom in medicine assumes that deaf children have a serious sensory impairment that gives rise to a disability and to social, educational, and linguistic..

---

Can't get abstract even, but the title is so interesting:

A comparison between parents of children with cochlear implants and parents of children with hearing aids regarding parental distress and treatment expectations. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Volume 67, Issue 9, Pages 947-955. C. Spahn

---

Some Ethical Dimensions of Cochlear Implantation for Deaf Children and Their Families
Merv Hyde and Des Power

A major source of controversy between Deaf people and those who support a "social/cultural" view of Deafness as "a life to be lived" and those who see deafness within a "medical model" as a "condition to be cured" has been over the cochlear implantation of young deaf children. Recent research has shown that there are noticeable inequities in access to such procedures in western countries; inequities that give rise to the need for informed public policy discussions. It has also found that parents of newly diagnosed deaf children are not provided with access to all the possibilities for their children—including that of a "Deaf life." How this information can be provided to parents and the public via widespread discussions in the media and elsewhere and involving Deaf people in the implantation counseling process is an issue that needs to be addressed by those responsible for implantation programs.

(full text available)

Maybe underline and bold sentence, Grummer?

---

Cochlear Implants in Young Children: Informed Consent as a Process and Current Practices

Purpose: This study examined the types of information that pediatric cochlear implant (PCI) centers and teams provide to parents of deaf children and the extent to which the informed consent process extends beyond medical issues to include social and cultural aspects. A second purpose was to determine the extent to which centers are applying selected new practices in cochlear implantation: younger age at implantation and bilateral implantation. -
Conclusions: Audiologists are the only nonsurgical professionals always represented on the cochlear implant team. In order to best prepare audiologists for this role, graduate audiology programs need to address more extensively the Deaf culture and perspective, as well as genetics of hearing loss. Increased attention to educational audiology and evidence-based research regarding best age to implant and bilateral implantation needs to be included in the discussion with parents. Audiologists play a crucial role in informing parents and coordinating care, and should therefore carefully consider their role in the informed consent process.

(Full text available)

---

Pediatric Cochlear Implants: The Great Debate

The rise and refinement of the cochlear implant, a device meant to correct for sensorineural hearing loss in prelingually deaf children, has faced much debate and criticism. The controversy over this corrective technology has revealed a significant social divide between the hearing and the non-hearing parents of these deaf children. While the hearing parents welcome the implant as an exciting new medical remedy for their children’s deafness, the non-hearing parents reject the implant as a tool of discrimination. The source of this divide seems to lie in two very different operative paradigms for deafness: the pathological and the sociocultural. The hearing parents’ pathological view places deafness as an auditory deficit meant to be repaired, while the non-hearing parents view deafness as a sociocultural identity. Understanding these divergent social perspectives sheds light on the heavy controversy surrounding the cochlear implant and its hopes for future use.
-
The failure of these two camps to see eye-to-eye on the issue of cochlear implantation results from a distinct socio-cultural divide. The hearing and non-hearing parents possess two entirely incompatible views of deafness which prevent them from understanding each other’s perspective.
Furthermore, the Deaf Community resents the cochlear implant as a symbol of a paternalistic control over their society, a phenomenon which has been called “audism” (Hollins, 2000: 183). For the Deaf Community the
cochlear implant is simply another way for the hearing world to “dominate, restructure, and exercise authority over the deaf community,” (Hollins, 2000: 183) and perhaps even eventually uproot their culture. It would seem that as long as they regard deafness as a minority culture and the implant as the hearing majority’s tool of discrimination, there is little hope for agreement between the two camps of thought. Ultimately, a widespread acceptance of the cochlear implant must wait for a concrete resolution of the discord between the pathological and sociocultural categorizations of deafness. Without this social unification, the cultural gap between the hearing
and the deaf will remain an obstacle to treatment.




(full text available)

 

[Grummer]

thanks for that kaitin, thats' way plently, I managed to get 2 pdf's from you throught here Thanks, and have 2 other books, but still 'ethics' is something really not associated with the fact the child is a child, it is THEIR bodies they talking about.

Some of the sites annoying when they charge you ten bucks for one day to read article, how ludicrous

Hate to say, deaf culture, this and that, is getting boring its like not really getting results on how to change the procedure of counselling and the informed consent process. To confronting the medical sphere to INCLUDE deaf people (Deaf as well) to redress the information they disseminate to be balanced view. Like maybe adding a clause, to be legally bound that parents must are to see the consultants from or represent the Deaf community to discuss. (I admit this seems a pipedream)

thanks and thanks

 

[Tousi]

I think what's missing in the basic assertion here is the parents and their role, decision-making, etc....this is where it all starts.

 

[Kaitin]

thanks for that kaitin, thats' way plently, I managed to get 2 pdf's from you throught here Thanks, and have 2 other books, but still 'ethics' is something really not associated with the fact the child is a child, it is THEIR bodies they talking about.

Some of the sites annoying when they charge you ten bucks for one day to read article, how ludicrous

Hate to say, deaf culture, this and that, is getting boring its like not really getting results on how to change the procedure of counselling and the informed consent process. To confronting the medical sphere to INCLUDE deaf people (Deaf as well) to redress the information they disseminate to be balanced view. Like maybe adding a clause, to be legally bound that parents must are to see the consultants from or represent the Deaf community to discuss. (I admit this seems a pipedream)

thanks and thanks

YW, Grummer.

Agree about 10 bucks for one day.

Yes. I tried to find articles about "informed consent" with parents, not just "ethics". I wondered if parents know about deaf/HoH lives, community, culture, history and ASL before they decide for CIs. But I found little articles about these.

Nice pipedream, Grummer - I wish it reality instead.

I don't how to know parents have full information. Do parents talk with a deaf/HoH person without CIs? If the parents are hearing maybe they don't know anything about deaf/HoH and are afraid more than informed.

Tousi: Agree - a basic question is: should parents decide over deaf/HoH baby's body for CIs when CI can't be reversed and destroy any hearing? If so, what rules should be for making "informed consent"?

 

[Tousi]

Kaitin said/asked: Tousi: Agree - a basic question is: should parents decide over deaf/HoH baby's body for CIs when CI can't be reversed and destroy any hearing? If so, what rules should be for making "informed consent"?

Your question is very narrow and specific. Of course, the parents should decide. Who else should?

 

[Kaitin]

Kaitin said/asked: Tousi: Agree - a basic question is: should parents decide over deaf/HoH baby's body for CIs when CI can't be reversed and destroy any hearing? If so, what rules should be for making "informed consent"?

Your question is very narrow and specific. Of course, the parents should decide. Who else should?

You don't know the debate about CIs on babies?? The question is not other people deciding for babies (of course). It is: Should parents decide for their babies - at a very young age? I am not answering the question, just asking. A part is can parents have "informed consent" for the babies' CI surgery

From Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education: Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World

We know that early acquisition of ASL facilitates later mastery of English (Padden & Ramsey, 2000Go; Strong & Prinz, 1997Go). This linguistic intervention might deliver greater English mastery than implant surgery; the comparison study has not been done. On the contrary, every study that has compared the performance of children with cochlear implants to an unimplanted control group employed controls that apparently had not mastered any language (see, for example, the literature review in Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003Go).

Ethics of Childhood Implant Surgery.
Thus, the surgery remains innovative despite more than a decade of use because research on language benefit and its parameters is very much a work in progress (see, for example, Svirsky, Teoh, & Neuburger, 2004Go). Also, there is no body of knowledge on the effects of the implant on educational achievement, social identity, or psychological adjustment. Optional innovative surgery on children is ethically problematic (Lane & Grodin, 1997Go).

It is hard to see how the pediatric implant surgeon can obtain informed consent from the parent, acting as moral agent for their child. Among the requirements for informed consent are a description of risks, but the physician cannot explain the risks of disturbed psychological, social, and linguistic development because these have not been assessed by scientific research. Further, the surgeon must describe the benefits reasonably to be expected from pediatric cochlear implant surgery, but the variability of outcomes is so great that it is difficult to say what benefit any individual child will obtain. Of course, if the risks of cochlear implant surgery and its associated speech therapy and oral education outweigh the benefits, it should not be performed.

The ethical basis for the parent acting as surrogate for the child is predicated on the assumption that the surrogate knows the child or is close to his or her cultural or ethical values. The surrogate's choices should approximate what the patient would have wanted were he or she able to express a choice (Ramsey, 1970Go). Unfortunately, hearing parents often do not know the patient because they have lacked a common language with their Deaf child. In fact, most Deaf children would likely refuse that consent to surgery if they were old enough to decide. We infer that because Deaf adults who were once Deaf children but are now old enough to make a considered decision are overwhelmingly opposed to pediatric implant surgery. Numerous Deaf organizations worldwide and the World Federation of the Deaf have formally protested childhood implant surgery (Lane, 1994Go). The National Association of the Deaf in the United States takes the position that Deaf children are healthy babies; of course, surgery should not be performed on a healthy child. Their statement says in part:

Many within the medical profession continue to view deafness essentially as a disability and an abnormality and believe that deaf and hard of hearing individuals need to be ‘fixed’ by cochlear implants. This pathological view must be challenged and corrected by greater exposure to and interaction with well-adjusted and successful deaf and hard of hearing individuals. (National Association of the Deaf, 2000Go)


Google has many articles on ethics question of parents deciding CI surgery for babies.

 

[Tousi]

Of course, I know about the controversy. The fact remains that it is the parents' responsibility/decision, informed consent or not. I cannot foresee any laws passed that would change this. This is not a socialistic, or worse country. The government needs to stay out of this kind of thing.

 

[deafdyke]

Tousi,
I dont think anyone's advocating the government deciding whether or not you can implant a kid. Rather it's more of a "what about the kid? It's their body after all" sort of thing. I have mixed feelings about this.........If the kid's an obvious canidate (like in the case of auditory nereopathy), get the kid implanted. After all, if hearing aids aren't helping them........it's time to go to the next level! However in the grey area cases or the cases where the kid is a toddler............
I think that the parents should decide ALONG with the kid. And yes, I know that little kids can't really make good decisions, BUT it IS their body. I don't think that the parents should have the little kid decide, but on the other hand the parents could ask the kid if they wanted it in the first place.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

This is very interesting.
I think the problem lies mainly in pple going to extremes - be either completely deaf, or completely hearing.
For some reason exhausting the best of what both worlds has to offer seem to be not wanted.

Deaf pple are still living in a hearing world, a predominantly hearing world, and expecting hearing pple to accomodate to the deaf ways is simply unrealistic. There can only be done so much, it's unrealistic to think that for example hearing pple everywhere will start learning sign langauge for the deaf's convenience, or even remember things like putting up written signs or visual aids for them where it should be. Like for example CC in TVs, or Emergency instruction on the airplane, or even something as mundane as showing price amount at the check out counter to the client...

And this is why the deaf pple have to work extra hard to learn to live in the world, and yes it's seems not fair but there is nothing that can be done. If one has disability, one simply has to work extra hard. It's reality.
And that is why, IMO, it is logical for the deaf ppl to want to have the best of technology that is out there, and such is CI -not oppose it. Because it is useful in hearing world. On the other hand it is also worth to maintain and cultivate the deaf culture because after all is said and done, a deaf is a deaf is a deaf. With CI, HAs or whatever.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

DD:

I think that the parents should decide ALONG with the kid. And yes, I know that little kids can't really make good decisions, BUT it IS their body. I don't think that the parents should have the little kid decide, but on the other hand the parents could ask the kid if they wanted it in the first place.

Do you have children, Deafdyke? Parents have to make decisions for children until these are mature enough to think for themselves. And that takes a loooong time.
A parent will allow or not to have an ear pierced, let alone serious decisions that will have direct impact on child's life.

Fuzzy

 

[Tousi]

DD, the reference was specifically to babies and it's still the parents' responsibility/job/decision, etc...nobody else's. We can talk about all of the various issues, the do's and don'ts till the cows come home but at the end of the day, the parents decide. It was a simple question to what's really a complex, heavy duty, awesome undertaking for the parents.

 

[Grummer]

Hi DD, tousi, and Kaitin
yeah,
I have read an artile (I photocopied it from the library)
'the dilemma of pediatric cochlear implants'
by John B. Christiansen and Irene W. Leigh

It was a very good article to read, easy to digest and yet really gave a clear picture of what is happening today.

It seems ALOT of deaf kids are getting implanted at a very early age, on the reason they say is, the critical period of 'language acquisition' notice they never say much about Sign language -notice their emphasis is on spoken language.
We all know that the parents get very shocked with their discovery of their child being deaf especially in the first year of the child's life, so they become very hesitant about permittng the implant, they usually decide to go ahead, in the belief that it will lead to developement of better spoken language.
Some parents have uneasiness about implants so they decide make contact with the local deaf community to discuss their options. Only to find the experience unpleasent, sometimes so bad they get called child abusers, butchers. (what a way for deafies to really put them off sign language nesting, I wouldnt be so impressed with deafies giving out bad impressions with this 'Deaf protectionist mentality - im for it, but not in the way it's HANDLED )
I will quote here
One parent said "I can never see [my implanted daughter] not being dependent on an interpreter, if she's in a big auditorium with people, or even if she's sitting in the front row... to catch al of it, she's gonna need sign language." It may also appear somewhat surprising that many parents of children with implants still see their child as deaf after getting an implant"

Now I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is debatable, however for me, I think its both, (good for being realistic to know the deaf community is a real option but the bad thing is , the implants was no different to Hearing aids in overall effectiveness and for all the listeing and speech training drills. The drills are crueling and arduous also a wasteul of precious tie could be devoted to learning and socialising just as any ordinary child ought to have rights to. This is a reminisncent of the first wave oralism which lead up to the late 1970's or early 1980s - depending where it was. Point is those 'extra services' are provided for implantees, surely that's to keep them afloat, but also tells another story, its the same crap, but different smell. I would argue those extra helps aren't be need if oralism was abandoned.

On the lighter note, its nice to know these parents do and have overcame the fears of their child as being deaf/Deaf, even with implants, I guess they have this 'faith' in technology, while they are not exggerated about technology, it somewhat gave them reasons to commit to partake long speech lessons with their young.

What really, gets to me is that why do the whole haul when you know its going to strain the child (in belief its for their 'own good') and the actual outcome of this 'new oralism' is no different to what it was in the past., on top of that, the Cochlear implant team had took over the role of the 'agent' for oralism.

 

[vallee]

My two cents - IF a parent is faced with this situation, do I get cochlear implants for my deaf child? I believe it is a personal choice. I respect the choice and situation that they are going through. I think they want to give the best possible life for their child. It maybe hearing aides, cochlear implants or nothing.

Here is my concern! I see the research. I see the messages on the board. I see the debate. Now what is the deaf community doing to show the choices without bring fear to the parents? What are doctors doing to show the choices? Are we as a community educating the doctors, audies, and schools? And what about other cochlear implant users, are we willing to show that our choice in implanting is the right choice? There are a lot of IFs. I can't imagine what a parent faced with these choices is going through. I respect them and putting there children first.

 

[Kaitin]

Of course, I know about the controversy. The fact remains that it is the parents' responsibility/decision, informed consent or not. I cannot foresee any laws passed that would change this. This is not a socialistic, or worse country. The government needs to stay out of this kind of thing.

I read nothing about the government making laws or deciding for parents or babies. The debate is for ethics, not legislation. What socialistic countries decide CI for parents or babies?

 

[Bear]

This is very interesting.
I think the problem lies mainly in pple going to extremes - be either completely deaf, or completely hearing.
For some reason exhausting the best of what both worlds has to offer seem to be not wanted.

Deaf pple are still living in a hearing world, a predominantly hearing world, and expecting hearing pple to accomodate to the deaf ways is simply unrealistic. There can only be done so much, it's unrealistic to think that for example hearing pple everywhere will start learning sign langauge for the deaf's convenience, or even remember things like putting up written signs or visual aids for them where it should be. Like for example CC in TVs, or Emergency instruction on the airplane, or even something as mundane as showing price amount at the check out counter to the client...

And this is why the deaf pple have to work extra hard to learn to live in the world, and yes it's seems not fair but there is nothing that can be done. If one has disability, one simply has to work extra hard. It's reality.
And that is why, IMO, it is logical for the deaf ppl to want to have the best of technology that is out there, and such is CI -not oppose it. Because it is useful in hearing world. On the other hand it is also worth to maintain and cultivate the deaf culture because after all is said and done, a deaf is a deaf is a deaf. With CI, HAs or whatever.

Fuzzy

First of all before I say anything else I want to say

This is a very positive post that I have seen come from you Fuzzy and a very well written one. I would like to reply to this if you don't mind?

I think you may be right about the problem going to the extremes of either being deaf or being hearing.

When you are raised with deaf parents alot of times it is those same deaf parents that can't see the need for hearing. Please don't bash me for this, read on.

When you are raised with hearing parents alot of times those same hearing parents cannot accept a deaf child. They go to the extremes to *cure* the deafness. And usually use the excuse that they want their child to *fit* into the family.

They are both extreme. I believe there is a middle ground. I do not see why a parent cannot explore possibilities without needing to go to the extreme.

Either set of parents could become more involved and learn these options. Either set of parents could decide on a HA at first to see if there is any benefit from a hearing aid. If not then they could explore the CI route or decide not to implant.

Either decision is not a life or death decision. Both decisions made are good.

I am not discounting the deaf's struggle with being forced to be oral and hearing deaf. But, many of us here would at least offer our children hearing aids to try to give them some sound. So think of that before you go getting all mad at me lol.

I don't think that it is so much that we are expecting all hearing people to learn to sign, Fuzzy. I think it is more the reactions we get and the attitudes we get. Ever asked a hearing person to write something for you because your deaf? Gee, I have and ughh at times it gets the point where I loathe asking them. What's wrong with writing something down for someone?

Even my mother who was hearing, would ask someone can you please write those directions? There is no way I would remember all that. So you see, writing things is not only a *deaf thing*. There are many circumstances where the hearing prefer things be written.


I agree it is unrealistic to expect every hearing person to learn to sign. But I do not see it is unrealistic to expect to be able to see a price. Accomodations are made for the deaf/blind and I do not see people telling them to expect those accomodations are unrealistic.

As for no CC on the TV, not many of us even with a CI is able to do fully without some aid. Sure we have better speech recognition and we do have better understanding of what is being said, but nothing is a 100%. Even my mother as a hearing person favored the CC's. She said she liked it better as she didnt have to rely on her hearing to understand everything that was going on in the movie.

As for alarms and stuff, what if you were sleeping? You still cant hear even with a CI, if the smoke alarm were to go off. And if you are on a plane and an emergency happened, would you really wanna rely on your *maybe* understanding what the procedure is? Or would you rather read it or visualize it and know for sure?


Yes you are right, when you are deaf with a hearing aid, CI or no aide whatsoever it is a struggle to live in this world today and be able to keep up. It is a reality that we have to work harder than others to prove ourselves in the workplace or anywhere else. But, I think that is a small price to pay, just to be able to live. We are lucky we live today in this world than rather way back when, when us deafies were simply instutionalized or what have you.

As for taking advantage of the latest technology. Maybe some deaf, doesn't feel that it is necessary to survive to do so. Maybe some people have tried to and are not qualified. Maybe some of them prefer to have a hearing aid as it works well enough for them. Maybe some of them experience pain if they try to hear sounds. And I know you can experience pain trying to hear sound as I do in my right ear. My right ear cannot take sound, everytime I tried a hearing aid in that ear it would cause me actual pain. There are many reasons why a person may not choose a CI.

And you are right we are all still deaf with a HA, CI, or whatever we chosen. And in the end I believe this is why the debates on what is chosen should end and instead we should all unite and try to get better laws made and better deaf rights.

 

[sr171soars]

...And what about other cochlear implant users, are we willing to show that our choice in implanting is the right choice?...

Interesting you say that. I just had a lady come up to me recently saying that my wearing a CI inspired her to finally take care of her own hearing issues (unbeknownst to me). She put off get an ITE HA because of this and that and everything else. But when confronted with how I go about my business and seeing how I benefited from a CI, she decided she had no excuse but to get ITEs. She couldn't believe what she was missing and could have kicked herself for avoiding the whole thing for so long.

 

[deafdyke]

No Fuzzy, I don't have kids. However, I did grow up with a complicated medical syndrome. My parents did let me in on the decision making process for things like speech therapy, physical therapy, usage of FM devices and when i was older surguries.
You missed something...................I think if a child qualifies right off the bat, there shouldn't be any debate. However, if its AMBIGOIUS then the child should be in on the decision making process.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

No Fuzzy, I don't have kids. However, I did grow up with a complicated medical syndrome. My parents did let me in on the decision making process for things like speech therapy, physical therapy, usage of FM devices and when i was older surguries.
You missed something...................I think if a child qualifies right off the bat, there shouldn't be any debate. However, if its AMBIGOIUS then the child should be in on the decision making process.

I was a kid once too, a kid with many heatlh problems. But nothing compares to being a parent yourself and having to make decisions yourself.
I have never met anyone yet who would understand what it's like to be a parent while not being one himself.

Fuzzy