Myths and lies about CIs . . .

[R2D2]

The implantee has NO choice in receiving an implant if the implantee is a baby. Parents can force the surgery on the children (and don't give me any of that "they can remove it" because as this is written it is about the SURGERY ITSELF, not the choice to remove it).

This has to be balanced with the removal of choice of benefit from a CI if a child is prevented from getting a CI until the age of 18. Please don't deny this by alluding to some personal ancedote. There have been plenty of independent, controlled studies that have shown this. Remember that not all of us deaf people make the same choices so being given as many options as possible is desirable.

However, it is the attitudes of the implantees that destroy Deaf culture

Rubbish. I'd say that when a group becomes too exclusive and there is a lot of infighting it destroys itself.
.

Well, well, well, I see some hypocrites around here. I've been seeing some of you claiming that the only possible way to get full benefit of the CI is to implant early, and you also claim this article is 100% true. However, this part contradicts what you keep saying about implanting early!

Not really. It depends on the level of auditory experience that the deaf adult has had prior to implantation. If the deaf person had gained a lot of benefit from hearing aids then they do stand to be good candidates in most cases. However a very profoundly deaf baby wouldn't even benefit from hearing aids and so waiting til age 18 is NOT a choice at all. Just a hollow choice. You do understand that many deaf children cannot benefit from aids at all?

There are two sides to every debate. Besides, I'm not threatened by implantees in the community. I am more offended by those who disrespect the Deaf community and then accuse the Deaf community of being rude to them.

You're not offended but earlier in your post you effectively blamed the attitudes of implantees for threatening deaf culture? That's a pretty strong accusation in my book. If more people demonstrate this attitude who can blame people for voting with their feet?

Well, that's my opinion on this article. Not all of it is bogus, but it seems very suspicious and contradictory to me.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. You have particular views so no, you wouldn't agree with all of it and naturally, you would approach it more critically than a neutral person would.

 

[greema]

Cloggy, can I join you??

 

[deafdyke]

so waiting til age 18 is NOT a choice at all. You do understand that many deaf children cannot benefit from aids at all?

Part of the reason why I am ambigious about VERY early implantation is that it is very difficult to accuratly tell how well a dhh kid can hear. I'm OK with implanting toddlers. It's just that sometimes I get the vibe that some parents are gung-ho for implantation b/c it's the LATEST trendiest state of the art thing. Also some parents might think "Oh boy! It's something that will make wittle Smashlie HEARING!!!!"
I wish that qualifications were a little stricter, and that peopel couldn't shop around for implants.
Besides according to Auditory Verbal International 95% of dhh kids have some resdiaul hearing that can be helped by hearing aids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[gnulinuxman]

This has to be balanced with the removal of choice of benefit from a CI if a child is prevented from getting a CI until the age of 18. Please don't deny this by alluding to some personal ancedote. There have been plenty of independent, controlled studies that have shown this. Remember that not all of us deaf people make the same choices so being given as many options as possible is desirable.

Remember that you only think I am against choice.

Rubbish. I'd say that when a group becomes too exclusive and there is a lot of infighting it destroys itself.

Here's an example of the high-and-mighty attitude from your side of the attitude conflict.

Not really. It depends on the level of auditory experience that the deaf adult has had prior to implantation. If the deaf person had gained a lot of benefit from hearing aids then they do stand to be good candidates in most cases. However a very profoundly deaf baby wouldn't even benefit from hearing aids and so waiting til age 18 is NOT a choice at all. Just a hollow choice. You do understand that many deaf children cannot benefit from aids at all?

You do understand that all sighted deaf children can benefit from their eyes, right?

You're not offended but earlier in your post you effectively blamed the attitudes of implantees for threatening deaf culture? That's a pretty strong accusation in my book. If more people demonstrate this attitude who can blame people for voting with their feet?

No, I said it was a two-way street, as deafdyke pointed out earlier.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. You have particular views so no, you wouldn't agree with all of it and naturally, you would approach it more critically than a neutral person would.

If you have an opinion on something, you're not really neutral on it.

 

[jag]

Part of the reason why I am ambigious about VERY early implantation is that it is very difficult to accuratly tell how well a dhh kid can hear. I'm OK with implanting toddlers. It's just that sometimes I get the vibe that some parents are gung-ho for implantation b/c it's the LATEST trendiest state of the art thing. Also some parents might think "Oh boy! It's something that will make wittle Smashlie HEARING!!!!"
I wish that qualifications were a little stricter, and that peopel couldn't shop around for implants.
Besides according to Auditory Verbal International 95% of dhh kids have some resdiaul hearing that can be helped by hearing aids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

You know despite everything, HA's arent all they're cracked up to be. My expericence as an example....I just bought some new ones, the one ear they worked ok, the other not so ok. The difference in having 2 HA's or 1 ci and 1 HA is as differnt as night and day, believe me, and the CI wins in clarity of voices. (my opionion of course) Even the audiologist said he couldn't explain why some people don't get the results with HA's that they should. I should supposedly have gotten ALOT more understanding from my HA's.

My hearing loss was only concidered to be moderate/severe (which is probably alot more then the babies with profound hearing loss) so I had ALOT of residule hearing, and didn't meet insurance/gov. criteria because I heard to 'well'....according to them.

I really disliked the results I was getting from my Ha's, I was very frustrated and found a dr who was willing to HELP me. Since he's saleried I very much doubt getting me a CI is making him mucho $$$. Since he has the same insurance company as me I doubt that the insurance thing is making him big $$$. The CI audiologist and the ent did this because they felt they could HELP me. They said that there is a segment of hoh people like me who for whatever reason do better with ci then HA's. I took the risk and I've been very HAPPY with the results. So if a baby has profound hearing loss, then the parents should be given information, they should research and they should make the decision of what is right for their family.

So I'll stick with my statement HA"s aren't all they're cracked up to be.

 

[R2D2]

You know what Gnu, I can't be bothered. I'm tired of the constant bickering.

Regardless of what any of us on Alldeaf says, the world will continue to change and deaf culture will change with it because deaf people's needs change. That is the way of the world and the history of every culture there has ever been.

Time to live and let live.

 

[deafdyke]

They said that there is a segment of hoh people like me who for whatever reason do better with ci then HA's.

Is there pre-op testing that can tell if you can benifit more from implants then with CI? I wonder too, if that segment might be able to benifit from body worn aids or those transponder things.....

 

[Boult]

Is there pre-op testing that can tell if you can benifit more from implants then with CI? I wonder too, if that segment might be able to benifit from body worn aids or those transponder things.....

Did you make a typo in first sentence?

by the way...

pre-op (Pre-Operation) = does not means hearing evaluation... it means seeing nurse for blood work/blood pressure/weight/discussion about sleeping agent few days before surgery.

There are two type of hearing evaluation when it come to hearing aid or cochlear implant.

This link show process to get CI: http://www.entcolumbia.org/cochimp.htm


This link show different process to get hearing aid;
http://www.hearinglosseducation.com/HearingAids/125.asp

 

[Boult]

Gnu,

CI does use RF technology (Radio Frequency) so in essence that external device act as radio transmitter and internal device act as receiver. The external has to encode the signal and piggyback ride on RF signal to internal implant then get decoded via internal's chip then send signal to electrode array and in turn the electrode array fire the signal to auditory nerves.

sending signal to nerves and stimulate the nerves are same thing. so in that case the #4 is right because there is no solid connection to the nerves. the electrode are not attached to auditory nerve because the electrode are inserted in the section of cochlea that just sit in there right next to the wall where the auditory nerve will go up and above the electrode to corti

see second picture of cochlear with numbered section:
http://www.iurc.montp.inserm.fr/cric/audition/english/cochlea/fcochlea.htm

electrode is inserted into #3 and the auditory nerve #5 travel up and connect to spiral ganglion#4 and finally arrive in #1 cochlear duct where the organ of Corti which is above the #3 where the electrode sit hugging the wall.

 

[Boult]

Gnu, see this slide show: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/cochlear/implantpop.html

notice the wording!

 

[jag]

Is there pre-op testing that can tell if you can benifit more from implants then with CI? I wonder too, if that segment might be able to benifit from body worn aids or those transponder things.....

I had the hearing tests if that 's what you mean by pre-op testing. (I also had the pre-op eval where they asked me all those questions 3 different times and the anestisiologist decided I'm a pretty heatly 48 yo and didn't need an ecg to see if I'd have a heart attack or something when I would be put under, lol) I had the bone conduction test, there wer all the records from back when I was first diagnosed at 13. They knew my history, family history etc etc... I did ok in all hearing tests except the noise test, in which I heard the 1st sentence and the rest was lost in the babble. I wanted better clarity and better hearing when out with my family for dinner. While restrautants are noisy they aren't that noisy but I couldn't follow a conversation at all. I am now learning to follow those conversations, takes some concentration since I havn't been able to or just found it to stressful to keep for along time.

As for body worn aids? If they would have been a good option I'm sure they would have pushed that rather then going along with the ci. The HA I had was not even at full POWER. it could still have been adjusted to give LOUDER noise. IT wasn't the LOUDNESS that was the problem. The problem was the lack of clarity and the non discrimination in noise. Any noise interfered and caused alot of stress when trying to converse. I very much doubt that a body worn aid would be any better since I spent all those bucks less then 2 yrs before. Hearing aids are not all they're cracked up to be. There are some hoh people like me who do not get the benefit for HA's that they are supposedly supposed to get.