Other people perspective AGAINST C.I. for the Deaf children

[jillio]

I read both of those, what I am looking for is the orginial bill that is set to pass. I want to read that. I do agree with your posting on the events in history. The mentally disabled are still being sterilzed just now with the agreement of the families. They provide birth control. I have a friend who has a sister-in-law in a group home, she takes birth control. The lady, she is 28, does not understand what she is taking. Her family makes that choice for her. Her mental ability is of a 2 year old.

I will say this again I don't believe Cochlear Implants either free will or not free will(family choice) as eugenics. I reason behind it is that either it is free will or eugenics, it can't be both.

On the issue of free will...is it really free will when it has been communicated to an individual, or a population as a whole, that the only way to integrate into a society is to adopt the practices and values of the majority, and to appear to be as much the same as the majority as possible? I don't think so. One must survive, whether integrated or not, as a subgroup of the majority. It happens to all minority groups, be they people of color, or people with a disability. It is a sociologicial fact. Why else would the healthcare industry tell parents of newly diagnosed children that the best way for their deaf child to function in a hearing world is through the use of a CI and learning to speak as the majority uses spoken language? Why else would they tell parents not to use sign because it will interfere with spoken language development? Why else would the attitude toward oral only exist? Why else would organizations such as A.G. Bell exist? Perhaps it is more subtle than extermination of a group of people, or practices promoting the "well born" such as selective breeding as proposed by A.G. Bell and other soft eugeniscists, but it is still a form of eugenics. It is known as social eugenics, and it's success hinges on the subtle ways in wich a group is influenced to adopt that which is a part of the majority culture, even if it leads to reduced personal functioning. The school of thought behind it is that a reasonably functioning deaf individual who behaves as a hearing person in a somewhat convincing manner is superior to a high functioning individual who behaves as a Deaf person. It holds true across all minority cultures. A Black person who adopts the norms and values of a the white majority is more valued within the dominant culture than is a very Afro-centric Black person. A Mexican person who immigrates to the U.S. and adopts the values and norms and language of the majority is more valued within the dominant society than is one that retains their native langugage and cultural practices. The same with an Oriental person, a blind person, an autistic person, a homosexual, a person of biracial descent, and on and on and on. The more an individual "appears" to superficially resemble the majority, the more value they are given as an indiviudal within society, and the more benefits of acceptance they receive. Benefits are translated to job opportunities, health care, and civil rights. I'm sorry that you don't see it, vallee, but it is a fact of social existence in the U.S.

Our first concern should not be helping a deaf child to function in a hearing world, but how to best assist them to function as the deaf child they are. Once they can function optimallhy as the deaf child they are, they can transfer those skills to optimal functioning within another group.

 

[deafdyke]

The school of thought behind it is that a reasonably functioning deaf individual who behaves as a hearing person in a somewhat convincing manner is superior to a high functioning individual who behaves as a Deaf person.

Indeedy........Like AG Bell and Auditory verbal types see someone who has very basic spoken language skills, as somehow more "high functioning" then someone who has OK speech skills, but can function on a Harvard level through the use of Sign. There's nothing wrong with a kid who decides on their OWN that they don't want to Sign any more.....BUT too often kids are oral in an AG Bell context.........that speech only somehow makes them more supeior to kids who use Sign.

 

[StacieLeigh]

Very well put! thank you.

I do believe parents walk beside their child. We can't judge that Rick has not gained empathy for his daughter. We don't know the relationship, experiences, or struggles they have gone through. The bond between a child and parent are very strong. It is cruel to place judgement on Rick by saying he does not know his child.

Can we make the same generalization on all hearing parents of deaf children? Can we make that generalization of deaf and hearing people not walking in the shoes of CI people? Can we make that generalization about deaf parent of hearing children? NO, WE CAN NOT!

It is easy to judge others, by just reading the written posting. We know nothing about what others go through in their daily life. Hopefully no one has to walk a mile in someone else shoes, hopefully we can respect others instead of judge.

 

[shel90]

On the issue of free will...is it really free will when it has been communicated to an individual, or a population as a whole, that the only way to integrate into a society is to adopt the practices and values of the majority, and to appear to be as much the same as the majority as possible? I don't think so. One must survive, whether integrated or not, as a subgroup of the majority. It happens to all minority groups, be they people of color, or people with a disability. It is a sociologicial fact. Why else would the healthcare industry tell parents of newly diagnosed children that the best way for their deaf child to function in a hearing world is through the use of a CI and learning to speak as the majority uses spoken language? Why else would they tell parents not to use sign because it will interfere with spoken language development? Why else would the attitude toward oral only exist? Why else would organizations such as A.G. Bell exist? Perhaps it is more subtle than extermination of a group of people, or practices promoting the "well born" such as selective breeding as proposed by A.G. Bell and other soft eugeniscists, but it is still a form of eugenics. It is known as social eugenics, and it's success hinges on the subtle ways in wich a group is influenced to adopt that which is a part of the majority culture, even if it leads to reduced personal functioning. The school of thought behind it is that a reasonably functioning deaf individual who behaves as a hearing person in a somewhat convincing manner is superior to a high functioning individual who behaves as a Deaf person. It holds true across all minority cultures. A Black person who adopts the norms and values of a the white majority is more valued within the dominant culture than is a very Afro-centric Black person. A Mexican person who immigrates to the U.S. and adopts the values and norms and language of the majority is more valued within the dominant society than is one that retains their native langugage and cultural practices. The same with an Oriental person, a blind person, an autistic person, a homosexual, a person of biracial descent, and on and on and on. The more an individual "appears" to superficially resemble the majority, the more value they are given as an indiviudal within society, and the more benefits of acceptance they receive. Benefits are translated to job opportunities, health care, and civil rights. I'm sorry that you don't see it, vallee, but it is a fact of social existence in the U.S.

Our first concern should not be helping a deaf child to function in a hearing world, but how to best assist them to function as the deaf child they are. Once they can function optimallhy as the deaf child they are, they can transfer those skills to optimal functioning within another group.

Well said!!!

 

[Buffalo]

On the issue of free will...is it really free will when it has been communicated to an individual, or a population as a whole, that the only way to integrate into a society is to adopt the practices and values of the majority, and to appear to be as much the same as the majority as possible? I don't think so. One must survive, whether integrated or not, as a subgroup of the majority. It happens to all minority groups, be they people of color, or people with a disability. It is a sociologicial fact. Why else would the healthcare industry tell parents of newly diagnosed children that the best way for their deaf child to function in a hearing world is through the use of a CI and learning to speak as the majority uses spoken language? Why else would they tell parents not to use sign because it will interfere with spoken language development? Why else would the attitude toward oral only exist? Why else would organizations such as A.G. Bell exist? Perhaps it is more subtle than extermination of a group of people, or practices promoting the "well born" such as selective breeding as proposed by A.G. Bell and other soft eugeniscists, but it is still a form of eugenics. It is known as social eugenics, and it's success hinges on the subtle ways in wich a group is influenced to adopt that which is a part of the majority culture, even if it leads to reduced personal functioning. The school of thought behind it is that a reasonably functioning deaf individual who behaves as a hearing person in a somewhat convincing manner is superior to a high functioning individual who behaves as a Deaf person. It holds true across all minority cultures. A Black person who adopts the norms and values of a the white majority is more valued within the dominant culture than is a very Afro-centric Black person. A Mexican person who immigrates to the U.S. and adopts the values and norms and language of the majority is more valued within the dominant society than is one that retains their native langugage and cultural practices. The same with an Oriental person, a blind person, an autistic person, a homosexual, a person of biracial descent, and on and on and on. The more an individual "appears" to superficially resemble the majority, the more value they are given as an indiviudal within society, and the more benefits of acceptance they receive. Benefits are translated to job opportunities, health care, and civil rights. I'm sorry that you don't see it, vallee, but it is a fact of social existence in the U.S.

Our first concern should not be helping a deaf child to function in a hearing world, but how to best assist them to function as the deaf child they are. Once they can function optimallhy as the deaf child they are, they can transfer those skills to optimal functioning within another group.

In another word, they are imposing their own values on the deaf population.

 

[jillio]

Well said!!!

 

[jillio]

In another word, they are imposing their own values on the deaf population.

Exactly. And those that adopt those imposed norms are given greater status.

 

[shel90]

In another word, they are imposing their own values on the deaf population.

I was instilled with hearing values as a baby...so I go to school as a "hearing" person thinking I am like my peers only to discover that I was nowhere close to it. Ended up blaming myself for not working hard enough in speech and auditory training classes...became obsessed with being able to talk on the phone so I started calling my friends on the phone only to say "What???" What???"

In my 20s, I thought if I was skinny and beautiful, I would be accepted...ended up with an eating disorder.

late 20s, discovered ASL and others like me so it was like my attitude became :fu2: to anything resembling to being hearing. Didnt wear hearing aids for 4 years and refused to use my voice.

In my 30s, got tired of the anger and just accepted that my life was screwed up as a child but doesnt have to be screwed up as an adult. Here I am !!!!

 

[jillio]

I was instilled with hearing values as a baby...so I go to school as a "hearing" person thinking I am like my peers only to discover that I was nowhere close to it. Ended up blaming myself for not working hard enough in speech and auditory training classes...became obsessed with being able to talk on the phone so I started calling my friends on the phone only to say "What???" What???"

In my 20s, I thought if I was skinny and beautiful, I would be accepted...ended up with an eating disorder.

late 20s, discovered ASL and others like me so it was like my attitude became :fu2: to anything resembling to being hearing. Didnt wear hearing aids for 4 years and refused to use my voice.

In my 30s, got tired of the anger and just accepted that my life was screwed up as a child but doesnt have to be screwed up as an adult. Here I am !!!!

Good for you, girl! Despite a couple of setbacks, you managed to jumpt through their hoops and end up with a healthy attitude. You win!

 

[shel90]

Good for you, girl! Despite a couple of setbacks, you managed to jumpt through their hoops and end up with a healthy attitude. You win!

LOL but I still do have some of those old scars in me and they still pop up from time to time...like my ability to be blunt. I SUCK at that...I run away from confrontations. It is like I become all shaky when I confront someone even though it is in a nice way. Oh well.

Thanks, though.

 

[deafdyke]

Shel, the psychological scars are exactly exactly the reason why I'm pro "full toolbox."
I honestly think that the majority of oral experts really don't understand the psychological damage from oral only. Sure its great when a dhh kid can function really well in the hearing world.............but how often does that happen?
YES, oral skills are good and important.............but constantly having your speech corrected, being made fun of, being thought of as retarded b/c of your voice, not feeling 100% like you fit into the hearing world, and so on and so on...........

 

[jillio]

Shel, the psychological scars are exactly exactly the reason why I'm pro "full toolbox."
I honestly think that the majority of oral experts really don't understand the psychological damage from oral only. Sure its great when a dhh kid can function really well in the hearing world.............but how often does that happen?
YES, oral skills are good and important.............but constantly having your speech corrected, being made fun of, being thought of as retarded b/c of your voice, not feeling 100% like you fit into the hearing world, and so on and so on...........

**nodding** The oral only philosophy operates from the standpoint of deficit. Inherent is constant focus on what needs to be corrected, or what needs to be improved, or what is less than satisfactory. If a child lives wit constantly being told what they are doing wrong, or what they don't do as well as their peers, they develop an internal pattern of thought that is overly self critical and it leads to behavior that is self defeating. Self esteem suffers. And it often sets up a cycle of self fulfilling prophecy.

It is much healthier to focus on strengths, and use those strengths to improve any area of weakness. The child is then able to develop a realistic self concept and expectation of achieement. Self esteem blossoms, and psychological and social adjustment is improved. We really do have to start looking at educational placement and communication choices from a holistic perspective.

 

[rick48]

I do believe parents walk beside their child. We can't judge that Rick has not gained empathy for his daughter. We don't know the relationship, experiences, or struggles they have gone through. The bond between a child and parent are very strong. It is cruel to place judgement on Rick by saying he does not know his child.

Can we make the same generalization on all hearing parents of deaf children? Can we make that generalization of deaf and hearing people not walking in the shoes of CI people? Can we make that generalization about deaf parent of hearing children? NO, WE CAN NOT!

It is easy to judge others, by just reading the written posting. We know nothing about what others go through in their daily life. Hopefully no one has to walk a mile in someone else shoes, hopefully we can respect others instead of judge.

vallee,

I am so sorry for the delay in responding but it has been an a very busy week and just did not have much time to spend on the computer. Thank you for your words, it is evident that you understand what being a concerned and dedicated parent means.

As for someone who feels compelled to sink to the level of attacking my child and my relationship with her, it is indeed cruel but I have come to expect that kind of response from her as it is the typical response from someone who acts from her motivations and I know why she does it. It does not bother me though for I just consider the source, think of my daughter, then smile and laugh.
Rick

 

[jillio]

vallee,

I am so sorry for the delay in responding but it has been an a very busy week and just did not have much time to spend on the computer. Thank you for your words, it is evident that you understand what being a concerned and dedicated parent means.

As for someone who feels compelled to sink to the level of attacking my child and my relationship with her, it is indeed cruel but I have come to expect that kind of response from her as it is the typical response from someone who acts from her motivations and I know why she does it. It does not bother me though for I just consider the source, think of my daughter, then smile and laugh.
Rick

You need to pull your philosophical reasoning out of the dark ages, and switch your perspective from the biomedical model of disability to one of the more functional sociological methods of defining disability. It would do you a world of good to broaden your perspective. I have no doubt that it would benefit your daughter, as well. You function from the stand that we need to change the individual. I function from the standpoint that we need to change societal reactions to the deaf individual. You place the impetus for change on the individual with the disability. I place the impetus for change on society.You place causation and solution on the shoulders of the individual with the disability. Your perspective further disables, mine empowers.

A difference in perspective is not an attack. But given the superficial way that you approach deafness, I'm not in the least surprised that you consider it so.

 

[vallee]

You need to pull your philosophical reasoning out of the dark ages, and switch your perspective from the biomedical model of disability to one of the more functional sociological methods of defining disability. It would do you a world of good to broaden your perspective. I have no doubt that it would benefit your daughter, as well. You function from the stand that we need to change the individual. I function from the standpoint that we need to change societal reactions to the deaf individual. You place the impetus for change on the individual with the disability. I place the impetus for change on society.You place causation and solution on the shoulders of the individual with the disability. Your perspective further disables, mine empowers.

A difference in perspective is not an attack. But given the superficial way that you approach deafness, I'm not in the least surprised that you consider it so.

How does your perspective empower?

 

[jillio]

How does your perspective empower?

It provides self determination to the individual with the disability, and not to the medical community or the hearing community in the decision of the best way to live. It does not view the individual with a disability as deviant, abnormal, or pathological. It allows them to see themselves as complete and whole despite a difference, and does not mandate that they change themselves in order to appear to be more like the majority. Those are just starters. If you are truly interested in the difference in the models of defining disability, I can refer you to some very good sources.

 

[Kalista]

You need to pull your philosophical reasoning out of the dark ages, and switch your perspective from the biomedical model of disability to one of the more functional sociological methods of defining disability. It would do you a world of good to broaden your perspective. I have no doubt that it would benefit your daughter, as well. You function from the stand that we need to change the individual. I function from the standpoint that we need to change societal reactions to the deaf individual. You place the impetus for change on the individual with the disability. I place the impetus for change on society.You place causation and solution on the shoulders of the individual with the disability. Your perspective further disables, mine empowers.

A difference in perspective is not an attack. But given the superficial way that you approach deafness, I'm not in the least surprised that you consider it so.

Beautiful describes, we really need to educational many hearing parents to see other side of Deaf Community first than listen to the professional doctors, teachers, etc... It is so so sad medical society pressure on the parents, the Deaf children always to be Deaf in their true idenify. It is very painful for me to see many beautiful and healthy adorable Deaf children do not deserve to get metal in their heads, they did not ask for it. They can't speak up for themselves.

We will see and wait how many Deaf children will choice Deaf world and want to removal their CI and will piss off at their parents because they do not accept for who they are. Sometime, I wonder about many Deaf babies grow up into adults, what their react will be ?

 

[vallee]

It provides self determination to the individual with the disability, and not to the medical community or the hearing community in the decision of the best way to live. It does not view the individual with a disability as deviant, abnormal, or pathological. It allows them to see themselves as complete and whole despite a difference, and does not mandate that they change themselves in order to appear to be more like the majority. Those are just starters. If you are truly interested in the difference in the models of defining disability, I can refer you to some very good sources.

refer me to some sources. I really never had viewed myself as disabled. I have a disability, sure, I agree with that. I just was not taught that my hearing loss is an inability.

Do you view hearing aids and cochlear implants in either adults or children as a way to change a person to be more like the majority?

 

[shel90]

How does your perspective empower?

Refer to my post #128. I was taught and pressured to function like a hearing person and because of that, I actually believe that if I tried hard enough, I could become hearing. That is not something we want for these children. Waste of their time to meet that pedestal. I am not referring to the CIs...I am referring to the attitudes.

 

[vallee]

Refer to my post #128. I was taught and pressured to function like a hearing person and because of that, I actually believe that if I tried hard enough, I could become hearing. That is not something we want for these children. Waste of their time to meet that pedestal. I am not referring to the CIs...I am referring to the attitudes.

I was also mainstreamed as well. My experiences was different than yours. I had a great experience. The people around me did not make me "Hearing." I was taught to be me. I surrounded myself with others who respected me as well as I respected them.

I'm sorry your experience was not positive.