Parants of CI children.

[dreama]

The evidence you're referring to is actually in reference to late deafened adults -- not children.

Research has proven time and time again that children who are implanted before the age of 5 receive the most benefit from a CI.

In other words, the earlier the better.

No, I'm refering to deaf people who were born with useful hearing which deteriated over time. Also I am refering to totally blind CI users. I read an article once from a totally blind bilateral CI user who said that the parts of his brain that normally dealt with vision had taken over making sense of what he got from his CI.

Put it this way. I know about 5 sighted deaf who stop wearing their CI. I don't know any blind CI users who have done that.

Why cancel out experiences from late deafened anyway. Isnt' that a big enough market?

 

[dreama]

Also I'm not refering to any specific written evidence. Just experience with adults (some who were born profoundly deaf) who are happy with their CI's. And some children born deaf who were implanted are not so happy and want their CI's removed. Personal experiences counts more to me then papers written by someone who's been studying the wrong species.

 

[Hear Again]

As long as a deaf child can benifit from powerful hearing aids the cochlear implants can wait until they are older.

The problem with your argument is that there are varying definitions of "benefit." For one child, this may mean being able to hear environmental sounds only while for another, it means being able to hear and understand speech.

Would you like it if I said you should put off cataract surgery because I thought you could still see well enough to use a CCTV even though it takes you great effort to do so?

Why not give a child all of the tools necessary for communication? Why deny them the right to hear?

 

[doubletrouble]

The problem with your argument is that there are varying definitions of "benefit." For one child, this may mean being able to hear environmental sounds only while for another, it means being able to hear and understand speech.

Would you like it if I said you should put off cataract surgery because I thought you could still see well enough to use a CCTV even though it takes you great effort to do so?

Why not give a child all of the tools necessary for communication? Why deny them the right to hear?

Great post... The problem Dreama, is that if you make a decision NOT to implant a child early- then the decision is already made for him/her. I can give you an example- my niece who wanted the CI when she was much younger. Her parents wanted to wait until she was old enough to make that decision for herself. The result, she does not get the same type of access with her CI as my son or her cousins- who were all implanted much earlier. If you ask her (she is now 16) she will tell you straight up that she regrets not getting the implant earlier. Even though she does well with her CI's, she stil lrequires an interpreter in the clas room, along with other supports. My son, and the cousins- have no interpreters but do have TOD support. I've personally seen it time and time again, the longer you wait- the outcome will be far less. To reap the benefits of the CI, it should be done early.

 

[Hear Again]

Put it this way. I know about 5 sighted deaf who stop wearing their CI. I don't know any blind CI users who have done that.

That's probably because blind people rely on their CIs more than Deaf people do. (i.e. environmental sounds, personal safety and speech understanding)

 

[rockdrummer]

That's what they tell parents yes, but that's where I disagree. How many deaf children are born with no useful hearing? As long as a deaf child can benifit from powerful hearing aids the cochlear implants can wait until they are older.

And what about the kids that can't. There are many children that are born with profound hearing loss that is not correctable by "powerful hearing aids"

The child would just need to be exposed to sound. And if they don't have useful hearing? It could be because of neurological damage in which case the child is not going to succeed with a CI either. And if they don't If they are deaf it's not a major tragedy since humans are adaptable.

Or it could be because of many other causes. We can speculate all day. Nobody is saying being deaf is a tragedy.

In my way of thinking depriving a child of sign language (which often happens with CI's) is the worst thing you can do. A child who cannot hear properly and is encouraged to use their vision instead will lead a much better life.

I believe it would be natural for parents to go down an oral path if they have chosen a CI. Otherwise why else would you do it? I don't mean for that comment to start a debate about oralism. And I do agree that even if you choose a CI and an oral path you should still incorporate sign language. Cloggy is a good case in point. His daughter had a CI and is successful with it but they also use sign language. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Hear Again]

Why cancel out experiences from late deafened anyway. Isnt' that a big enough market?

Because the experiences of adult CI users do not determine the success or failure rate of a child who receives an implant. I may hear 97% of speech with my CIs, but that doesn't say anything about how well a child will do.

Aside from that, the amount of residual hearing one has greatly differs between a late deafened adult vs. a child. A late deafened adult like myself may have 20 years worth of usable hearing whereas a child may only have 2 or 3.

Furthermore, if you are looking for personal experiences to validate or deny a claim about how much a person can benefit from a CI, those experiences need to be as similar as possible to each other. Comparing apples to oranges (i.e. late deafened adults to prelingually or postlingually deaf children) isn't going to tell you anything about how successful children as a whole will or won't be with a CI. Comparing oranges to oranges (prelingually deaf children to other prelingually deaf children) will.

 

[Hear Again]

If they are deaf it's not a major tragedy since humans are adaptable.

More often than not, parents decide to implant their children because they want to give them more opportunities and the best of both worlds -- not because they think deafness is a tragedy.

 

[Hear Again]

The child would just need to be exposed to sound.

If only it were that simple.

No amount of AVT is going to make a child benefit from hearing aids. Either a child can hear well enough to understand speech or they can't. The same is true when it comes to exposing a child to sound. You can expose a child to sound 24/7, but there is no guarantee that he or she will be able to understand what they are hearing.

 

[Hear Again]

In my way of thinking depriving a child of sign language (which often happens with CI's) is the worst thing you can do. A child who cannot hear properly and is encouraged to use their vision instead will lead a much better life.

Implanting a child is not denying them the right to sign. There are many parents who continue to use sign following their child's implantation.

Furthermore, a child with a CI can still use visual cues to help them communicate and learn about their environment. Giving a child a CI is not taking anything away from them. If anything, it is providing an extra means of communication (i.e. hearing) that they would not have otherwise.

 

[Hear Again]

A child who cannot hear properly and is encouraged to use their vision instead will lead a much better life.

This isn't an issue if a child is implanted at an early age. Most children who are implanted between infancy and 5 years hear so well with their CI that they do not need to rely on visual cues for communication.

Then again, even if they need visual support, the CI does not take that ability away from them.

 

[Hear Again]

Also I'm not refering to any specific written evidence. Just experience with adults (some who were born profoundly deaf) who are happy with their CI's. And some children born deaf who were implanted are not so happy and want their CI's removed. Personal experiences counts more to me then papers written by someone who's been studying the wrong species.

The experiences of "some" do not represent the experiences of "all."

Furthermore, personal experiences can vary greatly from person to person and are subjective in nature.

Conversely, research studies are based on strict variables that are not only consistent, but objective as well. That's why we use them to determine who has the greatest likelihood of benefiting from a CI and who doesn't.

 

[dreama]

Warning: Off topic post.

Would you like it if I said you should put off cataract surgery because I thought you could still see well enough to use a CCTV even though it takes you great effort to do so?

Why not give a child all of the tools necessary for communication? Why deny them the right to hear?

Yes I would. Not because I think cateracts shouldn't be moved but I've read cases that if you remove cateracts too soon that can lead to a greater risk of glaucoma. (That's particularly the case for the first 4 weeks of life).

My friend Nigel was born totally deafblind with cateracts. He had his cateracts removed at the age of 3. He had enough sight to read small print and sign BSL visually.

Never mind the cateract. If a child can't read print properly it's time to consider braille. In the same way that if a child cannot hear properly it's time to learn sign language.

 

[dreama]

A child who cannot hear properly and is encouraged to use their vision instead will lead a much better life.

This isn't an issue if a child is implanted at an early age. Most children who are implanted between infancy and 5 years hear so well with their CI that they do not need to rely on visual cues for communication.

Then again, even if they need visual support, the CI does not take that ability away from them.

That's what I mean. Parents make that assumsion and deprive the child of sign language. This is the kind of attitude that puts me off CI's. How would you like it if someone considered your hearing so greatly corrected that you didn't need visual clues.

I don't think we will ever really agree on this because I take a lot of research into early implantation with as much faith as I do tales of little green men whereas you put way too much faith in them.

Give me personal experience any day.

 

[faire_jour]

If they are deaf it's not a major tragedy since humans are adaptable.

More often than not, parents decide to implant their children because they want to give them more opportunities and the best of both worlds -- not because they think deafness is a tragedy.

Thank you. I agree with this completely.

 

[faire_jour]

Warning: Off topic post.



Yes I would. Not because I think cateracts shouldn't be moved but I've read cases that if you remove cateracts too soon that can lead to a greater risk of glaucoma. (That's particularly the case for the first 4 weeks of life).

My friend Nigel was born totally deafblind with cateracts. He had his cateracts removed at the age of 3. He had enough sight to read small print and sign BSL visually.

Never mind the cateract. If a child can't read print properly it's time to consider braille. In the same way that if a child cannot hear properly it's time to learn sign language.

I don't think this is off topic. CI's are the same as the surgery to correct the cararacts. It does not return normal vision but corrects enough to give usable sight....see the parallel?

 

[dreama]

I don't think this is off topic. CI's are the same as the surgery to correct the cararacts. It does not return normal vision but corrects enough to give usable sight....see the parallel?

Actually, yes, I guess there is one. Parents of blind children are even less happy to accept their child the way they are. Some go to china to risk their child's health with treatment that has yet to be aprroved of in the west.

I wish that parents would accept a child the way they are even if Deaf or Blind. That's the way I see it. Having had to cope without sight and hearing, it can take a bit of getting used to, but it's not a major big deal either. Not something I would sacrifice my health for in bogus health claims.

I think in your case your daughter signed first and as far as I'm aware you haven't stopped her from using it, which is great.
I stated in my first post that I had no doupt that some CI's do work, but it's the depriving of signing that really bothers me.

At least if Miss Katie's CI failed she could tell you so you could take it off and sort it out with audiologist wheras in the case of someone without communication skills they couldn't tell you that and would suffer and that suffering is of concern to me.

 

[Hear Again]

At least if Miss Katie's CI failed she could tell you so you could take it off and sort it out with audiologist wheras in the case of someone without communication skills they couldn't tell you that and would suffer and that suffering is of concern to me.

Cochlear uses a test called an NRT which can program a CI for a child or adult who cannot hear well enough to respond. If a CI fails, the NRT can determine this as well.

 

[Hear Again]

I don't think this is off topic. CI's are the same as the surgery to correct the cararacts. It does not return normal vision but corrects enough to give usable sight....see the parallel?

That's exactly the parallel I was trying to draw.

 

[faire_jour]

Actually, yes, I guess there is one. Parents of blind children are even less happy to accept their child the way they are. Some go to china to risk their child's health with treatment that has yet to be aprroved of in the west.

I wish that parents would accept a child the way they are even if Deaf or Blind. That's the way I see it. Having had to cope without sight and hearing, it can take a bit of getting used to, but it's not a major big deal either. Not something I would sacrifice my health for in bogus health claims.

I think in your case your daughter signed first and as far as I'm aware you haven't stopped her from using it, which is great.
I stated in my first post that I had no doupt that some CI's do work, but it's the depriving of signing that really bothers me.

At least if Miss Katie's CI failed she could tell you so you could take it off and sort it out with audiologist wheras in the case of someone without communication skills they couldn't tell you that and would suffer and that suffering is of concern to me.

99.5% of CI's work. But each person's benefit is different.

Just because a person doesn't use ASL doesn't mean they can not communicate. If an oral kid's CI stop working, they would probably notice it and complain much quicker than Miss Kat would.