Parants of CI children.

[jillio]

And I did, and you don't like it. So, get your own.

Ah, yes. The answer of someone who doesn't have what was requested.

 

[faire_jour]

I did not say "everyone." I said a "first line of therapy." And you still have not answered the question. Including with the use of your analogy.

I will ask it again:

If "better audition" is the goal of the CI, why is AVT the first line of therapy for the majority of implanted children? You can give an opinion if you like. I am not asking for empirical evidence. I am only inquiring as to your line of thought on this contradiction.

Who says it is the "first line of therapy"?

What contradiction?

 

[faire_jour]

Ah, yes. The answer of someone who doesn't have what was requested.

I gave 3 links. You didn't like them.

 

[Hear Again]

Well you were the one who brought cataracts up in the first placed and fair jour felt they were releavent to this discussion and you agreed with her.

By the way I wasn't neccessarily just refering to mild cateracts. I was refering to ANY cateracts. If a person felt the risk of glaucoma was too great and wanted to leave their child's cateracts in I would not think badly of them. After all their is nothing wrong with being blind, their is nothing wrong with being deaf, their is nothing wrong with being in a wheelchair.

So now we can go back on topic of CI's.

I thought we were already discussing CIs. Perhaps you're reading a different thread than I am?

As far as cataract surgery is concerned, the risk of glaucoma isn't as significant as you portray it to be. Cataract surgery is quite common and is performed every day. It's a simple surgery that has a very high success rate.

Did I say there was anything wrong with being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair? Please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

[jillio]

Who says it is the "first line of therapy"?

What contradiction?

The contradiction is obvious. Is it not the first line of therapy? Isn't what you have sought for your own child?

 

[jillio]

I gave 3 links. You didn't like them.

3 links to advertisements.

 

[dreama]

As you pointed out, most deaf children are not 100% deaf, so they will have some capacity to describe what they are hearing

But what has their hearing loss got to do with anything. Even a totally deaf child can tell you what's up if you give that child a proper communication method such as ASL.
Wheras a HOH child who lacks signed communication may be less capable. They may be Struggling to communicate with their weakest sense instead of their strongest one.

 

[Hear Again]

But what has their hearing loss got to do with anything.

You were the one who originally brought up the subject of implanting ASL users in addition to using the personal experiences of late deafened adults to determine the success or failure of an implanted child, so you tell me what hearing loss has to do with this thread.

Why you keep repeating yourself over and over about ASL/visual communication, I don't know because not once have I said a totally deaf or HoH child should be denied the right to sign.

 

[jillio]

Preti Flaherty Amends Lawsuit Against Advanced Bionics for Selling Faulty Cochlear

Oh, my! That would create an 80% success rate, wouldn't it?

 

[Bottesini]

Oh, my! That would create an 80% success rate, wouldn't it?

But that is only one company to be fair. You would need to average in all the CI companies to get the overall average.

 

[shel90]

The .5% of the time? I don't know what other parents do, but the kids probably fall back on lipreading and other communication methods.

Lipreading is very very difficult. Not the best way to get good access to language and information.

 

[AlleyCat]

But to be fair, we're talking about only .5%, right? -- not even 1%. That's a very, very small percentage of those who have to fall back on this in the event of the .5% CI failure rate.

 

[dreama]

Why you keep repeating yourself over and over about ASL/visual communication, I don't know because not once have I said a totally deaf or HoH child should be denied the right to sign.

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.

(confused)

 

[Hear Again]

(confused)

I was responding to your original posts in which you used an example of a child struggling to hear with their CI. You emphasized how ASL should not be denied to an implanted child. You then wrote a second post in which you said the same thing, but in a different manner. I can quote specific posts of yours if you like.

 

[jillio]

But to be fair, we're talking about only .5%, right? -- not even 1%. That's a very, very small percentage of those who have to fall back on this in the event of the .5% CI failure rate.

Well, that would be .5% (a questionable number, but that's another topic), that can be determined to be functioning mechanically. However, given the wide variety of individual response and perceived benefit, it is a bit misleading to say that only .5% of implants fail. I can use a member here as an example. His son was implanted, the implant was functioning mechanically. So the implant would be included in that 95.5%. However, did the implant function as intended for his child? No it didn't. So despite the fact that it was deemed to be funtioning, if it doesn't function for the individual as intended, it is basically non-functional. However, those numbers are excluded from that 95.5%.

 

[AlleyCat]

Well, that would be .5% (a questionable number, but that's another topic), that can be determined to be functioning mechanically. However, given the wide variety of individual response and perceived benefit, it is a bit misleading to say that only .5% of implants fail. I can use a member here as an example. His son was implanted, the implant was functioning mechanically. So the implant would be included in that 95.5%. However, did the implant function as intended for his child? No it didn't. So despite the fact that it was deemed to be funtioning, if it doesn't function for the individual as intended, it is basically non-functional. However, those numbers are excluded from that 95.5%.

I understand your point. When I visited my CI audiologist last November, she said they experienced about a 96% success rate, although when doing an in-person survey, only about 90% said they experienced a benefit from a CI. What was key about that was she said from an audiogram standpoint, the success rate was about 96%, it was just that the difference between the 90% that said they experienced a benefit from a CI and the 96% on an audiogram was those 6% didn't feel like they benefited, even if their audiogram showed an improvement. My point is that for some, the CI felt non-functional, or non-improvement, even though there was. I'm not sure how that fits in here, but just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[Buffalo]

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.

What if this case happened with a very young kid? This kid can very well go without sounds for years.

My daughter's implant ceased to work after almost 6 years. We don't know why (it was thoroughly tested by the implant manufacturer after it was out and it passed all the tests). The failure occurred at the same time as an antibiotic resistant ear infection, but we don't know how, or if, that plays into it. It's a complete mystery!

She was reimplanted 4 months later, and that implant worked.

http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/65417-cochlear-implant-removals.html - look at number 11.

 

[Hear Again]

What if this case happened with a very young kid? This kid can very well go without sounds for years.

The NRT is designed to be used with very young children who cannot communicate what they hear.

 

[Buffalo]

The NRT is designed to be used with very young children who cannot communicate what they hear.

Yes, but the post I just showed you, said that the daughter's CI quited working after 6 years and it was working after it was removed. That tells me that NRT might not always work.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes, but the post I just showed you, said that the daughter's CI quited working after 6 years and it was working after it was removed. That tells me that NRT might not always work.

What CI brand did she have? Was it from Cochlear? If not, the NRT wouldn't have worked since the NRT is exclusive to Cochlear brand CIs. As far as I know, AB does not offer NRT unless faire_jour can correct me.