Parants of CI children.

[jillio]

yes it is interesting jillio, one i agree with though. i would put mines to mainstream school too had he been deaf, when i was a kid they told me i would have to go to the deaf school, i refused point blank, i went to mainstream school, but I wish i could have went to both, one day a week at deaf school, but id idn't have that choice.

Actually, I was referring more to the motivation that would lead one to provide those answers.

 

[shel90]

yes it is interesting jillio, one i agree with though. i would put mines to mainstream school too had he been deaf, when i was a kid they told me i would have to go to the deaf school, i refused point blank, i went to mainstream school, but I wish i could have went to both, one day a week at deaf school, but id idn't have that choice.

Yea, like a magnet program in which kids attend both..the deaf schools for the core subject areas and the mainstreamed programs for the electives or vice versa...I think that would make a positive interaction with both the Deaf and heairng communities instead of all the prejudice against each other.

I would have loved to do both too.

 

[Bottesini]

Yea, like a magnet program in which kids attend both..the deaf schools for the core subject areas and the mainstreamed programs for the electives or vice versa...I think that would make a positive interaction with both the Deaf and heairng communities instead of all the prejudice against each other.

I would have loved to do both too.

Me too!!!

 

[faire_jour]

Me too!!!

But often that isn't a possiblity, most of the time parents have to choose.

 

[shel90]

Me too!!!

 

[dreama]

Thanks for all your responses.

I think it is good when parents who opt for CI choose to expose their children to sign language and deaf cuture. Also those who opt for CI as full tool box aproach even though I still have mixed feelings on this issue.

I've now put up 2 more polls for CI users themselves and for friends, colleagues and teachers. Anyone who has known at least one person who use or used a CI in real life. Views of teachers like Shel who have had lots of CI pupils are of particular interest to me.

David: I'm trying to keep an open mind but you are free to express your views.

 

[faire_jour]

Thanks for all your responses.

I think it is good when parents who opt for CI choose to expose their children to sign language and deaf cuture. Also those who opt for CI as full tool box aproach even though I still have mixed feelings on this issue.

I've now put up 2 more polls for CI users themselves and for friends, colleagues and teachers. Anyone who has known at least one person who use or used a CI in real life. Views of teachers like Shel who have had lots of CI pupils are of particular interest to me.

David: I'm trying to keep an open mind but you are free to express your views.

Can you tell us what your "mixed feelings" are?

 

[dreama]

Can you tell us what your "mixed feelings" are?

Ok. I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this but you DID ask.

On one had it's great to have a full tool box aproach and expose a child to everything. Including sign language.

On the other hand their are a lot of issues that are connected to CI use that greatly concern me. The fact the children get put into mainstream school, are subjected to oral only programs, implanted before they can express themselves, animal tests are conducted claiming a CI is done as soon as possible which means that parents get pushed into the CI direction without thinking first, a concern about health problems that may be related to CI, and also that many people not connected to deafness assume that CI's cure deafness even though they don't. Now I know a lot of this doesn't apply to you or your daughter since you are using signing but you did ask what my mixed feelings were.

Really It's what concerns me about CI's in general but when parents like yourself consult their children and allow them to use sign and stay at deaf school that's a really good thing.

 

[Hear Again]

Ok. I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this but you DID ask.

On one had it's great to have a full tool box aproach and expose a child to everything. Including sign language.

On the other hand their are a lot of issues that are connected to CI use that greatly concern me. The fact the children get put into mainstream school, are subjected to oral only programs, implanted before they can express themselves, animal tests are conducted claiming a CI is done as soon as possible which means that parents get pushed into the CI direction without thinking first, a concern about health problems that may be related to CI, and also that many people not connected to deafness assume that CI's cure deafness even though they don't. Now I know a lot of this doesn't apply to you or your daughter since you are using signing but you did ask what my mixed feelings were.

Really It's what concerns me about CI's in general but when parents like yourself consult their children and allow them to use sign and stay at deaf school that's a really good thing.

dreama,

Could you elaborate more on how animal testing is conducted in order to determine the benefits of early implantation? This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Thanks!

 

[dreama]

dreama,

Could you elaborate more on how animal testing is conducted in order to determine the benefits of early implantation? This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Thanks!

It's just that the studies that say that implanting sooner seem to be based on testing implanting animals. It's all rather futile if you ask me because humans take much longer to develop then animals even after lifespan is taken into account so what's true for a chinchilla or a cat with a CI isn't neccesarily true for a child. The window for developement is open for longer in humans.

If a baby is taught baby signs at age 6 months they can start expressing themselves at age of about 3 plus so it would be much better to implant them after that rather then implanting them when they can't even tell you if their machine has broken down. If their are problems it is VITAL that the young child is able to communicate this.

But that's not what's happening as parents are being pushed into implanting their children at younger and younger ages.

That's apart from the fact that I am against animal testing anyway but that's another subject matter altogether.

 

[faire_jour]

It's just that the studies that say that implanting sooner seem to be based on testing implanting animals. It's all rather futile if you ask me because humans take much longer to develop then animals even after lifespan is taken into account so what's true for a chinchilla or a cat with a CI isn't neccesarily true for a child. The window for developement is open for longer in humans.

If a baby is taught baby signs at age 6 months they can start expressing themselves at age of about 3 plus so it would be much better to implant them after that rather then implanting them when they can't even tell you if their machine has broken down. If their are problems it is VITAL that the young child is able to communicate this.

But that's not what's happening as parents are being pushed into implanting their children at younger and younger ages.

That's apart from the fact that I am against animal testing anyway but that's another subject matter altogether.

I'm confused about a few points in your post.

First, you say a signing child can start expressing themselves at 3. Ummm, no. A child can sign back by about 9 months old.

Also, a child with hearing aids is also unable to report problem at a young age. Should we not be using aids for children too?

And, the research shows better outcomes for earlier implantation because lack of stimulation leads to auditory system atrophy. If a child doesn't hear for a long time their brain will have trouble learning to figure out the meaning of sound. The earlier their brain receives the sound, the faster they learn to figure it out. That is why there is a push for early implantation.

 

[Hear Again]

It's just that the studies that say that implanting sooner seem to be based on testing implanting animals. It's all rather futile if you ask me because humans take much longer to develop then animals even after lifespan is taken into account so what's true for a chinchilla or a cat with a CI isn't neccesarily true for a child. The window for developement is open for longer in humans.

If a baby is taught baby signs at age 6 months they can start expressing themselves at age of about 3 plus so it would be much better to implant them after that rather then implanting them when they can't even tell you if their machine has broken down. If their are problems it is VITAL that the young child is able to communicate this.

But that's not what's happening as parents are being pushed into implanting their children at younger and younger ages.

That's apart from the fact that I am against animal testing anyway but that's another subject matter altogether.

dreama,

Thanks for the explanation! In terms of infants and children being unable to tell when there is a problem with their CI, Cochlear (I don't know about AB or Med-El) has a computer program that can pinpoint any problems with the CI. It can also map an infant or child appropriately even though that infant or child cannot communicate for themselves. Having said that, I agree with you about the importance of having solid ASL skills before implantation. Every little bit helps and the more a child can communicate his/her needs, the better it is for everyone involved (child, parents, CI audi, etc.)

 

[deafdyke]

The goal of a CI and AVT is to have a child be able to comprehend using sound only, no visual cues at all. I am saying that most profoundly deaf people who use hearing aids are unable to do that.

Why is AVT so obessed with prevention of any visual cues? Even hearing people read lips for crying out loud!!!!
Faire.......just word of advice. I have to say as a sociologist, it really does seem like a lot of the kids who acheive "hoh functional" listening levels with their CI, tend to be from families that are very well off and whose lifestyles are perfect for incorparating therapy 24/7 methods.
That's not to say that there aren't kids out there who suceed who don't have those advantages.....just that a lot of the sucesses tend to be from families where it's expected little Junior will go off to Harvard.
As for early implantation........I do see the point. However, it does seem like the experts make it sound like if a kid isn't implanted the second they are dx as dhh, they won't get any benifit from the CI.
It can also be kind of hard to tell how well a baby can hear. Yes, there are cases where it's blatently obvious that babies NEED a CI.....but the brainstem tests can be inaccurate. I know for example that
I wasn't identifyed as being hoh til i was three, and I can process sound just fine!!! Matter of fact, everyone says that my language is wicked good!

 

[deafdyke]

Oh....and just to clarify....I am not against AVT. I think AVT in small doses can be helpful....I just think that AVT can be overkill.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Why is AVT so obessed with prevention of any visual cues? Even hearing people read lips for crying out loud!!!!
Faire.......just word of advice. I have to say as a sociologist, it really does seem like a lot of the kids who acheive "hoh functional" listening levels with their CI, tend to be from families that are very well off and whose lifestyles are perfect for incorparating therapy 24/7 methods.
That's not to say that there aren't kids out there who suceed who don't have those advantages.....just that a lot of the sucesses tend to be from families where it's expected little Junior will go off to Harvard.
As for early implantation........I do see the point. However, it does seem like the experts make it sound like if a kid isn't implanted the second they are dx as dhh, they won't get any benifit from the CI.
It can also be kind of hard to tell how well a baby can hear. Yes, there are cases where it's blatently obvious that babies NEED a CI.....but the brainstem tests can be inaccurate. I know for example that
I wasn't identifyed as being hoh til i was three, and I can process sound just fine!!! Matter of fact, everyone says that my language is wicked good!

Her child is 5 yrs old. Knows ASL and will probably continue to use even after she's implanted.

 

[dreama]

Here is an example I was refering to of Animal based models being used to promote 'early implantation'.

Please note that they only focus on speech. Not on language. This is what concerns me. The Listening Center at Johns Hopkins

Another conscern is the continuation to use animal based research in conjunction of CI. They will continue to use animal testing until it is banned or deafness is iliminated. Since it is not possible to illiminate all types of deafness I think they will just carry on testing on animals regardless.

 

[dreama]

I'm confused about a few points in your post.

First, you say a signing child can start expressing themselves at 3. Ummm, no. A child can sign back by about 9 months old

Ok, 9 months then but could a baby that old possibly make such decisions. Your child was 5 before you asked her. Also most implanted babies are not taught baby signs.

Also, a child with hearing aids is also unable to report problem at a young age. Should we not be using aids for children too?

Not before they can communicate discomfort no.

And, the research shows better outcomes for earlier implantation because lack of stimulation leads to auditory system atrophy. If a child doesn't hear for a long time their brain will have trouble learning to figure out the meaning of sound. The earlier their brain receives the sound, the faster they learn to figure it out. That is why there is a push for early implantation.

I question the validity of such research because it is animal based. Animals develop faster and their brains are plastic for shorter. For humans the window stays open longer so we've time to talk to our children. Teach them signing first. We don't HAVE to rush into a CI as soon as their deafness is diagnosed.

 

[Hear Again]

dreama,

The only time I've heard of an animal having a CI was several years ago when a deaf cat was given an implant. Would you mind giving me a few websites where I can read more about this? Thanks!

 

[Cloggy]

Is it the only tool, NO, but for profoundly deaf children WHO DO NOT derive any benefits from HAs, please tell us with your vast experience as an educator of the deaf and as a deaf person without a ci, WHAT TOOL is there presently for these profoundly deaf children THAT IS BETTER THAN A CI for developing and understanding SPOKEN LANGUAGE!

Rick
Caps definitely intended for emphasis!

Guess hearing it is believing it..

 

[Cloggy]

On the statement "I was advised to have a CI for my child" only 1 person felt this was the case.
Interesting, as this is one of the "arguments" that CI is pushed by the medical profession. (That parents are "forced" to get CI for their child..)
Here it shows this is not the case..