Parants of CI children.

Which statements are true for you?

  • I want my child to hear

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • I was advised to have a CI for my child

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • I want a CI to be included in a full tool box aproach

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • My child knew sign language before CI.

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • My child is only just learning sign language after CI.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • I don't feel my child needs sign language at all.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • My child uses cued speach with CI

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • My Child is in AVT for speech therapy

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • If my child decided to stop using their CI I'd let them.

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • If I had had to fund the CI myself I would have still gone ahead

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • My child is in mainstream school

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • My child is in deaf school

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • I am happy with results of CI

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • I am disapointed with the results of CI

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Speech is most important for my child.

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • Literacy is most important for my child

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • Communication through any means is most important.

    Votes: 10 45.5%

  • I think I made the right decision to implant my child

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • I regret having implanted my child.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Other. (please state)

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Total voters
    22
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cloggy said:
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..
Click to expand...

And one regrets it......
 
Cloggy said:
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..
Click to expand...

But the poll results also show that a large number have responded, "I want my child to hear." That supports the idea of an ethnocentric perspective.
 
rick48 said:
Sorry you are incapabale of understading what the research and studies as well as personal obersavations have long established: that the sooner a person is implanted after the onset of deafness, the more likelihood that the person will benefit from the ci.

No one here is saying that non-ci deaf children will never gain auditory benefits without a ci but that for profoundly deaf children who do not derive any benefits from HAs there is no better way for those children to develop and understand speech than a ci.

Once again, you attempt to make any discussion a referendum on your life experience, get over it Shel it is not about you.

Why are you even posting in this thread? You are neither a ci user or the parent of a ci child. Is it just to start/continue controversry?
Click to expand...

That applies to the post lingually deafened.
 
jillio said:
I'd suggest that you double check the research. The best results are still seen in the post lingually deafened.
Click to expand...

Thanks to their experiences with being hearing, they are more likely to get the best benefits from their CIs than any other group. I read a research about that somewhere. It does make sense.
 
jillio said:
I'd suggest that you double check the research. The best results are still seen in the post lingually deafened.
Click to expand...

Of course the best result is in the post lingually deafened. It makes sense. But are you saying that this "the sooner a person is implanted after the onset of deafness, the more likelihood that the person will benefit from the ci." does not ALSO apply for pre-lingually deafened?
 
jillio said:
That applies to the post lingually deafened.
Click to expand...

No, the concept of a person receiving their implant as soon as possible after the onset of deafness in order to get the most beneficial use from the ci for that person applies to both pre and post lingually profoundly deaf children.
 
jillio said:
I'd suggest that you double check the research. The best results are still seen in the post lingually deafened.
Click to expand...

Double check your response for that is not what Faire jour is saying.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Of course the best result is in the post lingually deafened. It makes sense. But are you saying that this "the sooner a person is implanted after the onset of deafness, the more likelihood that the person will benefit from the ci." does not ALSO apply for pre-lingually deafened?[/QUOTE]

According to Fair Jour, it would seem so. I think it really depends on each individual but since they are young so yea, it would make sense that the chances are better. That's why it is hard to say when they are young so better to give all of them a full toolbox.
Click to expand...
 
rick48 said:
No, the concept of a person receiving their implant as soon as possible after the onset of deafness in order to get the most beneficial use from the ci for that person applies to both pre and post lingually profoundly deaf children.
Click to expand...

Links to research, please.
 
rick48 said:
Double check your response for that is not what Faire jour is saying.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I do not need you to interpret the words of another for me. I am quite capable of doing that myself.
 
jillio said:
Quite frankly, I do not need you to interpret the words of another for me. I am quite capable of doing that myself.
Click to expand...

Obviously not and BTW I post what I want, when I want to so if you do not like it, too bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top