Psychology of Parents on CI

A said:
There's lot of reasons why, so stop asking why. Why everything have to be your idea what CI suppose to be?
Click to expand...

Why can't you answer the question? You brought it up, and then are refusing to discuss it? Why? I'm asking a few questions to add to the discussion, but somehow that has made you angry. You started the thread but didn't really want to talk about it...:dunno:
 
faire_jour said:
Why can't you answer the question? You brought it up, and then are refusing to discuss it? Why? I'm asking a few questions to add to the discussion, but somehow that has made you angry. You started the thread but didn't really want to talk about it...:dunno:
Click to expand...

It's you who don't detect an answer when you get it. Btw,A asked you a good question that you haven't replied to:
"Why everything have to be your idea what CI suppose to be?".

Yeah, why?
 
flip said:
It's you who don't detect an answer when you get it. Btw,A asked you a good question that you haven't replied to:
"Why everything have to be your idea what CI suppose to be?".

Yeah, why?
Click to expand...

It isn't my choice at all. But the truth is that they aren't going to give you a CI if you want those things. If you say that you are not going to use spoken language, do therapy, etc, they will NOT give you a CI. It won't happen.
 
flip said:
There is only much comittment required if you want your kid to be a poster child.

Only giving away CI's to those who work hard with a spoken language is nasty and reveals an agenda. It also gives less choices to lower classes. "Want a free CI worth thousands of dollars? Then you have to work HARD to prepare your child for an oral deaf school".

It's stuff like this that makes me think that the world would be better without the CI technology, with respect to those who are implanted.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that the child would have to go to an oral deaf school. Even though with all the crazy CI legislation and ideas about who should get it and how they should handle it, who knows if that's actually supported somewhere. FJ and others are examples of people with children who do not go to an oral deaf school. If I'm correct, I think Li Li goes to a bi-bi school.

I don't think hard work for the child necessarily implies you want them to be a poster child. I know of one person with an implant who was taught to sign and to speak. They went through speech therapy to improve their speech as a child, and then stopped when my friend said he felt good about it. His speech still isn't "perfect," but he's happy, and that's what counts. He isn't a poster child by any means, but they dedicated time to him so that he could have access to both spoken communication and to ASL.

I know the subject of my friend has been touchy to some deafies, since he was implanted at 3, but there's nothing we can do to change it, and he has told me he does not want it removed (he is now 21). He likes the way things are for him.

If you did not commit to your child, it would seem like the parent viewed an implant as a cure-all where they just put it on and POOF! It's all solved. Commitment is required to help your child adjust to the implant and to help them identify sounds, etc. I don't know as much about the process as others do, but I know if you just had the surgery and had little commitment to your child, it's just the same as if your child was hearing and you figured they would be fine without your commitment to interacting with them.

Edit: if you did not make a commitment to helping your child adjust to the CI, as far as the psychology of getting a CI goes with parents, you might not be allowed to get one--because once again, it seems neglectful to not help the child adapt. Whether through ASL and speech therapy, or whatever method is chosen. But something must be chosen. I won't go into what I think SHOULD be done, but I'm saying I think that is the reason why they have to make some sort of pledge to help the child adapt.
 
I think with or without CI, it is neglectful to not help the child communicate. I do not think it is neglectful if the parents don't stress too much on speech therapy if they use ASL even though they do continue with mapping (if they don't then I don't see the point of implanting because the sounds will not improve without mapping).
 
A said:
I think with or without CI, it is neglectful to not help the child communicate. I do not think it is neglectful if the parents don't stress too much on speech therapy if they use ASL even though they do continue with mapping (if they don't then I don't see the point of implanting because the sounds will not improve without mapping).
Click to expand...

They can do ASL and spoken language, but to say "we are getting a CI but we don't care about spoken language and don't want to do therapy", I don't think they will give you one.
 
Right. it have to be their way. They will not see other people's reasons.
 
I do not know anything really about mapping, so I can't say anything about it.

That is what I was trying to get at, that it is neglectful to not help the child communicate, and it is assumed that with a CI, the parent wants the child to speak--even if not perfectly, they want to learn spoken language. I'm sure doctors and whatnot won't complain if you want to use ASL as well (though I know there are some out there that shun it), but they automatically connect CI to spoken language, and understandably so. A CI is meant to help the child hear--no matter how much-- and the language of the hearing is spoken. That is likely why they want you to help the child adapt to the HEARING world as well.

Topics like ASL and Deaf culture are not their concern, they are simply concerned for the child's ability to hear and understand spoken language, as well as USE both tools.
 
faire_jour said:
They can do ASL and spoken language, but to say "we are getting a CI but we don't care about spoken language and don't want to do therapy", I don't think they will give you one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, because most people who do the procedure want their child to have some spoken language, like you said, FJ. Even if they know ASL. The doctors might be concerned that people would just smack on the CI and leave their child alone without getting them through the therapy they need to adjust to spoken language, like implantees and their parents want.

They do not encourage ASL or anything of the sort because that is not their area of expertise. They simply want to know that the child will be able to hear "well" and use their voice as a result of it.
 
Ms. America, who is deaf, wasn't concern about her ability to hear spoken language when she choose CI. Her concern came after her child got hurt and she didn't hear it. It scared her so much that she choose CI. What if she wanted her child to have CI too because she know how important environmental sounds are. but have very little interests in spoken language (lets just say all her family are signing deaf so spoken language is not important in their family and friends). So spoken language is not always the reasons why people choose CI
 
natty_4ever said:
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that the child would have to go to an oral deaf school. Even though with all the crazy CI legislation and ideas about who should get it and how they should handle it, who knows if that's actually supported somewhere. FJ and others are examples of people with children who do not go to an oral deaf school. If I'm correct, I think Li Li goes to a bi-bi school.

I don't think hard work for the child necessarily implies you want them to be a poster child. I know of one person with an implant who was taught to sign and to speak. They went through speech therapy to improve their speech as a child, and then stopped when my friend said he felt good about it. His speech still isn't "perfect," but he's happy, and that's what counts. He isn't a poster child by any means, but they dedicated time to him so that he could have access to both spoken communication and to ASL.

I know the subject of my friend has been touchy to some deafies, since he was implanted at 3, but there's nothing we can do to change it, and he has told me he does not want it removed (he is now 21). He likes the way things are for him.

If you did not commit to your child, it would seem like the parent viewed an implant as a cure-all where they just put it on and POOF! It's all solved. Commitment is required to help your child adjust to the implant and to help them identify sounds, etc. I don't know as much about the process as others do, but I know if you just had the surgery and had little commitment to your child, it's just the same as if your child was hearing and you figured they would be fine without your commitment to interacting with them.

Edit: if you did not make a commitment to helping your child adjust to the CI, as far as the psychology of getting a CI goes with parents, you might not be allowed to get one--because once again, it seems neglectful to not help the child adapt. Whether through ASL and speech therapy, or whatever method is chosen. But something must be chosen. I won't go into what I think SHOULD be done, but I'm saying I think that is the reason why they have to make some sort of pledge to help the child adapt.
Click to expand...

Whose idea is it that speech as a goal should be mandatory when implanting a child? A is a deaf CI user that disagree with that. FJ is a hearing special education professonial that agree with that goal. This example is perhaps a bit anecdotal, but it's telling. Also. who will profit on it beeing mandatory? Nothing is free.

Why do you say one have to choose? I got both sign and speech. Sure one have to inform parents if they got unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem with hell bent parents who are mentally unbalanced and all ready to do a hell of a lot work to make sure their child develop speech. Mandatory psychological counselling would be much more constructive than just refusing CI because parents don't want to do a lot of work with AVT style methods.

Notice that I am not saying that speech training is bad, and I understand you perfect about the limits and effort one can put into speech training. We perhaps have the same view here.

FJ's daughter goes to an oral school, btw.
 
yeah, I don't mind little training on speech, either. not everyone agree with heavy therapy.

CI users will be exposed to spoken language somewhere anyway (if the mapping is done right).
 
A said:
Ms. America, who is deaf, wasn't concern about her ability to hear spoken language when she choose CI. Her concern came after her child got hurt and she didn't hear it. It scared her so much that she choose CI. What if she wanted her child to have CI too because she know how important environmental sounds are. but have very little interests in spoken language (lets just say all her family are signing deaf so spoken language is not important in their family and friends). So spoken language is not always the reasons why people choose CI
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as we have seen in this thread, priorities are often not the same among those who hear, and those who are deaf. Who should decide what's important?
 
flip said:
Whose idea is it that speech as a goal should be mandatory when implanting a child? A is a deaf CI user that disagree with that. FJ is a hearing special education professonial that agree with that goal. This example is perhaps a bit anecdotal, but it's telling. Also. who will profit on it beeing mandatory? Nothing is free.

Why do you say one have to choose? I got both sign and speech. Sure one have to inform parents if they got unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem with hell bent parents who are mentally unbalanced and all ready to do a hell of a lot work to make sure their child develop speech. Mandatory psychological counselling would be much more constructive than just refusing CI because parents don't want to do a lot of work with AVT style methods.

Notice that I am not saying that speech training is bad, and I understand you perfect about the limits and effort one can put into speech training. We perhaps have the same view here.

FJ's daughter goes to an oral school, btw.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't say it had to be mandatory for ME, but I'm saying for those CI professionals and those related to the CI procedure, that is their goal--speech and hearing.

If I ever were to implant one of my future children (I'm honestly wary as to what I would do if I faced the situation), I would choose ASL and speech. But I know some parents think that the CI will just "fix" everything, so they do not need speech therapy, etc. should they want their child to speak. I think that is why they do the psychological evaluation, though it isn't right that the parents MUST go through the speech therapy and whatnot if ASL is going to be their preferred language.

I think it would be better if they established that they will be helping their child adjust to the CI in generally and securing A language, period. Even better if they chose both their spoken and signed languages.
 
A said:
Ms. America, who is deaf, wasn't concern about her ability to hear spoken language when she choose CI. Her concern came after her child got hurt and she didn't hear it. It scared her so much that she choose CI. What if she wanted her child to have CI too because she know how important environmental sounds are. but have very little interests in spoken language (lets just say all her family are signing deaf so spoken language is not important in their family and friends). So spoken language is not always the reasons why people choose CI
Click to expand...

That is an adult chosing a CI for themselves, it is different than a parent choosing for a child.
 
faire_jour said:
That is an adult chosing a CI for themselves, it is different than a parent choosing for a child.
Click to expand...

did you even read what I wrote.. what if she decided to implant her child for the same reasons?
 
natty_4ever said:
Oh, I didn't say it had to be mandatory for ME, but I'm saying for those CI professionals and those related to the CI procedure, that is their goal--speech and hearing.

If I ever were to implant one of my future children (I'm honestly wary as to what I would do if I faced the situation), I would choose ASL and speech. But I know some parents think that the CI will just "fix" everything, so they do not need speech therapy, etc. should they want their child to speak. I think that is why they do the psychological evaluation, though it isn't right that the parents MUST go through the speech therapy and whatnot if ASL is going to be their preferred language.

I think it would be better if they established that they will be helping their child adjust to the CI in generally and securing A language, period. Even better if they chose both their spoken and signed languages.
Click to expand...

If I got you right, that's what I think, too. The biggest problem is not that parents just want to put on that CI and wath TV or doing something else, as that's as bad as overdoing speech therapy. I find it worrysome that doctors approve the latter, but not the first.

It's funny, but this is perhaps the main reason I think CI are scary on kids. The CI attracts hell bent speech professonials and people with an awry view on what deafness is about. Just giving kids HA, will make people leave them alone better, and let the kids be kids.
 
A said:
did you even read what I wrote.. what if she decided to implant her child for the same reasons?
Click to expand...

Guess what FJ said is :"That is an deaf chosing a CI for themselves, it is different than a hearing choosing for a child."?
 
Back
Top