Second response to deafdyke

[Hear Again]

I don't know what's going on with the AD server, but I received another error message preventing me from posting my response. <sigh> I apologize for creating another thread, but there was no other way for me to respond.

Hear Again, On the other hand, I do think that in some cases experimentation with different types of aids might produce results that are just as good as implantion.

Agreed, but since *most* (not all) people with severe-profound or profound hearing loss are already wearing the strongest HAs available, this may not be necessary.

Why not shorten the ha trial time for the ambigious cases? Like have them go through formal in the booth HINT testing with a variety of different kinds of aids, and THEN require the hearing aid with the best response to be used IRL for at least two weeks. If there was a formal process like that for ambigious canidates, I'd be VERY pro CI.

That is already being done for people who are not wearing the most up-to-date hearing aids. I don't agree that HA trials should be shortened for anyone except in cases where it is clear that a person receives no benefit from HAs. If one person is required to have a 6 month trial with HAs, the same should be expected for ALL.

As for "ambiguous" vs. "non-ambiguous" cases, why separate people into categories? A CI candidate is a CI candidate -- period.

It's been a few years since I heard from the guy who could hear 80% who was looking into implantation, but I remember that he was saying that he was eligable b/c he couldn't hear perfectly in all situtions. This was a person who was the president of his SHHH! Not just a typical layman.

I think I know who you are talking about. If it's the same person I'm thinking of, he chose to be evaluated for a CI but was denied candidacy based on his 80% speech discrimination.

If the person you mentioned knew as much about hearing loss as you claim he does, why was he considering a CI in the first place if he could understand 80% of speech?

Sorry about seeming so militant. But, if I ask a parent or someone about their hearing history, I'm not doing so with the intention of being anti-CI. I think the CI ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's basicly the "new digital aid"........just trying to make sure that people aren't falling for the hype, the way that a lot of people did with digitals that's all.

When adults or parents look into a CI, many of them don't rush into the decision without doing alot of research beforehand. With the potential that a person (or child) may lose all residual hearing, the decision to have a CI isn't taken lightly by adults, parents, the CI surgeon or audi.

I'm going to try to not seem so miliatant. But, if I do ask someone about their loss, or suggest alternatives, I really do not want people acting like I'm an extreme militant.

There is a difference between asking someone about their hearing history vs. questioning their decision (in an interrogating manner) to have a CI. If an adult or parent is considering a CI, chances are likely that they've exhausted other alternatives. An adult or parent who has already chosen the CI route does not need to be encouraged to explore other avenues. Their decision has already been made and suggesting that they consider other alternatives most likely will not change their opinion.

Who knows? Maybe someone will find that an alternative works really well for them!

It is equally possible that an adult or parent will discover how much they or their child have been missing with HAs after receiving a CI.

 

[Cloggy]

I posted the above post in it's original topic.

Suggest that people got there to continue the discussion...

(BTW, Hear-Again, I thing posting failed because you answered inside the QUOTE. There was NO text outside, so the program registeres "no text"...)

 

[deafskeptic]

I don't know what's going on with the AD server, but I received another error message preventing me from posting my response. <sigh> I apologize for creating another thread, but there was no other way for me to respond.

Cloggy is right about the cause of the error message that you were getting. I tried to send this post with my words inside the quote and I got the same error message that you did.

I know it's going to be pain typing [/qoute] at the end of every paragraph but you won't get error messages this way.

 

[Cloggy]

.....I know it's going to be pain typing [/qoute] at the end of every paragraph but you won't get error messages this way.

I actually like to reply inside te original quote as well.
The only thing needed after this is to say "bye" outside the quote, and you're home-free

 

[Hear Again]

Cloggy and deafskeptic,

Thanks for the information (and for posting my message under the correct thread)! I'll keep that in mind the next time I post!

Since I use a Braille display, I find it much easier to reply within the original quote. If I reply outside of it, it's too difficult for me to keep track of what I'm responding to.

 

[Boult]

Cloggy and deafskeptic,

Thanks for the information (and for posting my message under the correct thread)! I'll keep that in mind the next time I post!

Since I use a Braille display, I find it much easier to reply within the original quote. If I reply outside of it, it's too difficult for me to keep track of what I'm responding to.

but you could quote each paragraph (I don't know how difficult is to do that with braille display hmm.. ) but if not possible then okay

 

[Hear Again]

but you could quote each paragraph (I don't know how difficult is to do that with braille display hmm.. ) but if not possible then okay

Boult,

That's true, but when a person writes a post without paragraph breaks, it's difficult to quote each section of the text I'm responding to because I can only read one line at a time on my Braille display. Thanks for your understanding.