Some children who are born deaf recover from their deafness

But you know, it is usually the upper SES that insists on strict oral only environments and demand strict oral only performance from their kids. I have my theories on the reason for this, but nothing that has been researched
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. A LOT of it, does seem to be connected with having "designer" high acheiver kids. They buy into (admittly biased) marketing of oral only as being for high acheiver types. Like the unspoken message is that if the parent choses oral only, the kids will be fluent in seven languages (the kid from the 60's or 70's who spoke seven languages) or who will be otherwise "high acheieving"
There's no mention of the possibilty that the kid will have some spoken language skills, but not have a complete mastery of speech.
Like Oticon's booklet on methodolgy says that its VERY common for oral only dhh kids to say stuff like "How many spiders have legs?" for "how many legs do spiders have?"
Rick, you don't understand..........NONE of us are anti oral skills. We just think that pro-oral people should be more open to Sign as a possible helpful tool, that could REALLY help dhh kids.
I know SO many exoral kids who say they wish they'd learned Sign early on.
Why do pro oral-onliers insist that oral skills be the be all and end all of a dhh kids' existance? Why should life be an eternal speech therapy session for a dhh kid?
You simply do not see the downsides of oral only. Yes, its great that it worked for your daughter, but it's NOT a perfect method. It's just that you lucked out that it seemed to be a perfect fit. Your family didn't experiance a lot of the inequalities and fighting with special ed providers and things like that that a lot of other families experiance!
 
jillio said:
Ageed, bear. And in order for the rights of deaf people to improve, we all have to come to an understanding that deaf is deaf and all are entitltled to accomodation and equal education. The hearing world in particular, needs to stop separating deaf into categories of mild, moderate, severe, profound, HA user, CI user, and non-assisted. It leads to the attitude that I encounter with hearing professors--they will ask why a student with a CI who speaks so well has to have a sign interpreter in class. Other students wee it as being given an extra advantage rather than a necesary accomodation to ensure equal access to class room material. That is my biggest concern--that these children who are implanted continue to receive the services they need and are supposed to be guaranteed by law. But they are often denied the proper services unless someone advocates for them because it is assumed that they don't need the services by those that are supposed to be offering them. That is my biggest concern. By not providing services, the hearing world often is guilty of discrimination agaisnt the CI user more so than the deaf world is. I want to see all deaf children, no matter who they are or how they choose to cope with their deafness succeed to their fullest potential. There is no one way to do that--my son has done it through choosing not to be implanted, and preference of sign to speech, although he can and does use oral communication when he has to. Others choose the implant and the oral only route. But no matter what path is chosen, they are still deaf, and as such have rights to equal access. Those rights are not being addressed in the proper way. The CI is a wonderful tool. Oral skills are a wonderful tool. But when we use them as an excuse not to provide our children with all the tools necessary to insure that they receive an equal educational experience as their hearing peers, then we are doing our deaf children a disservice.
Click to expand...

That is a very good post and a very valid concern to have and I totally agree with it. No one should be denied any tool that could be useful in their arsenal. The problem is though as long as we are too busy debating the merits and cons of a ci *sorry Im tired as I write this* we are not standing up for those rights. I would much rather to be out there marching and whatever it takes to get better rights for ALL deaf people, than to sit here and debate on should we or shouldnt we? Or on well if this and if that. Really IMHO the CI debate is dead. The CI is here to stay and whether if we like it or not, we are just gonna have to accept that and learn to live together.

Instead of both sides having to be right. I would much rather all sides be right and stand strong together and in one voice tell the world we are no longer gonna be ignored!
 
Bear said:
That is a very good post and a very valid concern to have and I totally agree with it. No one should be denied any tool that could be useful in their arsenal. The problem is though as long as we are too busy debating the merits and cons of a ci *sorry Im tired as I write this* we are not standing up for those rights. I would much rather to be out there marching and whatever it takes to get better rights for ALL deaf people, than to sit here and debate on should we or shouldnt we? Or on well if this and if that. Really IMHO the CI debate is dead. The CI is here to stay and whether if we like it or not, we are just gonna have to accept that and learn to live together.
Instead of both sides having to be right. I would much rather all sides be right and stand strong together and in one voice tell the world we are no longer gonna be ignored!
Click to expand...

Many of us are not saying NO to CIs...we dont like the attitude from many people out there (educational specialists, doctors, the public and media) that just because a child gets a CI, they are automatically functioning like a hearing person and dont need sign language at all. That is what many of us who are in the debate are trying to say because of our experiences. We arent telling some AD members how to raise their kids ..just how the specialists should be more open to other options other than the oral only approach.
 
jillio said:
No its more a problem with the testing procedures. They are extremely subjective. Actually a newborn hearing screening will not tell you much more in the way of diagnosis than the baby did not respond to a particular sound. The REASON the baby did not respond could conceivably be one of many.
Click to expand...


Test procedures on newborns are not subjective, they are objective (they don't require the baby to respond to any stimulus). We use Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) measurements. We can without a doubt determine a mild, moderate, severe, or profound hearing loss in either ear.
 
SteveAUD said:
Test procedures on newborns are not subjective, they are objective (they don't require the baby to respond to any stimulus). We use Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) measurements. We can without a doubt determine a mild, moderate, severe, or profound hearing loss in either ear.
Click to expand...

NO test determines anything with 100% accuracy. There is always subjectivity involved in interpreting results. This is particulary so when involving newborns.
 
Cloggy said:
....just like children with normal hearing....
Click to expand...

No, Cloggy--hearing children aren't taught which sounds are meaningful. This is where the acquisition and internalization processes come in.
 
Cloggy said:
Guess hard work doesn't count...
Click to expand...

Of course hard work counts--and that is just the point. Language acquisition isn't supposed to be hard work, it is a naturally occuring process. When it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child.
 
TAMI SAM said:
Yes R2D2 it is...I wasnt going to post on this as I dont know jack about kids and hearing loss.I started to read through this because I just wanted to tell you all when I went to the CI office(If you remember my kids first thread) Well I hope this isnt true about dr.s making more deaf as there were strollers lined up.It was kinda creepy like an expessway for babies for CI's.I expected to see 5yr.olds and up not one in the crowd .Oldest was 3 and the rest were so small I dont even know if they were walking yet.And in the hearing booth and actually every room there were toys everywhere.Made me wonder how on earth are these babies giving them an accurate answer to can you hear this as some test were repeating sentances hold you hand up ect.you know the drill.By the way not one adult there!WTH?!
Click to expand...

:gpost:

Yes it does sound creepy :cold:
 
When it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child.
Click to expand...
Exactly! There are some orally trained kids who have effortlessly picked up spoken language or kids who have done well with just minimum therapy and intervention. But trust me Cloggy a lot of it has to do with the luck of the draw. I think it's awesome that rick48's daughter did well, BUT so much of that was the luck of the draw.I really think you'll begin to understand that when Lotte gets a little older and you'll begin to have to really fight for proper accomondations and things like that. It can be horrible. especially since a lot of mainstream teachers have the attitude "Oh oral deaf kids don't need a lot of accomondations" Plus many mainstream teachers aren't trained to teach kids with classic disabilties (most of their training is focused on LD kids) You really are talking about things that you really don't know too much about. MANY dhh or otherwise disabled kids do well early on, in mainstream but then as time goes on they don't do as well...........this may very well be the case for Lotte.
 
jillio said:
NO test determines anything with 100% accuracy. There is always subjectivity involved in interpreting results. This is particulary so when involving newborns.
Click to expand...


Any audiologist who routinely conducts newborn testing can determine hearing thresholds within 10dB of their true threshold (behavioral). If I get ABR thresholds at 25-30dBHL for clicks, I would not do a thing and monitor the child. CI discussion doesn't take place until absolutely no neural response is recorded from the ABR (doesn't take much in terms of interpreting, their either is a response or their isn't). No one would touch a newborn based on one test, that child would have 3-4 OAE/ABR exams to determine reproducibility.

In terms of mild or moderate hearing losses, well then you have to decide what's worse. Putting a hearing aid on the very slim chance he/she actually has normal hearing, or not putting a hearing aid on a child with a moderate hearing loss and putting them behind the 8-ball from the start (if they are over 12mos of age). We know hearing aids do not damage the ear, so I would rather put one on, be wrong and take it off, then never put it on, be wrong, and accept that the child is behind because I didn't act upon the test results.
 
jillio said:
Of course hard work counts--and that is just the point. Language acquisition isn't supposed to be hard work, it is a naturally occuring process. When it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child.
Click to expand...
On the contrairy, when a child has problems with language, hard work will get rid of problems.....
A child that hasn't heard for 2 or three years will need to catch up. Hard work from people around the child and the child itself will help to reduce the gap.... Like you said, it is a natural process...

Walking is also a natural proces.
You are saying that when a child who has never been able to walk, and by operation obtains the ability to do so..... NOTHING should be done to help, because "it is a naturally occuring process" and "when it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child..."

Way to go Jullio !!
 
Cloggy said:
On the contrairy, when a child has problems with language, hard work will get rid of problems.....
A child that hasn't heard for 2 or three years will need to catch up. Hard work from people around the child and the child itself will help to reduce the gap.... Like you said, it is a natural process...
Walking is also a natural proces.
You are saying that when a child who has never been able to walk, and by operation obtains the ability to do so..... NOTHING should be done to help, because "it is a naturally occuring process" and "when it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child..."

Way to go Jullio !!
Click to expand...


That's why I wish many people will understand the need for sign language to ensure that language is being acquired naturally while working hard to develop oral skills for the child just like u did. Not many people do it the way u did that I know of due to the belief that the CI will do all the work only to find out later that the child missed out a lot. It is the not fault of the CI..just some people adopt the mentality of not needing to work hard but as u stated in your experience, it takes hard work. As a result, Lotte is doing good according to your posts about her.
 
SteveAUD said:
Any audiologist who routinely conducts newborn testing can determine hearing thresholds within 10dB of their true threshold (behavioral). If I get ABR thresholds at 25-30dBHL for clicks, I would not do a thing and monitor the child. CI discussion doesn't take place until absolutely no neural response is recorded from the ABR (doesn't take much in terms of interpreting, their either is a response or their isn't). No one would touch a newborn based on one test, that child would have 3-4 OAE/ABR exams to determine reproducibility.

In terms of mild or moderate hearing losses, well then you have to decide what's worse. Putting a hearing aid on the very slim chance he/she actually has normal hearing, or not putting a hearing aid on a child with a moderate hearing loss and putting them behind the 8-ball from the start (if they are over 12mos of age). We know hearing aids do not damage the ear, so I would rather put one on, be wrong and take it off, then never put it on, be wrong, and accept that the child is behind because I didn't act upon the test results.
Click to expand...


Still your interpretation is subjective. And using an HA under the circumstances you define is great. Chances are, if the test is in error, the child will object to the amplification and the behavioral response can be used as a determining factor. However, this disucssion was not about HAs which can be easily removed with no problem, but about surigical implantation wchich is not.
 
Cloggy said:
On the contrairy, when a child has problems with language, hard work will get rid of problems.....
A child that hasn't heard for 2 or three years will need to catch up. Hard work from people around the child and the child itself will help to reduce the gap.... Like you said, it is a natural process...

Walking is also a natural proces.
You are saying that when a child who has never been able to walk, and by operation obtains the ability to do so..... NOTHING should be done to help, because "it is a naturally occuring process" and "when it is turned into something that requires hard work, problems are created for the child..."

Way to go Jullio !!
Click to expand...

Once again you are twisting my words. And it's jillio, not jullio.
 
jillio said:
Still your interpretation is subjective. And using an HA under the circumstances you define is great. Chances are, if the test is in error, the child will object to the amplification and the behavioral response can be used as a determining factor. However, this disucssion was not about HAs which can be easily removed with no problem, but about surigical implantation wchich is not.
Click to expand...

My son is the perfect example..his hearing tests were inconclusive so we have to come back in 6 months to make sure.
 
shel90 said:
My son is the perfect example..his hearing tests were inconclusive so we have to come back in 6 months to make sure.
Click to expand...

Hearing tests for children under discussion for CI implantation are also repeated many times, and this is after deafness has been determined usually at the newborn screening test. It's usually the degree of deafness that is harder to determine. There is no chance that your son would get a CI right now because he is obviously a very borderline case - they don't even know if he has a hearing loss.
 
R2D2 said:
Hearing tests for children under discussion for CI implantation are also repeated many times, and this is after deafness has been determined usually at the newborn screening test. It's usually the degree of deafness that is harder to determine. There is no chance that your son would get a CI right now because he is obviously a very borderline case - they don't even know if he has a hearing loss.
Click to expand...

Iam using his situation as an example of the hearing tests being subjective not for CI issues.
 
Back
Top