Success for deaf community

faire_jour said:
The bill requires INSURANCE to PAYfor a CI. It does NOT require ANYONE to get one.....READ first, post second.
Click to expand...
The comments by Rep. David Cullen are what I belive folks are up in arms about. (see below) OK the comment by Mrs Bucket about cultural genocide was a bit off base.

As a Democrat and deaf person myself, Rep. David Cullen (D-Milwaukee) does the deaf community a great disservice when he says, "This bill is going to allow children to keep their hearing, to become members of society, to go to school and keep a job."That is an insult to me and many in the deaf community because it tells society that unless deaf people can hear and speak, they are unequal, uneducated and unemployed. That is fallacious and his comments only encourage discrimination on the basis of a person's ability to hear and speak.
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
The comments by Rep. David Cullen are what I belive folks are up in arms about. (see below) OK the comment by Mrs Bucket about cultural genocide was a bit off base.
Click to expand...

Correct, RD.
 
I believe Mrs. Bucket was right, spot on base

Cultural Genocide looked at in historical perspective, Native Peoples Cultures/ D/deaf Culture - same/same no difference if we are talking about wiping out a cultural norm and replacing it as the only way.
 
ASLGAL said:
I believe Mrs. Bucket was right, spot on base

Cultural Genocide looked at in historical perspective, Native Peoples Cultures/ D/deaf Culture - same/same no difference if we are talking about wiping out a cultural norm and replacing it as the only way.
Click to expand...
you misunderstood. If Wisconson is saying that CI are mandatory and deaf people have no choice then I agree that she is spot on.... But.... that is not even remotly close to what is being said here so her comment within the context of this thread is off base. This is not about wiping out a cultural norm and replacing it as the only way. What I believe they are saying is that the insurance companies have to pay for the CI if a deaf person is a candidate AND elects to go that route. It's actually a good thing but the comments of David Cullen reveal his ignorance or possibley stupidity which is what folks are rightfully upset about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that makes me mad is that he thinks ALL CI kids are very high functioning. Not all CI kids are "superstars" ..Besides, the School for the Deaf could provide a refuge for dhh kids who are from inner cities or unstable/dysfunctional family situtions.
 
deafdyke said:
The thing that makes me mad is that he thinks ALL CI kids are very high functioning. Not all CI kids are "superstars" ..Besides, the School for the Deaf could provide a refuge for dhh kids who are from inner cities or unstable/dysfunctional family situtions.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
rockdrummer, I see where you are coming from. Respect your opinion where this specific thread is, but,
I also see where many of the threads being posted about this are heading. This particular thread may not have stated it boldly but others have and these are professionals and agencies that have enough clout and financial backing to buy what they desire, their push to an end or eradication of deafness through forced CI installation. It is already happening in some professions. I know 3 professionals personally who were told they had to CI for enviromental reasons to keep jobs. They did it. Only one of the 3 seems to have adapted well and receive a good benefit from it.

Just explained my view a little so you do not assume I am just some radical who grabs a thread and yells on it.
 
ASLGAL said:
rockdrummer, I see where you are coming from. Respect your opinion where this specific thread is, but,
I also see where many of the threads being posted about this are heading. This particular thread may not have stated it boldly but others have and these are professionals and agencies that have enough clout and financial backing to buy what they desire, their push to an end or eradication of deafness through forced CI installation. It is already happening in some professions. I know 3 professionals personally who were told they had to CI for enviromental reasons to keep jobs. They did it. Only one of the 3 seems to have adapted well and receive a good benefit from it.

Just explained my view a little so you do not assume I am just some radical who grabs a thread and yells on it.
Click to expand...
Please tell me which professionals and agencies you are speaking of? Are you saying that some employers are saying the employees have to wear a CI for environmental reasons? Is this not a breach of the rights a deaf person has under the ADA? :confused:
 
ASLGAL said:
rockdrummer, I see where you are coming from. Respect your opinion where this specific thread is, but,
I also see where many of the threads being posted about this are heading. This particular thread may not have stated it boldly but others have and these are professionals and agencies that have enough clout and financial backing to buy what they desire, their push to an end or eradication of deafness through forced CI installation. It is already happening in some professions. I know 3 professionals personally who were told they had to CI for enviromental reasons to keep jobs. They did it. Only one of the 3 seems to have adapted well and receive a good benefit from it.

Just explained my view a little so you do not assume I am just some radical who grabs a thread and yells on it.
Click to expand...

Agree totally. The use of CI does more bad than good, and as long it does, it does make sense to ban or criminalize CI. People need to come up with a model making sure that deaf people implanted does not suffer. It's like guns, they have to be strictly controlled. The WI law is another step in the direction of making the life of deaf people worse with aid of CI. The statements from the politicans prove this.

Those who favor actions like this are the mad radicals, not we who are against CI. We are conservative.
 
If I understand this correctly the ruling is a good thing. If a person is a candidate and decides to get a CI the insurance companies will pay. The comments by the politician only display his ignorance. Deaf people in WI that wanted a CI but could not get one due to the cost may now be able to go through with it with the financial assistance of insurance. Remember not everyone is against a CI. Some people actually want them and many people (not everyone) actually gain some benefit from them.
 
Please tell me which professionals and agencies you are speaking of? Are you saying that some employers are saying the employees have to wear a CI for environmental reasons? Is this not a breach of the rights a deaf person has under the ADA?
Click to expand...
Let me take these one at a time:
1. No, as that would be breaking confidences, if they wish to tell their own stories they can
2. Yes
3. I believe it is but many will accomodate an employer to keep an otherwise good job/position

The WI law is another step in the direction of making the life of deaf people worse with aid of CI. The statements from the politicans prove this.

Those who favor actions like this are the mad radicals, not we who are against CI.
Click to expand...
Agreed Flip.
Any organization that forces Oral Only or implantation of CI is acting in a criminal manner.
 
ASLGAL said:
Let me take these one at a time:
1. No, as that would be breaking confidences, if they wish to tell their own stories they can
2. Yes
3. I believe it is but many will accomodate an employer to keep an otherwise good job/position


Agreed Flip.
Any organization that forces Oral Only or implantation of CI is acting in a criminal manner.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on number one. If you are going to make claims like that and want anyone to take you seriously then you should be providing facts to back up your claims otherwise I personally can't put any stock in them. Who's confidence are you breaking? And remember you are the one that started telling "their stories" with your claims.

As far as employers wanting the employee to wear a CI for environmental reasons that may be a legitimate request if it is in a dangerous environment where some hearing is required to avoid injuries etc. I would need more details to make an informed conclusion. What type of work are they doing etc.
 
rockdrummer said:
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on number one. If you are going to make claims like that and want anyone to take you seriously then you should be providing facts to back up your claims otherwise I personally can't put any stock in them. Who's confidence are you breaking? And remember you are the one that started telling "their stories" with your claims.

As far as employers wanting the employee to wear a CI for environmental reasons that may be a legitimate request if it is in a dangerous environment where some hearing is required to avoid injuries etc. I would need more details to make an informed conclusion. What type of work are they doing etc.
Click to expand...

If employers start to force CIs and oral only on Deaf people, then it could be a ripple effect causing more discrimination against those who dont have CIs or arent oral and there is enough discrimination out there. The comments made by the politican is just proof of how some hearing people view those who dont have CIs or dont have speech skills. We cant allow employers gain the right to implement those views.
 
shel90 said:
If employers start to force CIs and oral only on Deaf people, then it could be a ripple effect causing more discrimination against those who dont have CIs or arent oral and there is enough discrimination out there. The comments made by the politican is just proof of how some hearing people view those who dont have CIs or dont have speech skills. We cant allow employers gain the right to implement those views.
Click to expand...
I agree with you shel IF that is actually happening. I don't think an employer can legally do that. They can't tell a deaf person, "Sorry but in order to work here you have to get a CI and be oral" I honestly don't believe that is happening.
 
rockdrummer said:
I agree with you shel IF that is actually happening. I don't think an employer can legally do that. They can't tell a deaf person, "Sorry but in order to work here you have to get a CI and be oral" I honestly don't believe that is happening.
Click to expand...

I just hope it doesnt become legal...
 
rockdrummer said:
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on number one. If you are going to make claims like that and want anyone to take you seriously then you should be providing facts to back up your claims otherwise I personally can't put any stock in them. Who's confidence are you breaking? And remember you are the one that started telling "their stories" with your claims.

As far as employers wanting the employee to wear a CI for environmental reasons that may be a legitimate request if it is in a dangerous environment where some hearing is required to avoid injuries etc. I would need more details to make an informed conclusion. What type of work are they doing etc.
Click to expand...

Wanting an employee to wear a CI, and requiring the employee to undergo surgery in order to keep or get a job are two very different situations. Under the ADA, it is not the employee that is mandated to make accommodations, it is the employer. How would you like it if your employer demanded that you undergo surgery to make you deaf so you would be able to block out environmental noises because it has been shown that people in a quiet environment concentrate better?

And, I agree with ASLGAL on the confidentiality issue. Using identifying information is indeed a breach of confidentiality.
 
OMG, this is stupid. I do have a Cochlear Implant but this is going too far!!

:mad:

What's wrong with being deaf? You're born with it, you shouldnt have to try and "change" it if you dont want to. You should be able to use your first language without hassle!! We dont have a go at polish people who come over to the UK for using their language so why have a go at deaf people for using BSL,ASL or any form of sign language?
 
DeafLissa90 said:
OMG, this is stupid. I do have a Cochlear Implant but this is going too far!!

:mad:

What's wrong with being deaf? You're born with it, you shouldnt have to try and "change" it if you dont want to. You should be able to use your first language without hassle!! We dont have a go at polish people who come over to the UK for using their language so why have a go at deaf people for using BSL,ASL or any form of sign language?
Click to expand...

Agreed. And if my ex-bf got a CI, he'd not get much benefit from it and people would still turn him down for employment because he has no speech skills at all.
 
And, I agree with ASLGAL on the confidentiality issue. Using identifying information is indeed a breach of confidentiality.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Thank You.

I do not like your insinuation rockdrummer, I cannot/will not break a confidence to satisfy your curiosity. I am sure since you do not know them you would still call me a liar. Your problem, not mine.
 
Back
Top