The CI for children issue (My POV)

faire_jour said:
I quoted you saying that it was "hard to diagnose that early". That is what I disagreed with. It is not hard, and it requires no input from the patient.
Click to expand...

And I stand by my statement, in the context in which it was made.:roll:
 
faire_jour said:
I am asking you to back up your word. I am asking politely. Can you please show any kind of proof that a surgeon is not permitted to implant outside the age guidelines without special permission from the FDA?
Click to expand...

You haven't asked that at all. You simply said you had to take my word for it, and I showed you that you did not have to take my word for it. You can look it up for yourself.

I told you already, it is in the FDA guidelines.
 
jillio said:
You haven't asked that at all. You simply said you had to take my word for it, and I showed you that you did not have to take my word for it. You can look it up for yourself.

I told you already, it is in the FDA guidelines.
Click to expand...

I am asking again. Will you please show proof that a surgeon must petition the FDA for permission to implant a child outside the FDA guidelines?
 
jillio said:
Sometimes. Depends on the infant. Most deaf infants will vocalize just like a hearing infant during the first few months of their life. Only when an infant should be imitating particular phnonetic combinations is a big difference noticed.

I've known a few hearing babies that never cried, and were very withdrawn vocally. The difference is, they are still getting stiumili auditorily and their brain is processing it, so no delays.
Click to expand...

Another one for my book of the Weird and Erractic autobiography!
 
faire_jour said:
No. An ABR is completely diagnostic, and requires no imput from the child at all.
Click to expand...


I was talking about milestones. Rather they are deaf or hearing, babies will coo. The only differences is that hearing babies probably listen to their own cooing.

And I wasn't talking about implant based on their milestone either. I thought JaxR was talking about how it is a good idea to implant them young because milestones is good for their brain and language development.
 
jillio said:
You are misinterpreting. I did not say a child would have to be implanted at birth to receive any benefit. I said a child would have to be implanted at birth in order to have no linquistic delays as a result of a hearing deficit. Quite a different thing. If you implant at 6 months, there is already a 6 month delay resulting from the linquistic input that the child cannot access for that time period. Additionally, you are failing to note the delays that continue to accumulate while a child is trained to use the implant following implantation. Those pile on top of the ones that begin to accumulate at birth.
Click to expand...


At least it seems by what you're saying here that you agree that the argument that they should wait until the child is old enough to make the decision on their own is not always the best option.

I think I didn't do a very good job at explaining my point in the OP. This discussion has gone in so many directions and some of you seem to think I'm saying that kids should be implanted at a young age. That is not what I said at all.

My point was that the arguments about waiting till they are old enough to make the "choice" is not a good argument. Because as we've already established, in some cases waiting will do more harm then good.

My point was that when a doctor informs a parent that their child is deaf that they don't have to automatically look into ASL and deaf culture. They need to look into all options then make a decision that's best for their child and sometimes going with a surgery or device to give them the ability to hear is the right decision. No one should put them down for making that decision.

The argument that all HOH and deaf kids should learn ASL is not only applied to deaf and HOH kids. I'll agree that all kids could benefit from that. But let's come back to the real world where ordering food from a restaurant, asking a police officer for help, making a phone call when the car breaks down and ordering a pizza cannot be done with ASL. I'm simply saying that if a child can be given the ability to hear through a procedure or device then a parent should do it. Will it always work? of course we don't' know that. But where's the harm in trying?

I just can't stand it when I see or read about someone being put down because they are doing their best to give their child all they can provide. No one should ever be put down for that. If my child was born deaf I'd ask if anything can be done to give them the ability to hear. If there is and I get it and my child can now hear. Then someone tells me that I should have not done that and sent them to deaf school. I'd tell them to shut up and mind their own business because my child is happy and benefiting from that decision.

On the other hand if there is no way for my child to hear then of course I'd make sure they obtain all the tools they'd need to get along in this world. A world that unfortunately is not all that kind to us who are deaf. Most people really don't understand deafness. This is why we have deaf culture. In deaf culture we are surrounded by people who understand it. Deaf culture is more established then say blind and in wheel chairs. Sure, they have their schools, social groups and activities. But when is the last time you read about issues regarding blind culture or "Wheel chair" culture? Not nearly as often as you do about deaf culture. Because the world understands being blind or in a wheel chair more then they understand deafness.

It's unfortunate but it's true. It would be great is there was more deaf awareness out there.

Ron
 
Lighthouse77 said:
at the same time, you say that there are fluid in the ear to consider.
Click to expand...

A child can fail the newborn screen because of "junk" still in their ears at birth. They are then retested with the screening tool, and if they fail again, they are given the ABR. The ABR diagnoses the hearing loss. It tell you how much loss and at what frequencies. At that time, you can know if the child could be a CI candidate. This would be within a week or so of birth.

Currently, you must do a trial of hearing aids. Most doctors do 6 months. During that time they use booth tests to see if there is benefit from hearing aids. If there is not significant benefit (which most audiologist, surgeons and parents would want the child aided completely into the speech banana, at 30-35 db) the child is then a CI candidate. They are able to be implanted, at the surgeons discretion, starting as young as 6 months old. I know several families who had their child receive bilateral implants between 8 and 10 months old.
 
I think it is sad that communication for emergency or resturants is far more important than social communication where deaf people can have a easy flow of conversation without being interrupted with "huh?" "What?"

Shouldn't police be able accommodate us instead? I mean there are plenty of people disabilities, they should be aware of that and do the best they can do to help us.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I think it is sad that communication for emergency or resturants is far more important than social communication where deaf people can have a easy flow of conversation without being interrupted with "huh?" "What?"

Shouldn't police be able accommodate us instead? I mean there are plenty of people disabilities, they should be aware of that and do the best they can do to help us.
Click to expand...

I think that education is the most important thing. In what language can a child receive the best education. What school can they attend that will help them acheive the best literacy? Those are the questions that parents should be asking.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I think it is sad that communication for emergency or resturants is far more important than social communication where deaf people can have a easy flow of conversation without being interrupted with "huh?" "What?"

Shouldn't police be able accommodate us instead? I mean there are plenty of people disabilities, they should be aware of that and do the best they can do to help us.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I am not against in teaching deaf children to develop oral skills but it shouldnt be the only option. Teach deaf children both ASL and oral skills AND expose them to both hearing and deaf worlds.

Then hearing people need to do their part too in ensuring that deaf people's needs are met instead of expecting us to meet their ways all the time.
 
shel90 said:
I agree with you. I am not against in teaching deaf children to develop oral skills but it shouldnt be the only option. Teach deaf children both ASL and oral skills AND expose them to both hearing and deaf worlds.
Click to expand...

But, "oral skills" does not mean fluent spoken language. Most parents want their child to use spoken language fluently, how do we go about teaching that along with ASL?
 
faire_jour said:
But, "oral skills" does not mean fluent spoken language. Most parents want their child to use spoken language fluently, how do we go about teaching that along with ASL?
Click to expand...

It is being done and I see it constantly. Many deaf people end up fluent in the spoken language. Is it really that important in what mode?
 
shel90 said:
It is being done and I see it constantly. Many deaf people end up fluent in the spoken language. Is it really that important in what mode?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you are right, I wasn't clear.

Many parents want their children to listen and speak, spoken language fluently, in addition to reading and writing.

So, how do we do that in conjunction with ASL?
 
faire_jour said:
I'm sorry, you are right, I wasn't clear.

Many parents want their children to listen and speak, spoken language fluently, in addition to reading and writing.

So, how do we do that in conjunction with ASL?
Click to expand...

Bilingual education...we have gone over that a million times.

I paid a heavy price for what my parents wanted. It can be done with both but it is not the end of the world if the child cant speak nor listen if they develop fluency in spoken languages via reading and writing. Many of us are living proof of that. I find it to be a shame that if it is the parents' #1 priority in some ways.
 
faire_jour said:
So, are you saying it is difficult to diagnose a hearing loss in an infant or that you need input from a child to determine the loss?
Click to expand...

I am saying that you need input from the child to determine, with accuracy, functional diagnostic levels. I don't know how much plainer I can put it.
 
shel90 said:
Bilingual education...we have gone over that a million times.

I paid a heavy price for what my parents wanted. It can be done with both but it is not the end of the world if the child cant speak nor listen if they develop fluency in spoken languages via reading and writing. Many of us are living proof of that. I find it to be a shame that if it is the parents' #1 priority in some ways.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of bi-bi schools are completely voice off. That is why I keep bringing it up. A child can not learn an entire language in 10 minute "speech lessons". If we are going to have hearing parents enroll their children in bi-bi schools, we need to find a way to make them bilingual in all modes, not just written language. They need to equally emphasis and value both languages.

How do they do that?
 
faire_jour said:
I quoted you saying that it was "hard to diagnose that early". That is what I disagreed with. It is not hard, and it requires no input from the patient.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want. I still stand by my statement. Functional diagnostic levels cannot be obtained at birth, and ABRs are quite often in error. There is wide variance between screenings done at birth and testing done just a few months later.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
at the same time, you say that there are fluid in the ear to consider.
Click to expand...

There are many, many variables that effect the accuracy of newborn screenings. That is why it is not considered to be a diagnostic procedure leading to a definitive diagnosis, but rather a way to red flag infants that need further assessment.
 
Back
Top