Those who decide not to get a CI

[Bottesini]

That's a good movie. I enjoyed it.

Me too.

 

[cjg]

Reality, in my child's case, is that she learns spoken language naturally, peripherally, and incidentally. She is deaf. And she can access sound and hear with the aid of her CIs. I make no claim that this holds true for anyone else with a CI or an HA, and you may not have ever witnessed this as a possibility in your experience, but it is true for us.

The English language has a dictionary. A dictionary defines words. The English dictionary defines deaf as "without the ability to hear"
If a person can hear , then they are not 'deaf'.

You are using the word incorrectly.

No matter what you want to think , the word has a meaning that is defined. Just because you 'feel' that it means something else , does not make it so.

Please forgive me if this came out the wrong way. It was not meant to insult in any way.

 

[faire_jour]

The English language has a dictionary. A dictionary defines words. The English dictionary defines deaf as "without the ability to hear"
If a person can hear , then they are not 'deaf'.

You are using the word incorrectly.

No matter what you want to think , the word has a meaning that is defined. Just because you 'feel' that it means something else , does not make it so.

Please forgive me if this came out the wrong way. It was not meant to insult in any way.

So, what are our children, if they have a profound hearing loss, if not deaf?

 

[GrendelQ]

The English language has a dictionary. A dictionary defines words. The English dictionary defines deaf as "without the ability to hear"
If a person can hear , then they are not 'deaf'.

You are using the word incorrectly.

No matter what you want to think , the word has a meaning that is defined. Just because you 'feel' that it means something else , does not make it so.

Please forgive me if this came out the wrong way. It was not meant to insult in any way.

It's not a matter of "feeling." My child does not have the ability to access sound naturally. She's deaf. She uses a tool to provide sounds and her brain makes sense of them -- she 'hears' via her cochlear implants.

Her deafness isn't in question. Test her, measure her: she's profoundly deaf. If we're using a word inaccurately, it's "hearing," but there's not a substitute available for such a replicated / substituted sense.

If you pick up a telescope and look into the sky, does that mean that your vision is recalibrated to a focal length of 2000mm? Are you no longer near-sighted? Has your vision changed and have you developed what would be considered super powers -- or are you simply using a tool to enhance the limitations of your own vision?

A CI (or an HA) is just a tool, it doesn't change the fact that you yourself are deaf.

 

[TXgolfer]

Talk to me in five years or so.

Wishful thinking and limited experience.

You asked, I answered.

Why do you think your child is the one in a million exception, or that you are not extremely biased in your observations?

Key word: mimic. Think about it.

Keep believing that. And get back to me in five or six years.

Wirelessly posted


Your prediction is based on your sick hope that children with CIs fail so that you are proven right.

Sure appears that way to me FJ. I for one wish you and your daughter great success with her CI. Hopefully the next 5-6 years show nothing but steady progress.

 

[faire_jour]

Sure appears that way to me FJ. I for one wish you and your daughter great success with her CI. Hopefully the next 5-6 years show nothing but steady progress.

Thanks, that means a lot. We are very lucky that we have great support locally and that my daughter has great Deaf friends and a great community.

 

[cjg]

It's not a matter of "feeling." My child does not have the ability to access sound naturally. She's deaf. She uses a tool to provide sounds and her brain makes sense of them -- she 'hears' via her cochlear implants.

Her deafness isn't in question. Test her, measure her: she's profoundly deaf. If we're using a word inaccurately, it's "hearing," but there's not a substitute available for such a replicated / substituted sense.

If you pick up a telescope and look into the sky, does that mean that your vision is recalibrated to a focal length of 2000mm? Are you no longer near-sighted? Has your vision changed and have you developed what would be considered super powers -- or are you simply using a tool to enhance the limitations of your own vision?

A CI (or an HA) is just a tool, it doesn't change the fact that you yourself are deaf.

In order for the word deaf to fit your usage of it , it would need to be re-defined to mean 'without a natural sense of hearing".

But as it is now , the dictionary does not include 'natural' in its definition.

you bring up an interesting point with vision. Think about it that way for a moment . The way you are using deaf , would include people that use glasses as 'blind'. Even when they are wearing the glasses.

For reference , when do YOU consider someone to be deaf ? At what level of loss do you consider the label 'deaf' to be proper ?

 

[faire_jour]

In order for the word deaf to fit your usage of it , it would need to be re-defined to mean 'without a natural sense of hearing".

But as it is now , the dictionary does not include 'natural' in its definition.

you bring up an interesting point with vision. Think about it that way for a moment . The way you are using deaf , would include people that use glasses as 'blind'. Even when they are wearing the glasses.

For reference , when do YOU consider someone to be deaf ? At what level of loss do you consider the label 'deaf' to be proper ?

I personally define people as hearing or deaf (I don't use hard of hearing, but many do). If someone is not hearing (ie has a hearing loss), to me, they are deaf.

 

[kokonut]

Sure appears that way to me FJ. I for one wish you and your daughter great success with her CI. Hopefully the next 5-6 years show nothing but steady progress.

+1...and a smashing success, too.

 

[AlleyCat]

I personally define people as hearing or deaf (I don't use hard of hearing, but many do). If someone is not hearing (ie has a hearing loss), to me, they are deaf.

The only problem I have with that is what if they have a 5 db hearing loss? I can't call that as deaf.

 

[shel90]

In order for the word deaf to fit your usage of it , it would need to be re-defined to mean 'without a natural sense of hearing".

But as it is now , the dictionary does not include 'natural' in its definition.

you bring up an interesting point with vision. Think about it that way for a moment . The way you are using deaf , would include people that use glasses as 'blind'. Even when they are wearing the glasses.

For reference , when do YOU consider someone to be deaf ? At what level of loss do you consider the label 'deaf' to be proper ?

Not everyone takes "deaf" literally.

 

[kokonut]

I personally define people as hearing or deaf (I don't use hard of hearing, but many do). If someone is not hearing (ie has a hearing loss), to me, they are deaf.

Don't tell that to a person with a 25 dB hearing loss. Just like saying someone with a 35/20 vision is blind.

 

[GrendelQ]

In order for the word deaf to fit your usage of it , it would need to be re-defined to mean 'without a natural sense of hearing".

But as it is now , the dictionary does not include 'natural' in its definition.

you bring up an interesting point with vision. Think about it that way for a moment . The way you are using deaf , would include people that use glasses as 'blind'. Even when they are wearing the glasses.

For reference , when do YOU consider someone to be deaf ? At what level of loss do you consider the label 'deaf' to be proper ?

Right now there isn't a bionic vision implant available in the way that CIs are. But if there were, I would say the same. Still blind, with a technological access to sight. Computer-generated vision is not the same as human vision.

I don't see that natural needs to be added to the definition to make it fit. My daughter does not have a sense of hearing. The CI provides that. She remains deaf. Her brain processes something that is like hearing, but is not any hearing that she's doing. Think again about the telescope. You use it, but it doesn't mean you suddenly have vision of that caliber.

 

[faire_jour]

Don't tell that to a person with a 25 dB hearing loss. Just like saying someone with a 35/20 vision is blind.

Alright, I meant outside the normal range! But, yeah, I said "deaf" for my daughter when she had a 20-60 db loss.

 

[faire_jour]

Right now there isn't a bionic vision implant available in the way that CIs are. But if there were, I would say the same. Still blind, with a technological access to sight. Computer-generated vision is not the same as human vision.

I don't see that natural needs to be added to the definition to make it fit. My daughter does not have a sense of hearing. The CI provides that. She remains deaf. Her brain processes something that is like hearing, but is not any hearing that she's doing. Think again about the telescope. You use it, but it doesn't mean you suddenly have vision of that caliber.

They do!

http://www.2-sight.com/

It's like a CI!

 

[cjg]

I personally define people as hearing or deaf (I don't use hard of hearing, but many do). If someone is not hearing (ie has a hearing loss), to me, they are deaf.

That is where the issue lies.

The dictionary definition of deaf is simply 'without a sense of hearing'. This is what most of the people you will encounter use to define the word.

To most people in the world deaf is the absolute. Not being able to hear anything. While WE may know that there are many subtle shades to the ability to hear , most of the world does not subscribe to that definition of the word.

Either you are deaf , or you are not. Being able to hear someone talking to you while your back is turned is enough to make the moniker of deaf improper as defined by the English dictionary.

 

[kokonut]

 

[AlleyCat]

That is where the issue lies.

The dictionary definition of deaf is simply 'without a sense of hearing'. This is what most of the people you will encounter use to define the word.

To most people in the world deaf is the absolute. Not being able to hear anything. While WE may know that there are many subtle shades to the ability to hear , most of the world does not subscribe to that definition of the word.

Either you are deaf , or you are not. Being able to hear someone talking to you while your back is turned is enough to make the moniker of deaf improper as defined by the English dictionary.

I can hear someone speaking while my back is turned. I might (and most likely) won't understand them, however. So just because I can hear their voices (with my HAs, that is) doesn't make me hearing. Not even close.

 

[faire_jour]

That is where the issue lies.

The dictionary definition of deaf is simply 'without a sense of hearing'. This is what most of the people you will encounter use to define the word.

To most people in the world deaf is the absolute. Not being able to hear anything. While WE may know that there are many subtle shades to the ability to hear , most of the world does not subscribe to that definition of the word.

Either you are deaf , or you are not. Being able to hear someone talking to you while your back is turned is enough to make the moniker of deaf improper as defined by the English dictionary.

And if my daughter's CIs were off, she can't hear a jet engine. So, yeah, deaf.

 

[cjg]

I can hear someone speaking while my back is turned. I might (and most likely) won't understand them, however. So just because I can hear their voices (with my HAs, that is) doesn't make me hearing. Not even close.

You have the ability to hear. Perhaps not clear or focused .. but you do process sounds. Which is "not deaf"