Those who decide not to get a CI

Wirelessly posted

deafbajagal said:
TXgolfer said:
Wow.....and your aids still help? Seriously asking here.
Click to expand...

I have the same range of dB loss as hers...and my digital hearing aid does wonders. It SHOCKED me when I first tried it (I was skeptical) and now I'm like, WOW. I do need to go and have it tweaked, though. Some of the digital hearing aids out there are designed for people with profound hearing loss. Amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yep. I've been wearing HA since before preschool
 
I did, too, but they weren't really effective other than helped me with my balance. If I took them off, I would stagger like a drunk person and get vertigo symptoms. One day I went to the audiologist and he suggested these state-of-the-art aids. I was very skeptical and convinced he saw only dollar signs. He let me do a trial period agreement which means I could wear them for a period of two weeks and I didn't have to purchase them unless I was convinced they were for me ...I put them on and immediately heard results...I literally was flabbergasted. I bought it on the spot.
 
deafbajagal said:
I have the same range of dB loss as hers...and my digital hearing aid does wonders. It SHOCKED me when I first tried it (I was skeptical) and now I'm like, WOW. I do need to go and have it tweaked, though. Some of the digital hearing aids out there are designed for people with profound hearing loss. Amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

:hmm: Ok I have a Phonak nadia.....which I was told would be the best for me. :dunno:

My numbers are (I only have one ear) 95 @ 250,500,1k and 2k. 90 at 3k and 4k. 85 @ 6k and 70 @8k.

Yet I really don't see much benefit from my aid. Granted everything is much louder but I can't understand the TV or phone or radio aty all. I can have some convos though but if there are more than two people around forget it.

Strange.
 
Wirelessly posted

We take whatever we got and make the best of it.lipreading with hearing aid helps
 
AlleyCat said:
PMs are not allowed before 50 posts. We all know Botts has well more than that, and has been around more than long enough to know how PMs work.

I'm going to ignore dictionary definitions of deafness when we all can define that ourselves. For me, I know that FJ and Grendel and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but we even agree that their children and people like Botts, myself, and many others, call ourselves deaf, dictionary definition or not.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
Oticon Sumo DM is what I have. Maybe you can see if you can get a free loaner with different digital hearing aids so you can experience them to see if any of them works better...? Sometimes the hearing aid is what you need, but the audiologist did not program it correctly...a simple adjustment can make a world of difference.
 
Bottesini said:
I call deaf if you can not discriminate speech. HOH if you have loss but can.
Click to expand...

Unaided, yes. That's how I look at it too. And I don't see how that's in any way in conflict with the definitions provided.
 
deafbajagal said:
Oticon Sumo DM is what I have. Maybe you can see if you can get a free loaner with different digital hearing aids so you can experience them to see if any of them works better...? Sometimes the hearing aid is what you need, but the audiologist did not program it correctly...a simple adjustment can make a world of difference.
Click to expand...

I am going to look into that. :ty:
 
cjg said:
So then the child that wears a pair of CI's but can understand spoken words at a 'normal' conversational level while her back is turned should not be considered deaf ?

Or does the fact that there is a CI involved/required mean 'deaf' ??

Is 'deaf' performance based ? or person based.

My point was that while wearing the CI's the term deaf is inaccurate because she can understand and process the sens of hearing properly for that situation.

That is where this whole this started from.

Again this is from a semantically view not a cultural one.
Click to expand...

She had to be deaf to qualify for a CI in the first place. They don't go around implanting hearing kids!
 
Bottesini said:
I meant unaided. So if she needs CI to hear, she is deaf.
Click to expand...

Why does that make a difference ?

The performance is the same.

Technically there is no actual difference. There is no "lack" either partial or complete in that situation. How does she fit the dictionary definition of deaf in that situation. Again , I am not asking about culturally.

Remember I am only trying to understand.
 
cjg said:
Why does that make a difference ?

The performance is the same.

Technically there is no actual difference. There is no "lack" either partial or complete in that situation. How does she fit the dictionary definition of deaf in that situation. Again , I am not asking about culturally.

Remember I am only trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Because without her CI she has a huge "lack of hearing". The CI provides access to sound, not her ears. They are purely decorative at this point :laugh2:
 
faire_jour said:
She had to be deaf to qualify for a CI in the first place. They don't go around implanting hearing kids!
Click to expand...


No one is arguing that .. The question is while she is wearing the CI , does she fit the 'general' definition of deaf if ( for lack of a better term ) her performance is high enough with the CI that the 'general public' could not tell. The example is being able to follow /understand spoken speech at a 'normal' level while her back is turned. If 'deaf' the proper technical ( not cultural ) term.
 
faire_jour said:
Because without her CI she has a huge "lack of hearing". The CI provides access to sound, not her ears. They are purely decorative at this point :laugh2:
Click to expand...


But with the CI there is no lack.

so technically , the term deaf can not apply in that specific situation.
 
You mean...while she is wearing her CI, she is essentially hearing. When she takes it off, she is deaf. ?
 
faire_jour said:
She had to be deaf to qualify for a CI in the first place. They don't go around implanting hearing kids!
Click to expand...

They don't? I thought it was all part of the great conspiracy between school administrators, the medical professionals and the ci manufacturers so they could all make more money.
Rick
 
Wirelessly posted

deafbajagal said:
You mean...while she is wearing her CI, she is essentially hearing. When she takes it off, she is deaf. ?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what he is asking.

They are not hearing kids. CI are not miracle cure for deafness even when it is on.
 
Back
Top