Those who decide not to get a CI

faire_jour said:
Her profound hearing loss does. If someone can run and win a race using a prosthetic leg, does that make him not an amputee? No, it means his prosthetics work very well.
Click to expand...

Cant compare the two ..

The word amputee reefers to the amputation .. that is a fact that can never change.

This would be more analogous to the term "legless" Which yes .. while using the prosthetic the user is no longer "legless"
 
AlleyCat said:
I'm curious, cjg ... Why are you so hell-bent on the definition of deaf? Either we (or our children) feel we are, or we aren't. What's it to you? Why 60+ posts fighting on what deaf is?
Click to expand...

I am simply trying to understand why some level of performance is classified as deaf simply because the person is using a CI.

if the performance is the same as a non CI user .. why is the term still deaf.

And I am not talking about culture. about the technical term.
 
Wirelessly posted

I'm sorry to say but you can not change the fact that someone is deaf.
 
Last edited:
*deafbajagal talking to herself* Hmm, a classic example of the idiom "falling on deaf ears"...
 
deafgal001 said:
Wirelessly posted

I'm sorry to say but you can not change the fact that someone is deaf.
Click to expand...

So .. as technology progresses if/and/or/when a CI is invented that restores hearing completely .. the user will still be deaf ?

Previously in this thread it was presented that the line between deaf / not deaf is "the ability to discriminate speech".

Are you saying that the line can only be passed one way ? from not deaf to deaf. That it can never be passed the other ??
 
Wirelessly posted

cjg said:
faire_jour said:
Her profound hearing loss does. If someone can run and win a race using a prosthetic leg, does that make him not an amputee? No, it means his prosthetics work very well.
Click to expand...

Cant compare the two ..

The word amputee reefers to the amputation .. that is a fact that can never change.

This would be more analogous to the term "legless" Which yes .. while using the prosthetic the user is no longer "legless"
Click to expand...

I understand that you think profound hearing loss would suit better for CI users because you relate deaf as no hearing as legless as no leg. But people prefer to refer deaf because that who they are.
 
Wirelessly posted

cjg said:
deafgal001 said:
Wirelessly posted

I'm sorry to say but you can not change the fact that someone is deaf.
Click to expand...

So .. as technology progresses if/and/or/when a CI is invented that restores hearing completely .. the user will still be deaf ?

Previously in this thread it was presented that the line between deaf / not deaf is "the ability to discriminate speech".

Are you saying that the line can only be passed one way ? from not deaf to deaf. That it can never be passed the other ??
Click to expand...

Actually I think people would call themselves deaf if they were cured. They remember what it was it like to be deaf. They'll cherish it always.
 
deafgal001 said:
Wirelessly posted



I understand that you think profound hearing loss would suit better for CI users because you relate deaf as no hearing as legless as no leg. But people prefer to refer deaf because that who they are.
Click to expand...

That is referring to the term Deaf as a cultural term ( The deaf / used as a noun ) .. I am speaking of the technical /descriptive term ( used as an adjective ) .. Capital D vs small d
 
Wirelessly posted

Of course. I've always told people that communication is our heart and soul. So Its nearly impossible to look at it from a medical view of deafness only.
 
Last edited:
deafgal001 said:
Wirelessly posted

Of course. I've always told people that communication is our heart and soul. So Its nearly impossible to look at it from a medical view of deafness only.
Click to expand...

Yet my question still remains ..

Why would ( should ) a CI / HA user still technically be classified as deaf it they can perform at a level above which a non CI / HA user would not be technically classified as deaf.

To expand ..

a non HA /CI user that has a pure tone test and hits 30db across the board .. and a HINT score of 70% is not technically classified as deaf.

Why would a CI / HA user be classified that way if they can score the same.

Why can someone "become deaf" due to a score on a test .. Yet can not "become not deaf" when they achieve the same score.

why is the use of a HA / CI a factor in deaf/not deaf ? I have yet to find a dictionary that includes the phrase "natural hearing" in its definition of deaf.

What about a middle ear implant that replaces the bones between the ear drum and the cochlear would a user of that device still be considered deaf if they were able to understand speech ( the line which was presented previously to break between deaf/ not deaf )

The line between blind / not blind can be passed both ways.. Why not deaf ?
 
Wirelessly posted

cjg said:
faire_jour said:
Her profound hearing loss does. If someone can run and win a race using a prosthetic leg, does that make him not an amputee? No, it means his prosthetics work very well.
Click to expand...

Cant compare the two ..

The word amputee reefers to the amputation .. that is a fact that can never change.

This would be more analogous to the term "legless" Which yes .. while using the prosthetic the user is no longer "legless"
Click to expand...

except that it is a good comparison. My daughter had hearing and then it was damaged. She had fully functioning hair cells, and then they were destroyed. She now has a cochlear prosthetic device that gives her some hearing. Her hair cells have NOT been restored. She is still deaf and wears a device.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

except that it is a good comparison. My daughter had hearing and then it was damaged. She had fully functioning hair cells, and then they were destroyed. She now has a cochlear prosthetic device that gives her some hearing. Her hair cells have NOT been restored. She is still deaf and wears a device.
Click to expand...

That is a point of semantics .. The word amputee means "someone that has had an amputation" it really can not be used to make an analogy here. Because the line between amputee and not amputee is having had an "amputation" .. that can technically never be undone .. Even a star fish that grows back its leg would still technically be considered an amputee

Even if the leg was removed and reattached and they have full use of it, technically the term amputee would still apply.

deaf refers to the lack ( partial lack ) of the sense of hearing. If someones sense of hearing is restored , by whatever means , why would the term deaf still apply? Why is the restoring via a CI / HA matter .. if the functional level of the restoration brings it back above whatever line separates a non deaf person from a deaf person.

not specifically about your daughter .. but try and think in more general terms.

this may be more of a philosophical question that may never be actually answered.
 
TXgolfer said:
Wow.....and your aids still help? Seriously asking here.
Click to expand...

Oh yea...I just cant understand conversations in large group settings hence my problems at school.

That's where ASL would have been a lifesaver for me especially during classroom discussions or teachers walking around the room talking.
 
shel90 said:
Oh yea...I just cant understand conversations in large group settings hence my problems at school.

That's where ASL would have been a lifesaver for me especially during classroom discussions or teachers walking around the room talking.
Click to expand...

Thx....I have got to get mine checked.....something is not right.
 
jillio said:
Where do people get the idea that deaf = silence? Even those with profound losses live in less than a silent world.

I see this alot in the hearing world. People say "I'm deaf" and they think the person hears virtually nothing. Then when the person responds to sound in some way, they get "You're not really deaf." And that leads to the deaf individual being treated as if they are "faking" their deafness.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's cause of statements such as ""Deaf people can do anything but hear" that help to purport that stereotype.
 
Back
Top