To have the Cochlear Implant at profoundly born only

SpaceyUFO said:
I got this letter today. (I have removed the real names for privacy and used my AD name)

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 25th June 2007 requestion that SpaceyUFO be assessed as a possible Cochlear Implant Candidate.

Based on the extensive information you have provided we would adcise that we could not offer consideration of Cochlear Implant to SpaceyUFO as sign language is her pimary mode of communication.

We are therefore unable to accept the referral for SpaceyUFO as providing a Cochlear Implan will not change her mode of communication.

If you should have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely
xxxxx
Clinical Co-Ordinator

c.c. SpaceyUFO
Dr xxxxx xxxx
Click to expand...


They wont let u get a CI simply because u use sign language? Is that normal for all CI centers worldwide or just in some countries?
 
shel90 said:
They wont let u get a CI simply because u use sign language? Is that normal for all CI centers worldwide or just in some countries?
Click to expand...

Good question! I would think it be more than because a dependency on sign language. Maybe they wanted only candidates that would certainly succeed (i.e., who were more oral). In the USA, I would hazard a guess that they are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than in countries that have a more "socialize" component to medicine. My friend got his CI at the same center I got mine (UNC Medical center) and he signs and still depends on it after he got his CI.
 
shel90 said:
They wont let u get a CI simply because u use sign language? Is that normal for all CI centers worldwide or just in some countries?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Australia. I've come across plenty of CI candidates here who were raised orally and then learned sign a bit later on but none who were raised with primarily sign, except for one adult who got his as part of a trial well over 20 years ago. I will ask my audie next time I see her.

New Zealand is a very strong socialized medicine country and so is the UK, so I think a person whose primary language is sign would have trouble getting a CI there as well. The policy makers make their decisions strongly on the basis of benefit rather than on human rights. There is a very strong concept of being answerable to tax payers etc.

As for the US, maybe LTHAdvocate can comment on this?
 
sr171soars said:
Had to laugh at the irony of that! Reminds of those lightbulb jokes...how many people does it take...?!?




That is a tough situation for you to be in. Personally, I would say to you four go ahead an sign away! Better that you guys understand something than nothing and feeling like stumbling in the dark!!!
Click to expand...

And I second that!
 
R2D2 said:
I'm not sure about Australia. I've come across plenty of CI candidates here who were raised orally and then learned sign a bit later on but none who were raised with primarily sign, except for one adult who got his as part of a trial well over 20 years ago. I will ask my audie next time I see her.

New Zealand is a very strong socialized medicine country and so is the UK, so I think a person whose primary language is sign would have trouble getting a CI there as well. The policy makers make their decisions strongly on the basis of benefit rather than on human rights. There is a very strong concept of being answerable to tax payers etc.

As for the US, maybe LTHAdvocate can comment on this?
Click to expand...

I find this situation disturbing. As we've discussed before, perceived benefit is a very subjective thing. I find it objectionable that a hearing surgical team would determine the benefit for the deaf recipient. Shouldn't the recipient determine how useful the devise is?
 
Oh I am sorry. It is not right for them to denied u because u use sign language first. I remember when I had my hearing test back in 80's, this audiologist told me I can not have HA or CI because I used sign and not speak. Then I had another hear test 5 years ago, this time I asked her about me able to get CI. she said yes since I can read her lips and she hear my speaking. That is BS.
 
jillio said:
I find this situation disturbing. As we've discussed before, perceived benefit is a very subjective thing. I find it objectionable that a hearing surgical team would determine the benefit for the deaf recipient. Shouldn't the recipient determine how useful the devise is?
Click to expand...

In a socialized medical system they aren't interested in the difference between a person who is over the moon at hearing mostly only environmental sounds versus a picky late deafened person who can use the phone with the CI, hear speech clearly but who is very unhappy because things don't quite sound the same as when they were hearing.

In socialized medical systems they determine measurable cost/benefits for each group by use of studies/medical knowledge and make decisions on whether or not to allocate funding, which is taken from a strict budget and derived from tax payers' money.

So with the CI measurable benefits would be the ability for example continued usage rates over time, to develop speech, social cost savings etc. For example with IVF, they may restrict funding to those aged 40 and under because it has been shown in many studies that over 40 year olds have a much reduced chance of conceiving by IVF than younger women.

So the trade off for a socialized medical system in which everyone gets the essential medical care they need is less choice for certain groups across the board for more "elective" procedures in which the benefit is less clear and more fuzzy. I understand that even for adults who already have speech and lipreading skills the wait for a CI in New Zealand is a few years.

Maybe In Australia SpaceyUFO will get more choice - we have a hybrid private/socialized medical care setting.
 
R2D2 said:
In a socialized medical system they aren't interested in the difference between a person who is over the moon at hearing mostly only environmental sounds versus a picky late deafened person who can use the phone with the CI, hear speech clearly but who is very unhappy because things don't quite sound the same as when they were hearing.

In socialized medical systems they determine measurable cost/benefits for each group by use of studies/medical knowledge and make decisions on whether or not to allocate funding, which is taken from a strict budget and derived from tax payers' money.

So with the CI measurable benefits would be the ability for example continued usage rates over time, to develop speech, social cost savings etc. For example with IVF, they may restrict funding to those aged 40 and under because it has been shown in many studies that over 40 year olds have a much reduced chance of conceiving by IVF than younger women.

So the trade off for a socialized medical system in which everyone gets the essential medical care they need is less choice for certain groups across the board for more "elective" procedures in which the benefit is less clear and more fuzzy. I understand that even for adults who already have speech and lipreading skills the wait for a CI in New Zealand is a few years.

Maybe In Australia SpaceyUFO will get more choice - we have a hybrid private/socialized medical care setting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the socialized system ofproviding medical care has both pros and cons. There are many facets that I agree with, and some that I don't. There is a trade off. I find it just as unacceptable, from a humanistic standpoint that many U.S. citizens cannot even afford basic are, while the upper 10% of the SES categories can have liposuction at will.
 
Today I went to congress in Spain and found some informations that having the cochlear implants are the best time at very young age not late age!
 
SpaceyUFO said:
Today I went to congress in Spain and found some informations that having the cochlear implants are the best time at very young age not late age!
Click to expand...

You bet your bippy it is! There is a very, very logical reason for that. A young brain is primed to take advantage of these inputs by wiring itself for maximum benefit. Only the late deafened and certain HOHers with enough hearing and ability even come close.
 
Hi, Im back!!!!!!!!! Looks like i give up cos theres nothing I can do cos the cochlear implant team from the association won't implant due of my late age so the only one option I pay it in private hospital. Anyway thanks for your help and your advice. Cheers
 
SpaceyUFO said:
Hi, Im back!!!!!!!!! Looks like i give up cos theres nothing I can do cos the cochlear implant team from the association won't implant due of my late age so the only one option I pay it in private hospital. Anyway thanks for your help and your advice. Cheers
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, spacey.
 
SpaceyUFO said:
Hi, Im back!!!!!!!!! Looks like i give up cos theres nothing I can do cos the cochlear implant team from the association won't implant due of my late age so the only one option I pay it in private hospital. Anyway thanks for your help and your advice. Cheers
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. They are obviously concerned that the results won't be so good for you, as there is a much more mixed outcome for those implanted later in age, particularly if the person hasn't attained to a good level of speech perception beforehand. So going to Australia isn't an option either?

Good luck with your medical studies, by the way.
 
sr171soars said:
You bet your bippy it is! There is a very, very logical reason for that. A young brain is primed to take advantage of these inputs by wiring itself for maximum benefit. Only the late deafened and certain HOHers with enough hearing and ability even come close.
Click to expand...

In that case, we should push sign language on the youngesters.
 
Back
Top