Unsure how to help

OK, here is my take on legally deaf, it's not so much a set rule as it is a customary practice. Once you lose so much of your hearing and hearing aid technology is failing, a doctor will refer you for a Cochlear Implant. And, you'll be eligible for disability in all forums from the government. Now, I'm eligible for both, but have not taken either because I don't feel I need it. However, back to the question at hand, I believe that if your doctor has determined you are at that point it is legally binding and, therefor, real.

In Canada, one can get a tax credit if they have a profound disabiilty. The criteria for me to get this is to of course supply an audiogram. Never has this been called proof of legal deafness. Deaf could mean literally stone deaf or it could encompass all hearing levels below normal from moderate to profound.

I have never seen any documentation that uses the term legally deaf, they refer to hearing loss by decibel, not percentage. They would refer to it as moderate, severe or profound. All are legal definitions of deafness.
 
My point completely went over your head. I was commenting in reference to a society that is so audist in nature that it gives the message that hearing loss is something to be ashamed of.

I got your point.
I am just reminding that the principle here is the person who is going to want
to wear hearing aids, get used to it, and then get used to the society staring
at the hearing aids,

not the society who need to say " ah, never mind.."


Fuzzy
 
In Canada, one can get a tax credit if they have a profound disabiilty. The criteria for me to get this is to of course supply an audiogram. Never has this been called proof of legal deafness. Deaf could mean literally stone deaf or it could encompass all hearing levels below normal from moderate to profound.

I have never seen any documentation that uses the term legally deaf, they refer to hearing loss by decibel, not percentage. They would refer to it as moderate, severe or profound. All are legal definitions of deafness.

And it is the same here in the states. I am always confused when people start talking about percentages, as deafness has never been described in terms of percentage of loss. When a disability is described in terms of percentage of loss, it is a statement regarding function. Function in deafness is confounded by so may extraneous variables that is is impossible to describe as % of function lost.
 
I got your point.
I am just reminding that the principle here is the person who is going to want
to wear hearing aids, get used to it, and then get used to the society staring
at the hearing aids,

not the society who need to say " ah, never mind.."


Fuzzy

Judging from this response, you still don't fully understand what I am saying.
 
takes one to know one :)
I used be very embarrassed about my hearing loss once, too
and I tried very hard
to cover my two hearing aids.
Not anymore :)

I have a hunch introducing your husband to a salesman who would show him
how far the modern hearing aids come today, how "ultra technology"
space almost they look now - it makes you WANT TO wear them!:

phonak-audeo-smart-colours.jpg


phonak-bionic-ear.jpg


or indeed how someone mentioned before of possibility of in the ear canal instead of behind the ear, if his hearing loss allows that
Phonak-Cassia-CIC1.jpeg



and as a last resort,
surgically implanted hearing aid, not the cochlear implant, though
BAHA hearing aids
abutmentinsitu.jpg


even if your husband will have to wear more regular BTE - behind the ear
type of hearing aid, he can let his hair grow longer and cover them.
But I am pretty sure once he see WHO wears them, his anxiety will lessen:

die_Foster_glasses_hearing_aid-vi.jpg


bill-clinton-picture.jpg


Whoppi.jpg


Celebrities | Hearing Aid Prices Miami


Hope that helps.

Fuzzy

What?? I didn't know Jodie Foster and Bill Clinton have hearing loss?!?!
 
It's also going to be noticeable if he's unable to make out words even with HAs.

I am not sure what your point is.

The husband hearing loss is quite noticeable NOW.
Chances are, hearing aids may improve his hearing,
even if in both cases the loss will still be noticeable - with aids, he will hear BETTER anyway.
If it turns out he will not, he won't buy them - simple.

But, having hearing aids doesn't mean he can't also learn ASL to further his communication skills.

On the contrary, from the very beginning I am suggesting to do BOTH.

Fuzzy
 
Judging from this response, you still don't fully understand what I am saying.

:roll:

Okay.
Has it ever occurred to you that vast majority of people stare because the majority hardly ever see hearing aids, and it is a novelty for them?
Not necessarily as you insist "their audist nature".
Most stare, because they are curious what it is, and they just take it in.
Taking 'it' takes time.

Now, I agree that some part of society make anything to do with hearing loss a shame.

But in this thread, we are trying to help the concerned wife with her husband's hearing problems, not change the society's audist views.


Fuzzy
 
:roll:

Okay.
Has it ever occurred to you that vast majority of people stare because the majority hardly ever see hearing aids, and it is a novelty for them?
Not necessarily as you insist "their audist nature".
Most stare, because they are curious what it is, and they just take it in.
Taking 'it' takes time.

Now, I agree that some part of society make anything to do with hearing loss a shame.

But in this thread, we are trying to help the concerned wife with her husband's hearing problems, not change the society's audist views.


Fuzzy

The fact that they hardly ever see hearing aids is one of the things that creates audism in the majority. And the fact that they feel it is acceptable to stare is evidence of the paternalistic behavior that comes with audism.

I didn't say anything about an "audist nature". I am referring to a sociological phenomena known as audism.

The fact that you feel the husband needs help in dealing with his hearing problems is another way that audism is shown to penetrate even a few in the deaf community. That is a very paternalistic attitude.The husband is perfectly capable of deciding how he wants to handle his hearing problems. The wife needs help in allowing him to do so.
 
The fact that they hardly ever see hearing aids is one of the things that creates audism in the majority. And the fact that they feel it is acceptable to stare is evidence of the paternalistic behavior that comes with audism.

You are only partially right. It was so in the older generation, to whom any kind of disability was a cause of shame and concern of being branded as
"lesser" member of society. Deafness wasn't just one of the disabilities.
Nowadays, the change for the better is visible for starters in how the hearing aids itself evolved into the miniature marvels of technological art.

Out are clunky, unsightly pieces with complicated wires, ugly nude-colored BTE's, in shiny "NASA" looking modern ones.
People are thinking of those more as wearable functional art, not as mere medicinal prosthesis anymore.

As for staring, it has nothing to do whether it is hearing aids or boobs or green hair - people will stare at anything. It is call rudeness.
and curiousness.

I didn't say anything about an "audist nature". I am referring to a sociological phenomena known as audism.

That's more or less what I meant.


The fact that you feel the husband needs help in dealing with his hearing problems is another way that audism is shown to penetrate even a few in the deaf community. That is a very paternalistic attitude.The husband is perfectly capable of deciding how he wants to handle his hearing problems. The wife needs help in allowing him to do so.

Because he does need at this point to be shown a few more things that could be done for him.
And you are forgetting a small but important thing- he is NOT in the deaf community which makes a HUGE difference.

He is not deaf yet, and he obviously is lost and suffering in his world in between deafness and hearing.
At this point in his life he can't neither hear nor sign, and it's obvious he doesn't know which way to turn yet.

And I don't see how enabling him to hear better with discreet hearing aids
is to be considered audism.
Does not many deaf wear the hearing aids with long hair?

And excuse me, while you might be the mother of a deaf born son who you are raising Deaf,
you STILL know NOTHING what it is like to be hard of hearing and living among hearing society,
so my suggestion is take a step back and listen, and listen good -
you may know a lot about deaf and deafness but you don't know EVERYTHING.

I, unlike you, grew up HoH in hearing world and I know what's like.
You do not throw a person who is hoh and getting progressively worse
at the mercy of "let it be".
You do not do that, because I KNOW what is like to keep losing the hearing you have and be embarrassed about it, and panicking and not knowing which way to turn. YOU NEED HELP, even if you refuse to accept help.
So don't tell me about "husband being capable of how to handle his problem" because that's a crock.
Just the fact alone that he gets frustrated when he can not understand his wife and daughters tells me he is already high strung, and that's not good.

Everyone here forgets one basic thing- you all are very comfortable in your hoh or deaf ways because you already have good back -up and fall back
in this here deaf community. The husband obviously doesn't, and judging by his wife's words - he is getting himself isolated from his family out of frustration:

Unfortunately the pitch of my voice and our daughters voice is often out of his range of hearing so we have to repeat or he becomes frustrated and just ignores us.
Depending on the pitch of the sound, background noise, and which side the sound is coming from he doesn't hear it. He can read lips (sometimes). A lot of times he just nods or gets frustrated if he has to ask for something to be repeated and if he still can't hear he gets mad and seems to just tune everyone out.
He does suffer from depression.

Even go as far as assuming someone made fun of him because they were laughing and he just didn't hear what was said. This makes him angry because he misunderstood and friendships are lost (men and quick tempers). He has even become anti-social as a form of coping so he doesn't have to "bother" with misunderstandings or not hearing everything. He misses a lot of our daughters school activities because of the big crowds and background noises. I
I can tell he feels guilty.

Why do you think he is depressed? From being "capable"???? Does that sound "capable" to you??
May I point out he is this "capable" for at least 3 years??

He's been telling me for 3 years now that he will get a hearing aid

Geee....:roll:

Like I've said - takes one to know one.
We have here a man who can not accept losing his hearing because in his mind it's the older people who get deaf and wear aids:
He seems to link hearing aids with getting older (he's only 43) which he is having a hard time dealing with in itself.

so how do you think he even feels about "hop up and learn ASL" himself ???

No, this man needs a lot of delicate and diplomatic persuasion to get over his fear of admitting that the hearing loss and HA's
is not only for "old people"
before he is ready to show his new haring aids to the whole world,
let alone being "perfectly capable to deal wit it on his own".
Only then he will be ready to accept the idea of Deaf culture and what it may offer him.


Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy - I get what you're saying but there's a saying: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You can't force someone to do what you want them to do or force them to change when they are not ready.

My step-grandmother was very resistant to hearing aids for years - for a wide variety of reasons - denial, shame, embarrassment, not wanting to be stared at, not wanting to be considered "less than", hearing aids are for old people, the list goes on.

She finally came around but on her own terms and in her own good time. Had her family pressured her relentlessly, she would have dug her heels in and refused to even give it a try.

But what they did do was go ahead and look up doctors and audiologists so when the time was right, they would be ready to book appointments and through the church, they introduced her to other people her age who wore hearing aids which was immensely helpful. It's too bad that she went for years not being able to follow what people were saying but that's how long it took for her to change her views.
 
In Canada, one can get a tax credit if they have a profound disabiilty. The criteria for me to get this is to of course supply an audiogram. Never has this been called proof of legal deafness. Deaf could mean literally stone deaf or it could encompass all hearing levels below normal from moderate to profound.

It is proof of the person's physical state, otherwise, how would anyone be able to judge who is eligible for the services? So from a, "legal" (government satisfied) perspective there is a legality to what you are entitled to. To look at it from the reverse perspective(which you must consider to find truth), if you received those services without the government's consent you did something, "illegal". Correct?

As I said, it's not an indication of deafness so much as the ability to receive services.
 
It is proof of the person's physical state, otherwise, how would anyone be able to judge who is eligible for the services? So from a, "legal" (government satisfied) perspective there is a legality to what you are entitled to. To look at it from the reverse perspective(which you must consider to find truth), if you received those services without the government's consent you did something, "illegal". Correct?

As I said, it's not an indication of deafness so much as the ability to receive services.

One cannot receive services either from the government or any organization without proof of disability so there's no danger there.

But there's still no such thing as legal deafness especially if the requirements for services vary from org to org - it could be that at one organization, any hearing loss qualifies one for certain goods and services and at another org, one has to fall with the severe to profound loss range to qualify. There is no actual national or even provincial standard for "legal deafness".

That's why there's no such thing. One may qualify depending on range of decibels their hearing loss fall within as required by a particular organization for particular goods and/or services.
 
The Canadian "disability tax deduction" has been around for years. It is not a legal document but a tax form. Originally one's "family doctor" signed the "appropriate tax form" re "markedly restricted in daily living". My family doctor had access to my ENT file on which he based his knowledge. St Michaels hospital-Toronto

I think it started about 20 to 25 years ago. Recently other persons are allowed to "certify". Once given doesn't require refiling every year. Becoming DEAF didn't change my "disability tax" situation.

The following is from my T 1 General 2010- the deduction-
Line 316 Federal $7239.( federal deduction is 15%)
Line 5844 Ontario $7225.(Ontario deduction is 5.05%)
 
The Canadian "disability tax deduction" has been around for years. It is not a legal document but a tax form. Originally one's "family doctor" signed the "appropriate tax form" re "markedly restricted in daily living". My family doctor had access to my ENT file on which he based his knowledge. St Michaels hospital-Toronto

I think it started about 20 to 25 years ago. Recently other persons are allowed to "certify". Once given doesn't require refiling every year. Becoming DEAF didn't change my "disability tax" situation.

The following is from my T 1 General 2010- the deduction-
Line 316 Federal $7239.( federal deduction is 15%)
Line 5844 Ontario $7225.(Ontario deduction is 5.05%)

Does your "disablity tax" situation changed after you got cochlear implant(s) and you had to get re-certified?
 
Does your "disablity tax" situation changed after you got cochlear implant(s) and you had to get re-certified?

Speaking as a fellow Canadian who gets tax credits - you can only qualify for a deduction if your disability falls within the "profound" range. I believe drphil was profoundly deaf before getting implanted and in his own words he's DEAF now so it made no difference in his tax situation.

furthermore, a doctor's signature just won't cut it to get a tax deduction, you also have to submit an audiogram that was done by a government approved audiologist or audiology department. In fact, first you have to see an ENT to have your ears examined, then get an audiogram then go back to ENT to get his signature and statement after s/he reviewed audiogram and your files to determine source of deafness and diagnose it as permanent.

Luckily, we dont have to do this every year. I remember there was a time when I was asked three times in 5 years to submit proof but after a change in legislation, they stopped asking - evidently a light bulb went off somewhere in the Canada Revenue dept and they finally got it, that deafness is not easily cured and to require proof every year that one is still profoundly deaf is absurd.
 
Deaf Caroline is correct-I have mentioned- was in the Profound Loss-90 decibels category-both ears. DEAF: right-Feb/92 and left-Dec/06.
The tax department hasn't asked any questions re being DEAF
 
Audiofuzzy - I get what you're saying but there's a saying: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

You can't force someone to do what you want them to do or force them to change when they are not ready.

And I agree with you. I however probably unlike you,
see that in this particular situation
there is a suffering person who desperately needs help now even if that person behave like he doesn't want any help - but he does and needs it.

I understand that the husband in question can not be persuaded or convinced to wear the hearing aids or learn to sign,
but he can and should be shown now that the hearing aids have evolved
from the old boring nude BTE's and other uninteresting types, that there IS
more to it than mere "old folks prosthesis",
and that Deaf culture belongs to the young and vibrant. show NOW.

Once given ALL the information, he can start making his own choices, yes.

Right now, he doesn't know everything,
he doesn't feel like anybody understand what he is going thru,
he is distrustful, confused, under-informed, depressed, bewildered even.

His wife's instinct in wanting to reach out and help are right on spot.
She knows her husband, and she knows her family.
If she is concerned then there is a reason for concern.
The best we can do here is explain that for the person who loses the hearing
is not necessarily to restore the hearing
- is all.
That sometimes it is better to transition from a hearing person to a deaf person.

But it's not all about that in this situation. It's not the time for transition now for this particular person -yet.

The most important question is - how to help now, and when to stop.
I say provide all the available today resources, give loving encouragement
to not be afraid to use them,

and leave it at that for now.

Fuzzy
 
Speaking as a fellow Canadian who gets tax credits - you can only qualify for a deduction if your disability falls within the "profound" range. I believe drphil was profoundly deaf before getting implanted and in his own words he's DEAF now so it made no difference in his tax situation.

furthermore, a doctor's signature just won't cut it to get a tax deduction, you also have to submit an audiogram that was done by a government approved audiologist or audiology department. In fact, first you have to see an ENT to have your ears examined, then get an audiogram then go back to ENT to get his signature and statement after s/he reviewed audiogram and your files to determine source of deafness and diagnose it as permanent.

Luckily, we dont have to do this every year. I remember there was a time when I was asked three times in 5 years to submit proof but after a change in legislation, they stopped asking - evidently a light bulb went off somewhere in the Canada Revenue dept and they finally got it, that deafness is not easily cured and to require proof every year that one is still profoundly deaf is absurd.

LOL at the ligh bulb went off...
I just want to know if the Canada government considered CI to be a cure and required one to resubmit proof - the one with CI on.
 
You are only partially right. It was so in the older generation, to whom any kind of disability was a cause of shame and concern of being branded as
"lesser" member of society. Deafness wasn't just one of the disabilities.
Nowadays, the change for the better is visible for starters in how the hearing aids itself evolved into the miniature marvels of technological art.

Out are clunky, unsightly pieces with complicated wires, ugly nude-colored BTE's, in shiny "NASA" looking modern ones.
People are thinking of those more as wearable functional art, not as mere medicinal prosthesis anymore.

As for staring, it has nothing to do whether it is hearing aids or boobs or green hair - people will stare at anything. It is call rudeness.
and curiousness.



That's more or less what I meant.




Because he does need at this point to be shown a few more things that could be done for him.
And you are forgetting a small but important thing- he is NOT in the deaf community which makes a HUGE difference.

He is not deaf yet, and he obviously is lost and suffering in his world in between deafness and hearing.
At this point in his life he can't neither hear nor sign, and it's obvious he doesn't know which way to turn yet.

And I don't see how enabling him to hear better with discreet hearing aids
is to be considered audism.
Does not many deaf wear the hearing aids with long hair?

And excuse me, while you might be the mother of a deaf born son who you are raising Deaf,
you STILL know NOTHING what it is like to be hard of hearing and living among hearing society,
so my suggestion is take a step back and listen, and listen good -
you may know a lot about deaf and deafness but you don't know EVERYTHING.

I, unlike you, grew up HoH in hearing world and I know what's like.
You do not throw a person who is hoh and getting progressively worse
at the mercy of "let it be".
You do not do that, because I KNOW what is like to keep losing the hearing you have and be embarrassed about it, and panicking and not knowing which way to turn. YOU NEED HELP, even if you refuse to accept help.
So don't tell me about "husband being capable of how to handle his problem" because that's a crock.
Just the fact alone that he gets frustrated when he can not understand his wife and daughters tells me he is already high strung, and that's not good.

Everyone here forgets one basic thing- you all are very comfortable in your hoh or deaf ways because you already have good back -up and fall back
in this here deaf community. The husband obviously doesn't, and judging by his wife's words - he is getting himself isolated from his family out of frustration:








Why do you think he is depressed? From being "capable"???? Does that sound "capable" to you??
May I point out he is this "capable" for at least 3 years??



Geee....:roll:

Like I've said - takes one to know one.
We have here a man who can not accept losing his hearing because in his mind it's the older people who get deaf and wear aids:


so how do you think he even feels about "hop up and learn ASL" himself ???

No, this man needs a lot of delicate and diplomatic persuasion to get over his fear of admitting that the hearing loss and HA's
is not only for "old people"
before he is ready to show his new haring aids to the whole world,
let alone being "perfectly capable to deal wit it on his own".
Only then he will be ready to accept the idea of Deaf culture and what it may offer him.


Fuzzy

You said it all right here, "He needs to be shown a few more things that can be done for him." Do you not see the paternalism just oozing out of that sentence? First and foremost, he is an adult and is perfectly capable of deciding what he needs or doesn't need. Secondly, he doesn't need anything done for him, he is not an invalid. You need to check where your own perceptions regarding deafness are coming from.
 
Back
Top