want to hear your opinions about cochlear implant

I was diagnosed with severe-profound hearing loss at 8 months old and I wore hearing aids in both ears until I turned 10. Before I got implanted, I had a reasonable-ish knowledge of sign language from school(school for the deaf) so I was exposed to sign language for many years before implant. I did and still sign with my peers, and still do nowadays for myself if I need to. But I can see why people are against CI's and it's fine by me as it is their decision, beliefs and experiences. Sign language is great, it is a form of communicate, another language that should be learnt by the hearing community.
 
CIs can be a great tool for accessing sound if that's something seen as having some value. It's a decision that needs to be at the discretion of each individual/family and only after a good deal of research into what's involved in the surgery and thereafter, the range of expected results and what drives those results.

I don't think the decision to get a CI (or an HA or any aid, for that matter) has or should have anything to do with the decision to pursue ASL or not. And a deaf person with a CI, even with 100% comprehension and an avg 15db in the booth, is still a deaf person with an aid that he or she puts on at will and removes at will.

My daughter's CIs have surpassed our wildest expectations, and do not in any way conflict with her ability to learn and use ASL (just as ASL has in no way obstructed her ability to learn and use spoken English). Without either ASL or spoken English (accessed via her CIs), her quality of life would be no better or worse, just different. But we value the ability to communicate more broadly that each language she learns affords and hope to add many more languages to the mix in the future. We see her exercising her range of communication options freely and with great enthusiasm.
 
And a deaf person with a CI, even with 100% comprehension and an avg 15db in the booth, is still a deaf person with an aid that he or she puts on at will and removes at will.
Click to expand...
To add...... that 100% comprehension and avg 15 db in booth is the result of soundbooth testing. The world is not a soundbooth, and not everyone speaks with a professional speaker voice.
I do have to say that I think the "OMG CI will allow a deaf kid to function perfectly in the hearing world" advocates need to look at the Hoh world. There are some hoh kids who are "almost hearing" but again as always experiance varies. I know hoh people who love hearing, I know ones who hate it, I know ones who wish they were deafer and were in deaf ed and so on and so on. Hoh does not mean "pretty much like hearing. Our hearing is black and white 50's TV, whereas hearing person's hearing is HD TV hearing.
 
Hmm, perhaps some solar storms from the sun strike many electronics included CI devices in one day. It means that they have to pay their own expense for another device that may not covered from their insurance.
 
I am not for CI in babies and kids. If the child wants CI after turning 18, he/she should be aware of the downsides, especially higher risk of meningitis which can results in death.

I see it as an extension of oral only philosophy. Also I see it as a way for medical communities to make profits. I think it is very possible that the health insurance would increase the more kids are implanted. Why should we have to make accommodations for the hearing people and they don’t have to return that?

It won’t kill the hearing people to learn ASL. It could literally kill the deaf kid to learn to speak if the child is implanted. What troubles me is that they continuing implanting even after some patients died from meningitis. Some of them even called it life-saving operation. What a joke!

Growing up in 60’s, I thought that hearing people are too lazy to learn ASL… I still do. Why do they look down at us even they can’t learn ASL?
 
deafdyke said:
To add...... that 100% comprehension and avg 15 db in booth is the result of soundbooth testing. The world is not a soundbooth, and not everyone speaks with a professional speaker voice.
I do have to say that I think the "OMG CI will allow a deaf kid to function perfectly in the hearing world" advocates need to look at the Hoh world. There are some hoh kids who are "almost hearing" but again as always experiance varies. I know hoh people who love hearing, I know ones who hate it, I know ones who wish they were deafer and were in deaf ed and so on and so on. Hoh does not mean "pretty much like hearing. Our hearing is black and white 50's TV, whereas hearing person's hearing is HD TV hearing.
Click to expand...

It is just like the analog and digital sounds.
 
This is imo, the problem with waiting for your child to be 18 is.. they lost 18 years of hearing. First few years will actually help the child hear better than when your 18. Its like a puppy, they train easier when younger, same with hearing.
I'm struggling with my left, but my right was easy because i had it since 2.
 
bbaseballboy123 said:
This is imo, the problem with waiting for your child to be 18 is.. they lost 18 years of hearing. First few years will actually help the child hear better than when your 18. Its like a puppy, they train easier when younger, same with hearing.
I'm struggling with my left, but my right was easy because i had it since 2.
Click to expand...

I don't agree because if it is true, then no kids will be transferred to Shel90's school.
 
It is just like the analog and digital sounds.
Click to expand...
Huh? Not quite.....a bit more complex. In fact a HELL of a lot more complex. More like hearing a single instrument instead of a symphony.
I am not for CI in babies and kids.
Click to expand...
I think kids can and should be able to chose. Some of them may have progressive losses, or the kind of loss where hearing aids don't help at ALL or whatever. You're forgetting that there are some babies that cannot benifit at all from hearing aids.

I see it as an extension of oral only philosophy.
Also I see it as a way for medical communities to make profits. I think it is very possible that the health insurance would increase the more kids are implanted
Click to expand...
. I do have to say I think if there wasn't so much profit in oral only, that it wouldn't be very popular. And yes, you're right....health insurance will increase the more kids are implanted. But, the good news is that b/c health insurance is a money making business, they are going to start tightening who can and can't get CI.
Why should we have to make accommodations for the hearing people and they don’t have to return that?

It won’t kill the hearing people to learn ASL.
Click to expand...
I do think most dhh kids can benifit from oral skill training, but I do think that more hearing parents should learn ASL to meet us halfway.
 
Buffalo said:
I don't agree because if it is true, then no kids will be transferred to Shel90's school.
Click to expand...

What is Shel90's school and who transfers there? And what does transfer to that school have to do with the critical age of language acquisition?
 
GrendelQ said:
What is Shel90's school and who transfers there? And what does transfer to that school have to do with the critical age of language acquisition?
Click to expand...

Buffalo is not here much so I will take the liberty of answering. Not the age of language acquisition, but not everyone implanted gets benefit from CI>

But hearing parents tend to think they will be able to function more mainstream and they aren't given enough accommodation and fall far behind.
 
Bottesini said:
Buffalo is not here much so I will take the liberty of answering. Not the age of language acquisition, but not everyone implanted gets benefit from CI>

But hearing parents tend to think they will be able to function more mainstream and they aren't given enough accommodation and fall far behind.
Click to expand...

Thanks Botti. Buffalo quoted bbaseballboy123's statement, below, that earlier implantation vs waiting until 18 has a better success rate. I don't see what Buffalo means by using transfers to Shel90s school as a proof point. Perhaps there is some info about there being more transfers of CI kids implanted as infants vs. those implanted as teenagers at Shel90's school? I haven't seen that mentioned. Otherwise, I don't see a connection.

Originally Posted by bbaseballboy123
This is imo, the problem with waiting for your child to be 18 is.. they lost 18 years of hearing. First few years will actually help the child hear better than when your 18. Its like a puppy, they train easier when younger, same with hearing.
I'm struggling with my left, but my right was easy because i had it since 2.

Posted by Buffalo
I don't agree because if it is true, then no kids will be transferred to Shel90's school.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody needs to know where I work. Pls respect that. Thank you.
 
Bottesini said:
Buffalo is not here much so I will take the liberty of answering. Not the age of language acquisition, but not everyone implanted gets benefit from CI>

But hearing parents tend to think they will be able to function more mainstream and they aren't given enough accommodation and fall far behind.
Click to expand...
Correct, Botts.
 
shel90 said:
Nobody needs to know where I work. Pls respect that. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are referring to Buffalo for bringing up your school, or to me for asking what that means, but if it was my question: I don't know if you are at an oral school, a public school, an ASL-based school, a self-contained program within a public school, an after-school program, or any number of other academic environments -- so I don't know what Buffalo means by referencing your school. I know only what I've seen you post here about your feelings about the school. Not asking where, just what does it mean to use your school's transfers in terms of Buffalo's statement.
 
GrendelQ said:
Not sure if you are referring to Buffalo for bringing up your school, or to me for asking what that means, but if it was my question: I don't know if you are at an oral school, a public school, an ASL-based school, a self-contained program within a public school, an after-school program, or any number of other academic environments -- so I don't know what Buffalo means by referencing your school. I know only what I've seen you post here about your feelings about the school. Not asking where, just what does it mean to use your school's transfers in terms of Buffalo's statement.
Click to expand...

It was in reference to the posts you both made so I would rather in the future, make any references to general Deaf schools or programs instead of "my" school only.

for clarification to what Buffolo meant, I would prefer to leave it to her to clarify but I think Botts got the right idea of what Buffalo is trying to say.

I just would rather not engage into another argument about oralism and ASL again and hijack this thread. Thanks
 
I took baseball's post "First few years will actually help the child hear better than when your 18" and Buffalo's post as disagreement with that because if the child hears better, then why are kids being transferred to a school like Shel's? I have to agree with Buffalo's post because Shel has said in the past of kids that get transferred to her school because they fell so far behind elsewhere.
 
AlleyCat said:
I took baseball's post "First few years will actually help the child hear better than when your 18" and Buffalo's post as disagreement with that because if the child hears better, then why are kids being transferred to a school like Shel's? I have to agree with Buffalo's post because Shel has said in the past of kids that get transferred to her school because they fell so far behind elsewhere.
Click to expand...

First, that argument would only begin to make sense if we knew more about these transfers (was age of implantation at 1 or at 15? Did they transfer because they were not successful somewhere else or because their parents moved to be close to the school, did they come from another school for the deaf or a mainstream program, etc.) and the school (is this an oral school for the deaf, a bi-bi school, a self-contained program within a mainstream program, etc.). Otherwise, let's take a hypothetical: a child at a bi-bi school transfers to an oral school for the deaf -- how does this indicate that early implantation has no positive effect?

Besides, I strongly object to the idea that schools for the deaf are for children who have fallen behind.
 
GrendelQ said:
I strongly object to the idea that schools for the deaf are for children who have fallen behind.
Click to expand...

You can object, but it's true. I know of many kids who were placed for that exact reason. Other teachers (including Shel) have said so as well.
 
AlleyCat said:
You can object, but it's true. I know of many kids who were placed for that exact reason. Other teachers (including Shel) have said so as well.
Click to expand...

And I live with a child who is not there because she has fallen behind, but because we want her to learn in a bilingual environment.

Every time you promote this idea that schools for the deaf are for failures, you reinforce a stereotype that keeps other deaf children from learning ASL because parents listen to you and to Shel and don't want their children surrounded by, influenced by failure and lowered expectations.
 
Back
Top