Why adults choose CI's for their children

[Cloggy]

So if it's all about choices and options, should a deaf parent of a deaf child HAVE TO give their child speech and listening therapy? How do they know they they wouldn't choose to use spoken language? Isn't that as restrictive as oral only?

I didn't HAVE to use sign to our daughter, but felt it was the best way to start communication between her and the rest of the world. The deaf parent can also think that helping the child to get the most out of the hearing that is available woud be benificial for the child.
The child would learn two languages. Sign from the parents, and speech/hearing... another plus.

 

[Cloggy]

btw... those "deaf students" ... that STILL refers to my child with bilateral implants. Whether you (as a parent) choose to acknowledge it or not - she is still deaf...the other students in her class recognize it, as does she.

As to my child.
But the children in the quotes from Jillio, they could have been deaf children without CI. That would explain the gap between the hearing group and deaf group.
So, How "deaf" are the students is relevant. Did they all have CI. How long?
And - what would the situation be when the deaf student only knows ASL:..??

 

[faire_jour]

Why would it be restrictive? A deaf child of a deaf parent receives linguistic input from the time of birth, and they do not suffer the language delays created by being in an environment where language is not 100% accessable to them. A deaf child in a oral only environment is certainly not in the same situation as a deaf child in a deaf environment. One has complete access to language, one does not. As a result, one does not suffer delays in acquisition that lead to compounded problems in academic functioning. The other does.

Do you not believe that a complete lack or speech, listening, or lipreading skills limits a persons opportunities in some situations?

 

[samanthasmom]

I didn't HAVE to use sign to our daughter, but felt it was the best way to start communication between her and the rest of the world. The deaf parent can also think that helping the child to get the most out of the hearing that is available woud be benificial for the child.
The child would learn two languages. Sign from the parents, and speech/hearing... another plus.

All due respect, I am confused. Why do you say this then seem to want to argue the posts that agree with this point...

 

[jillio]

As to my child.
But the children in the quotes from Jillio, they could have been deaf children without CI. That would explain the gap between the hearing group and deaf group.
So, How "deaf" are the students is relevant. Did they all have CI. How long?

No, cloggy,that doesn't explain the gap. A deaf child with a CI is still a deaf child. The differences were found based on the difference between deaf and hearing. Devise used to remediate the deafness was not a factor in the differences seen.

 

[Cloggy]

Why would it be restrictive? A deaf child of a deaf parent receives linguistic input from the time of birth, and they do not suffer the language delays created by being in an environment where language is not 100% accessable to them. A deaf child in a oral only environment is certainly not in the same situation as a deaf child in a deaf environment. One has complete access to language, one does not. As a result, one does not suffer delays in acquisition that lead to compounded problems in academic functioning. The other does.

Absolutely... There's no time to waste! Sign asap, hearing asap!

 

[deafdyke]

rick and faire.....it's good that your kids had fun in speech.
Then again speech therapy does seem to be more fun early on. it starts getting boring as hell later on. Like language therapy can be fun......but speech can be SO beyond dull.
I'll admit, I did have fun when i was a little older, with practicing plays....That was actually a fun way to develop modulation and enuciation skills. however, the mechanics of speech (ie developing clear and "just right speech0 is just so "my Fair Lady.

 

[jillio]

Do you not believe that a complete lack or speech, listening, or lipreading skills limits a persons opportunities in some situations?

Nope. I know too many successful Deaf people that don't use speech, hearing amplification, or lipreading. They do, however, use fluent ASL and English.

 

[jillio]

Absolutely... There's no time to waste! Sign asap, hearing asap!

Unless you are able to restore 100% natural hearing from the moment of birth, you still have not equaled the playing field. The deaf child of deaf parents still has a significant advantage linguistically.

 

[Cloggy]

No, cloggy,that doesn't explain the gap. A deaf child with a CI is still a deaf child. The differences were found based on the difference between deaf and hearing. Devise used to remediate the deafness was not a factor in the differences seen.

Well, just shows your quote has too little information in it....
So, the studies showed that when deaf children that cannot hear are in the same class as hearing children, they are less likely to be invited or have friends in that classroom...
Did they need to do a study for that?

(And by know, after 18000 of your posts we still agree that a "deaf child with CI" is deaf. HAve we evere said anything else?
One can even say "a hearing child with CI is still deaf". Perhaps, better "A child with CI is still deaf"... )

 

[Cloggy]

Unless you are able to restore 100% natural hearing from the moment of birth, you still have not equaled the playing field.

Nonsense. 100% is not needed.
There are enough differences between hearing children to create an unequal playing field. Children with CI can very well be in the same range as hearing children.

The deaf child of deaf parents still has a significant advantage linguistically.

Absolutely.... How big is that group?

 

[jillio]

Well, just shows your quote has too little information in it....
So, the studies showed that when deaf children that cannot hear are in the same class as hearing children, they are less likely to be invited or have friends in that classroom...
Did they need to do a study for that?

(And by know, after 18000 of your posts we still agree that a "deaf child with CI" is deaf. HAve we evere said anything else?
One can even say "a hearing child with CI is still deaf". Perhaps, better "A child with CI is still deaf"... )

Nope, you are adding words and attempting to change the context of what was said. It didn't say anything about deaf children that cannot hear. It said "deaf children."

Obviously, they did need a study, because so many people keep insisting that deaf children in the mainstream do no suffer psychosocially or educationally. The studies indicate that the ones who insist that the mainstream is an ideal placement are less than correct.

 

[samanthasmom]

Nope. I know too many successful Deaf people that don't use speech, hearing amplification, or lipreading. They do, however, use fluent ASL and English.

I agree.

However, I DO think that my child with CIs is limited in her mainstream class d/t the fact that mainstream education does not meet her needs...JMO

G'nite all, that same child will be up at 5:00 am!!

 

[jillio]

Nonsense. 100% is not needed.
There are enough differences between hearing children to create an unequal playing field. Children with CI can very well be in the same range as hearing children.
Absolutely.... How big is that group?

Are you saying that it is possible for a child with a CI to hear as a hearing child does? With no losses at all as long as the CI is in place? Is that what you are saying?

And, yes, if a child is to acquire language the way a hearing child does, that deaf child would have to be resored to 100% functional hearing from the moment of birth. If there are any time delays, they have not been exposed on an equal basis with their hearing peers. If speech is not audible able to be discriminated without any deficits, then that child has not experienced the same thing that a hearing child would experience.

 

[jillio]

I agree.

However, I DO think that my child with CIs is limited in her mainstream class d/t the fact that mainstream education does not meet her needs...JMO

G'nite all, that same child will be up at 5:00 am!!

Good night. I remember those 5 a.m. mornings well!

 

[faire_jour]

Nope. I know too many successful Deaf people that don't use speech, hearing amplification, or lipreading. They do, however, use fluent ASL and English.

I disagree. I know many sucessful Deaf people as well, but there are always situations in which they struggle.

 

[jillio]

I disagree. I know many sucessful Deaf people as well, but there are always situations in which they struggle.

There are always situations in which hearing people struggle. Stuggle is not unique to the signing deaf. But you are welcome to disagree with me. And with the Deaf people I have referred to. Shel's brother is one of them. Several of them are educators at the Master's Level, and one, OMG! has a Ph.D.

 

[Daredevel7]

A little off topic here aren't we? Isn't this thread supposed to be about why parents chose a CI for their child? My mom did not opt a CI for me when I was a toddler because it was still in the experimental stages back then (I was born in '82, CI got out of the experimental stage around '84-'85). However, as CI became more popular and stronger, I was already progressing in terms of reading, speech, etc, and was already mainstreamed. However, I am going to have the CI in 2 months (oooo scary!). I don't regret not being implanted earlier, but at the same time if I was implanted as a child, I most likely would appreciate it.

 

[jillio]

[Mod's Edit - Previous quote removed thus provoking/retailing]

Children with CI can very well be in the same range as hearing children.

The bolded are your words. Please clarify what you mean by children with CI being in the same range. Same range of what?

 

[faire_jour]

There are always situations in which hearing people struggle. Stuggle is not unique to the signing deaf.

Ok, I've seen the error of my ways. Spoken language is completly unneccessary. Thank you for showing me the light! It would be of no value to RESTORE (not give in the first place, she was born hearing) the hearing my daughter has lost. I guess I'll call and cancel the surgery in the morning. I had never realized that the ability to converse with the majority in their most basic mode of communication is useless.