Why everyone have to hate people with CI?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Nope. A tattoo is a want. A CI is a want. Neither are needs. A healthy diet is a need.
Click to expand...

All that I listed: education, language, shelter, medical care, etc. are needs, how you provide for those needs varies. A tattoo doesn't answer any of those needs. A child needs language. Providing a CI can answer that need by giving access to sound and the ability to develop spoken language. An immersive ASL environment can answer that need by providing access to sign and the ability to develop signed language.
 
GrendelQ said:
All that I listed: education, language, shelter, medical care, etc. are needs, how you provide for those needs varies. A tattoo doesn't answer any of those needs. A child needs language. Providing a CI can answer that need by giving access to sound and the ability to develop spoken language. An immersive ASL environment can answer that need by providing access to sign and the ability to develop signed language.
Click to expand...

While I agree with what you said, I also disagree. I have language. And that language was accomplished with HAs or nothing. Too many of us have said the same. I'm guessing you may think I am not of equivalent language-value as your daughter (taking into account that there is a huge age difference between the two of us) because she has a CI, and I don't. I speak, I lipread, I sign, I understand, I write (and decently well, IMO). What's wrong with me?
 
GrendelQ said:
All that I listed: education, language, shelter, medical care, etc. are needs, how you provide for those needs varies. A tattoo doesn't answer any of those needs. A child needs language. Providing a CI can answer that need by giving access to sound and the ability to develop spoken language. An immersive ASL environment can answer that need by providing access to sign and the ability to develop signed language.
Click to expand...

Really? If so, then why are there many children with CIs who werent able to develop spoken language but many without CIs who can (like me, for one)? See...that kind of thinking is the problem.
 
AlleyCat said:
While I agree with what you said, I also disagree. I have language. And that language was accomplished with HAs or nothing. Too many of us have said the same. I'm guessing you may think I am not of equivalent language-value as your daughter (taking into account that there is a huge age difference between the two of us) because she has a CI, and I don't. I speak, I lipread, I sign, I understand, I write (and decently well, IMO). What's wrong with me?
Click to expand...

Wow, no, I'm not at all dismissing HAs or making any statement whatsoever about your language-value. In my daughter's case, they couldn't provide a useful level of sound -- it was the first thing we tried -- and we would have loved that approach (who wouldn't prefer that over surgery?) -- but it couldn't work for her. While I respect the very difficult path you took to speak, I've also heard so many painful stories about how awful that can be for many deaf children to do: I wanted my daughter's path to be as easy as possible, she had a lot of time to make up, having been i an institutional environment without any language for so long. I didn't list every possible path to language, there are others, of course, I just gave as 2 examples the choices we made and never indicated that these were the only way or even the only right way to obtain language.
 
GrendelQ said:
All that I listed: education, language, shelter, medical care, etc. are needs, how you provide for those needs varies. A tattoo doesn't answer any of those needs. A child needs language. Providing a CI can answer that need by giving access to sound and the ability to develop spoken language. An immersive ASL environment can answer that need by providing access to sign and the ability to develop signed language.
Click to expand...

That is why you were comparing apples to oranges. I am referring to needs, you are attempting to equate them with wants. A CI is not a need; it is a want. No matter what it provides, it cannot insure that needs will be met.
 
AlleyCat said:
While I agree with what you said, I also disagree. I have language. And that language was accomplished with HAs or nothing. Too many of us have said the same. I'm guessing you may think I am not of equivalent language-value as your daughter (taking into account that there is a huge age difference between the two of us) because she has a CI, and I don't. I speak, I lipread, I sign, I understand, I write (and decently well, IMO). What's wrong with me?
Click to expand...

And you also just shared the situation with a friend of yours who has changed since CI. In this case, the CI actually prevents her from fulfilling her needs in a healthy way. Unless one is emotionally and psychologically healthy and able to fiulfill those needs for themselves, they will never be able to fulfill their other needs in a way that will lead to happiness, satisfaction, and love of self.
 
shel90 said:
Really? If so, then why are there many children with CIs who werent able to develop spoken language but many without CIs who can (like me, for one)? See...that kind of thinking is the problem.
Click to expand...

Most children with CIs can develop spoken language, by far, but there are so many reasons why some don't, including late implantation, lack of immersion in a spoken language environment, lack of parental commitment to using the CIs, and so on. You'd have to look at each case to determine why that child didn't or couldn't.

As for those without CIs? I don't understand what that question has to do with my statement, since I didn't bring anything up that has to do with whether or not children without CIs can develop spoken language, but I'll give it a shot. You want to know why many without CIs can develop spoken language? So many reasons: great education, language immersion, access to sound via HAs, individual aptitude, etc.
 
I'd say the biggest reason they don't is the same reason that some profoundly deaf individuals don't develop spoken language and some do.

Individual variables. The CI simply cannot overcome that.
 
GrendelQ said:
Wow, no, I'm not at all dismissing HAs or making any statement whatsoever about your language-value. In my daughter's case, they couldn't provide a useful level of sound -- it was the first thing we tried -- and we would have loved that approach (who wouldn't prefer that over surgery?) -- but it couldn't work for her. While I respect the very difficult path you took to speak, I've also heard so many painful stories about how awful that can be for many deaf children to do: I wanted my daughter's path to be as easy as possible, she had a lot of time to make up, having been i an institutional environment without any language for so long. I didn't list every possible path to language, there are others, of course, I just gave as 2 examples the choices we made and never indicated that these were the only way or even the only right way to obtain language.
Click to expand...

I understand you're not dismissing HAs. But, even if there was no useful level of sound (which was basically my case), there is still plenty of room for language and speech in a variety of ways. I had to play catch-up as well. I wasn't officially diagnosed until 15 months (even though my parents suspected as early as 3 months or so -- blame it on pediatricians of the 60's and 70's who were more inclined to think a child just had a learning disability or other issues even before considering hearing loss could be the/a factor). So I was still able to accomplish what I've been able to do, all with HAs. That was all I was saying.
 
Does that mean that with hearing aids, you had access to a useful level of sound?

That would be me, too (although as an adult, not a child). Without them, very little sound, although there is some. With them, very good access to sound and language.

Sounds like that was not the case with Grendel's daughter.
 
Beach girl said:
Does that mean that with hearing aids, you had access to a useful level of sound?

That would be me, too (although as an adult, not a child). Without them, very little sound, although there is some. With them, very good access to sound and language.
Click to expand...

No. I had no useful access to sound. Yet, I still learned English, to write, to speak. That was my point.
 
AlleyCat said:
So I was still able to accomplish what I've been able to do, all with HAs. That was all I was saying.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand the above, then.

What do HA's do for you, if not give you access to sound? I'm confused as to how you find them even beneficial at all. Or maybe you don't?
 
To further elaborate, my earliest audiograms had me at 85 db loss. Even with the most powerful HAs nearly 40 years ago, I was still only at 40-50 db with HAs. STILL out of the speech range. Still am today, even though there are more powerful HAs, because my loss has decreased to 115 db. I still do perfectly fine with every form of communication.
 
Beach girl said:
I don't quite understand the above, then.

What do HA's do for you, if not give you access to sound? I'm confused as to how you find them even beneficial at all. Or maybe you don't?
Click to expand...

They give me environmental sounds, and limited ones at that. e.g. I can't hear my cats meowing, birds chirping, etc.

But it does alert me to something (loud) going on around me, such as someone trying to get my attention at work, etc.

While some of that is really cool, actually, my point was that my lack of access to sound doesn't change the fact that I could still learn to speak, to understand others, to write, etc.
 
AlleyCat said:
They give me environmental sounds, and limited ones at that. e.g. I can't hear my cats meowing, birds chirping, etc.

But it does alert me to something (loud) going on around me, such as someone trying to get my attention at work, etc.

While some of that is really cool, actually, my point was that my lack of access to sound doesn't change the fact that I could still learn to speak, to understand others, to write, etc.
Click to expand...

I think people fail to understand that access to sound is not the end all and be all of developing speech. It is a complicated process that is so dependent upon individual variables. That is why some profoundly deaf people develop excellent speech skills without access to speech frequencies, and some moderately deaf people with access to speech frequencies do not. It is also why some late deafened are able to maintain the bulk of their speech quality with HAs and some are not.
 
jillio said:
I think people fail to understand that access to sound is not the end all and be all of developing speech.
Click to expand...

Spoken language is much more than "speech." No, access to sound is not necessary for expressive ability, for speaking, though it can make it much, much easier for a child to acquire the language naturally than to have to work at it through the intensive speech therapies throughout their academic lives that so many refer to as being a negative experience. But access to sound is very important to developing receptive skills that are part of spoken language, listening. Speechreading has been shown to provide only a small percentage of meaning for most people.
 
GrendelQ said:
Spoken language is much more than "speech." No, access to sound is not necessary for expressive ability, for speaking, though it can make it much, much easier for a child to acquire the language naturally than to have to work at it through the intensive speech therapies throughout their academic lives that so many refer to as being a negative experience. But access to sound is very important to developing receptive skills that are part of spoken language, listening. Speechreading has been shown to provide only a small percentage of meaning for most people.
Click to expand...

Nor is it necessary for receptive ability.

Language, period, is so much more than speech.
 
jillio said:
That is why you were comparing apples to oranges. I am referring to needs, you are attempting to equate them with wants. A CI is not a need; it is a want. No matter what it provides, it cannot insure that needs will be met.
Click to expand...

Communication is a need. ASL fills that need better than oralism.
 
jillio said:
That is why you were comparing apples to oranges. I am referring to needs, you are attempting to equate them with wants. A CI is not a need; it is a want. No matter what it provides, it cannot insure that needs will be met.
Click to expand...

Whether a need or a want, why not give a child something that could help meet their needs? Be it CI, ASL, a speaking language. We can give them the tools when they are to young to be able to choose, then when they can choose they already have the tools they need or want to make the choice that is right for them.

I maybe wrong in my thinking. But as a foster parent who deals with mostly babies who were born addicted to drugs, and being developmentally behind I look for anything to help the child grow physically, mentally, ect. so they can succeed in life. Isn't that what any parent would want for their child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top