Quote:
Originally Posted by jillio
I think so, because their policy addressses CI as an assistive tool, and not as a way to promote and oral philosophy and assimilation into hearing culture. That is the biggest complaint of the deaf community here in the states. That CI is not used as an assistive devise in recognition of the continuing deaf status of the child.
|
The US-label is self-inflicted.... The "way to promote and oral philosophy and assimilation into hearing culture." is the way the "deaf community here in the states" is wants to see it...
If USA had the same approach as Sweden, deaf community would still look at it from their own angle....
Main difference between Sweden and USA is how healthcare is set up... That makes the difference, and makes it possible for such a high percentage of deaf children with (bi-lateral) CI....
Same for Norway....