Do you support a cure for deafness?

[shel90]

No where have I said that deafness is a disease. It's a condition but not a disease. I stated repeatedly it as a Be sure to set aside YOUR emotions regarding this when you want to make an argument on your behalf.

I'm sure Txgolf understands the different levels of hearing loss and the timing of its loss. And that each person's own experience with hearing loss varies. That's already a given around here.

This issue here is that people do support for the cure on deafness and when the day comes that a particular form of hearing loss can be restored/cured then people will finally have a choice with or without your blessings.

You completely missed the point.

And many of us know that our blessings do not count anyway.

 

[netrox]

I can try and help you there -

those who voted for cure: anakin, Barbaro, Daredevel7, JamieLynn, kokonut, Lavender, netrox, omegaman, Phi4Sius, sara1981, stemcellsdeaf, TXgolfer

(correct me if I'm wrong)
5 born deaf = bolded font
3 late deaf = regular font
3 red font = UNKNOWN

Not sure where you get the impression that I am late deafened because I was born totally deaf.

 

[netrox]

:bsflag:
Most people who have lost their hearing just miss things they enjoyed. It's that simple.

You are still missing out a LOT of things.

 

[KristinaB]

Hearing loss is a problem for millions of people. People are quite thankful of technology that gave them their hearing aids, for example.

I detested my hearing aids so much that I purposely "lost" the first 2, and the 3rd was thrown away by a janitor in school. The last set met with an ultimate disaster while I was at work. Thanks the L*rd I don't have HA's anymore!!

 

[Nette]

You completely missed the point.

And many of us know that our blessings do not count anyway.

Yep... missed. Oh well.

And just to make a point (because I can and I feel like it);
Mirriam-Websters
Main Entry: 1cure
Pronunciation: \ˈkyu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin cura, cure of souls, from Latin, care
Date: 14th century

1 a : spiritual charge : care b : pastoral charge of a parish
2 a : recovery or relief from a disease b : something (as a drug or treatment) that cures a disease c : a course or period of treatment <take the cure for alcoholism> d : spa 1
3 : a complete or permanent solution or remedy <seeking a cure for unemployment>
4 : a process or method of curing

— cure·less \-ləs\ adjective

 

[Buffalo]

WOW!!!!!! So you are saying you want to deny people the possibility to hear because you don't want to be healed and you are worried that you will be more oppressed. That may be the most insanely selfish thing I have ever read.

You would rather keep people down so that your life would be easier than allow some that hope for a miracle to reach their dream. That is just.....WOW

I read the history about 1880 Milan Conference where they decided that all deaf children should learn to speak - nevermind that there is no such thing as hearing aids or cochlear implants. The hearing people took over deaf education. The deaf education took a nose dive after that. Lot of time they taught the deaf kids vocational jobs (think menial jobs). They rather keep the deaf people down so they could have better jobs to themselves.

The deaf people knew that ASL is the right answer to the communication problem but the hearing people doesn't see it that way. They invented hearing aids and cochlear implants. Nevermind if the deaf people had to face job discrimination, they expect the deaf people to wear expensive hearing aids/cochlear implants that they can't really afford to pay for. Nevermind if cochlear implants are giving the deaf people headaches/dizziness problem. The doctors won't remove them for that reason (I know from a vlog that it is hard to find a doctor who is willing to remove the CI). All that so they can communicate with deaf people without ever learning ASL with their perfectly two working hands. That may be the most insanely selfish thing I have ever read.

The hearing people would rather keep deaf people down so that their life would be much easier without learning ASL. That is just.....WOW!!!!

 

[Daredevel7]

I honestly do not even understand the whole thing about the cure for deafness changing the norms of society. I understand the consequences, but I don't even think you guys realize that EVERYTHING is shaped by the majority. And even within a minority, there are things that accommodate the majority of the minority. For example, I am oral deaf, correct? I grew up on lipreading and CC. I didn't learn sign until last year. Do you know how many times I've encountered interpreters instead of transcribers at major events? I prefer a transcriber, someone to type up everything, but now I am "forced" to learn sign in order to take advantage of interpreters at major events or even using the videophone. To me, being against the cure for deafness is similar as me "being" against ASL as the method of communication for the deaf.

(Btw, I don't feel "forced" to learn sign. I'm happy to learn sign but just making my point if I didn't want to learn ASL)

 

[shel90]

I honestly do not even understand the whole thing about the cure for deafness changing the norms of society. I understand the consequences, but I don't even think you guys realize that EVERYTHING is shaped by the majority. And even within a minority, there are things that accommodate the majority of the minority. For example, I am oral deaf, correct? I grew up on lipreading and CC. I didn't learn sign until last year. Do you know how many times I've encountered interpreters instead of transcribers at major events? I prefer a transcriber, someone to type up everything, but now I am "forced" to learn sign in order to take advantage of interpreters at major events or even using the videophone. To me, being against the cure for deafness is similar as me "being" against ASL as the method of communication for the deaf.

(Btw, I don't feel "forced" to learn sign. I'm happy to learn sign but just making my point if I didn't want to learn ASL)

Deaf children should be given both..signed language and spoken language.

 

[Daredevel7]

Deaf children should be given both..signed language and spoken language.

I understand. Okay perhaps using me is a bad example. How about late deafened? They must learn to sign in order to take advantage of interpreters at major events. I am PRETTY SURE using a transcriber is cheaper than using an interpreter in general. But signing became the method of accommodation for the deaf because the majority of the deaf wanted signing instead of using a transcriber. So those who became late deafened must conform to this method.

A cure for deafness may change things, but there's always ways to accommodate.

I don't know if it's the right thing to do to deny people henceforth (meaning from today and the future) a cure for deafness because 5% of today's population doesn't want to see their lives possibly affected.

 

[shel90]

I understand. Okay perhaps using me is a bad example. How about late deafened? They must learn to sign in order to take advantage of interpreters at major events. I am PRETTY SURE using a transcriber is cheaper than using an interpreter in general. But signing became the method of accommodation for the deaf because the majority of the deaf wanted signing instead of using an transcriber. So those who became late deafened must conform to this method.

A cure for deafness may change things, but there's always ways to accommodate.

I don't know if it's the right thing to do to deny people henceforth (meaning from today and the future) a cure for deafness because 5% of today's population doesn't want to see their lives possibly affected.

I didnt get a chance to add this when my computer battery died.

I was going to add that late deafened adults have the right to get transcriptors unless something in the ADA says otherwise. Just my opinion and if they dont have that right, then it should be changed.

Again, I dont see how anyone here has the power to prevent scientists from comig up with a cure and then marketing it which is why it doesnt make sense why people here get upset about people voting no. People were asked if they would support it or not..nothing about preventing others from getting it.

That's how I interpreted the purpose of the poll so I guess others see it differently.

 

[TXgolfer]

Here's where I think you are missing the point and I'll give you a couple examples of "society" as well.
How many deaf individuals have had their loss for so long that they have no memory of the sounds they are supposed to be missing? You're lumping everyone in the same category as yourself. There are to many levels of deafness to put all in the same arena and using the term "cure" (which kokonut did to purposely stir everyone up) is implying that deafness is a disease. The two most prevalent causes for deafness that I have seen are damage and neuro. Neither would be considered a disease like say Cancer.

As far as society, how they react to deafness and the Problems it creates I'll give you an example that you might empathize with;
Glenn's ex took him to her family functions. He remained largely isolated due to communication issues. Her family's expectations were that he learn to communicate with them or remain left out and isolated. (Sound familiar anyone??)

Now, at every family function that I have taken him to (AND mind you this is the side of my family who does not have hearing loss nor experience with anyone who is deaf or hoh) my family made the effort to communicate with Glenn. It's not 100% of the time, you do have to take into consideration that none are used to being around deaf folks, but the effort is there. Comments directed at me were like, "Okay, you'll have to start teaching us sign so we can talk to Glenn." This is without any prompting from me and also came from a few that were very leery of Glenn at first because they'd never dealt with deafness. It can be scary for hearing people.
Now, my expectations for my family is that they learn to communicate with Glenn and I will make that known if I need to. So far I have not had to.
Do you see the differences in the two examples? This is most certainly a 'society' example and the 'problems' faced.

My posts were in regard to the two short posts that I quoted. A cure was not being discussed, it was about why people have a problem when they lose their hearing. The comment was hearing loss is only a problem because society makes it a problem. Some people like KristinaB and Daft (among many other) state they have no problems with their hearing loss. If just a few people say their only problem with their loss is not hearing certain things it makse his statement inaccurate because he said the only reason was because of society.

 

[TXgolfer]

I read the history about 1880 Milan Conference where they decided that all deaf children should learn to speak - nevermind that there is no such thing as hearing aids or cochlear implants. The hearing people took over deaf education. The deaf education took a nose dive after that. Lot of time they taught the deaf kids vocational jobs (think menial jobs). They rather keep the deaf people down so they could have better jobs to themselves.

The deaf people knew that ASL is the right answer to the communication problem but the hearing people doesn't see it that way. They invented hearing aids and cochlear implants. Nevermind if the deaf people had to face job discrimination, they expect the deaf people to wear expensive hearing aids/cochlear implants that they can't really afford to pay for. Nevermind if cochlear implants are giving the deaf people headaches/dizziness problem. The doctors won't remove them for that reason (I know from a vlog that it is hard to find a doctor who is willing to remove the CI). All that so they can communicate with deaf people without ever learning ASL with their perfectly two working hands. That may be the most insanely selfish thing I have ever read.

The hearing people would rather keep deaf people down so that their life would be much easier without learning ASL. That is just.....WOW!!!!

I agree with you 100%. I have stated over and over I think it would be wrong to force people to accept a cure. I wear a hearing aid now. I hate it but I find it necessary for golf. My brain has to hear the different types of contact I am making in order to make adjustments and play my best. I am against CIs for me as I stated somewhere else. I have had enough surgeries and don't want another. I would go postal if someone tried to force me into a CI.

That being said, I am very happy there are CIs for people who want them. If something comes along that restores peoples hearing I will be happy for the people that want that too.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I understand. Okay perhaps using me is a bad example. How about late deafened? They must learn to sign in order to take advantage of interpreters at major events. I am PRETTY SURE using a transcriber is cheaper than using an interpreter in general. But signing became the method of accommodation for the deaf because the majority of the deaf wanted signing instead of using an transcriber. So those who became late deafened must conform to this method.

A cure for deafness may change things, but there's always ways to accommodate.

I don't know if it's the right thing to do to deny people henceforth (meaning from today and the future) a cure for deafness because 5% of today's population doesn't want to see their lives possibly affected.

Interpreters are cheap. CART is not.

 

[TXgolfer]

I didnt get a chance to add this when my computer battery died.

I was going to add that late deafened adults have the right to get transcriptors unless something in the ADA says otherwise. Just my opinion and if they dont have that right, then it should be changed.

Again, I dont see how anyone here has the power to prevent scientists from comig up with a cure and then marketing it which is why it doesnt make sense why people here get upset about people voting no. People were asked if they would support it or not..nothing about preventing others from getting it.

That's how I interpreted the purpose of the poll so I guess others see it differently.

Perhaps I was too harsh.

I took the poll to mean are you/would you be happy that research is being done to cure deafness. Thats why I answered yes as long as it is not government funded. Alot of people want to hear. I like happy people. I promise if my hearing comes back for some reason I will still come on alldeaf and annoy you

 

[Daredevel7]

Interpreters are cheap. CART is not.

Really?

I was thinking transcribers are cheaper because 1) High availability for people who type vs hearing people who know ASL well. 2) Major events usually need to be transcribed anyway. (Think presidential events)

Of course, I don't know jack squat about the actual cost/availability of CART/transcribers/interpreters.

My point still stands though. ASL is still the preferred method of accommodation for the deaf. So whoever needs this accommodation must learn sign.

As for the ADA stating that accommodations must be made, that's the funny part. Does anyone honestly think that ADA will say to provide BOTH transcriber and interpreter? After all, there is a reason for that statement "unless an undue burden...".

 

[Daredevel7]

Anyway, I feel like I am derailing this thread. I agree with Shel about this:

Again, I dont see how anyone here has the power to prevent scientists from comig up with a cure and then marketing it which is why it doesnt make sense why people here get upset about people voting no. People were asked if they would support it or not..nothing about preventing others from getting it.

That's how I interpreted the purpose of the poll so I guess others see it differently.

I thought the purpose of the poll was to ruffle feathers...

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Really?

I was thinking transcribers are cheaper because 1) High availability for people who type vs hearing people who know ASL well. 2) Major events usually need to be transcribed anyway. (Think presidential events)

Of course, I don't know jack squat about the actual cost/availability of CART/transcribers/interpreters.

My point still stands though. ASL is still the preferred method of accommodation for the deaf. So whoever needs this accommodation must learn sign.

As for the ADA stating that accommodations must be made, that's the funny part. Does anyone honestly think that ADA will say to provide BOTH transcriber and interpreter? After all, there is a reason for that statement "unless an undue burden...".

50 an hour for a decent interpreter... versus 100 an hour for a beginner in CART. I cried when I got billed for a professional CART provider the first time around.

 

[Daredevel7]

50 an hour for a decent interpreter... versus 100 an hour for a beginner in CART. I cried when I got billed for a professional CART provider the first time around.

Ouch....

Man, I can't wait till speech to text thing works well enough for meetings....That's my weakness right there!

 

[TXgolfer]

50 an hour for a decent interpreter... versus 100 an hour for a beginner in CART. I cried when I got billed for a professional CART provider the first time around.

Wow, I thought the school provided the service for students. I was hearing when I was in college. Thinking about law school just for fun now. Have to look into all of this.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wow, I thought the school provided the service for students. I was hearing when I was in college. Thinking about law school just for fun now. Have to look into all of this.

My schools covered them. All campus events as well.

But I had hearing friends that liked going to off-campus plays at the time, and no one wanted to split the costs.