A Cure

Status
Not open for further replies.
HHIssues said:
Have you thought about getting a CI? Are you a candidate? And this coming from another "oral / mainstreamed deaf person that grew up during the pre-CI days", I personally think you're taking the harder, more tedious route. JMHO.
Click to expand...

It is not that it hasn't been suggested to me, nor have I not given it some consideration and thought, but after research, I am not a candidate and even if I were, after seeing the procedure, I would not go there. In addition to my convictions, I am also prone to allergic reactions, therefore will not take the risk.
 
p.s.....learning sign language at a later age is a piece a cake to being oral only my whole life.
 
BecLak said:
p.s.....learning sign language at a later age is a piece a cake to being oral only my whole life.
Click to expand...

And for me, it was a piece of cake compared to restricting my son, and dealing with all of the side effects, of insisting on an oral environment for my son!:P
 
faire_jour said:
It is the truth of YOU being deaf. It is not the truth for all deaf people. There are plenty of deaf people, even some here, who do not feel that way.
Click to expand...

FJ, you have not the right to reply in regards to this issue to me, you are hearing, how on earth would you know?
 
jillio said:
CI processors can be adjusted. They don't fix anything. You can accept my suggestion that the terminolgy is offensive to many deaf, or not. Your choice. But realize that if you continue to use that phrasing, having once had it pointed out that it is offensive, then you cannot complain of people become offended and discount anything else you have to say.

The statement to which I first responded stated, "It can be fixed". That implies that the issue of not hearing in certain frequencies can be fixed. CI or no, it often cannot be.
Click to expand...

CI processors can certainly be fixed. So can HAs. I don't see how that is in any way offensive. Are you suggesting that anyone here would misread FJ's advice about how an audi would adjust a processor setting to bring up the frequency of a b over the frequency of a p sound as being an indictment of deafness?
 
what am I going to do if they can't "fix" it?

but no, I know what FJ was referring to. She talking about fixing the technology itself since I've always been able to discriminate bee and pee with my hearing aids.
 
deafgal001 said:
I was talking about Oral deaf with hearing aids and CI. When us oral deaf tell parents our experience, they think CI will be different but the truth is, there will always be some stuggle.
Click to expand...

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:
 
GrendelQ said:
She didn't say discrimination could be fixed. Or that hearing loss could be fixed. You put those dangerous words into close proximity, not FJ. CI processors are tools with setting that can be adjusted (fixed).
Click to expand...


Agree, that is not fair reading of FJ's post which is in no way using the term as is oft used by some that a ci is meant to "fix" a child or a person.
Rick
 
then he can fix what you are missing
Click to expand...
I took it as "make adjustments within the software", but I can see how others may have interpreted it to mean "fix her hearing".
 
faire_jour said:
Just an aside, if you are unable to discriminate between "p" and "b", you probably need a tune up. Those sounds share a lot of the same acoustical information, so your audiologist would figure out which of your electrodes covers the formant in which those two sounds are DIFFERENT and turn up the gain. That should increase your ability to discriminate those two sounds. Mention it to your audi and I bet he fixes it right up.
Click to expand...

Robot-tweaking?? :laugh2:
 
acoustical information >>>> they also share the same lipreading form too. That's why I had a very, very difficult time figuring out if she saying bee or pee????
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Many seem to use that dichotomous thinking and are unable to understand that when we discuss the majority it does not rule out the few exceptions. Then they take it personally, when it is really their misunderstanding of the discussion that creates the objections to begin with. Just because something may be right for an exception, does not mean that is is a method that should be used across the board when it has already been shown with years of research and life results that it is not effective for the majority. Policies should be instituted based on the efficacy of the method for the majority, and accommodations made for the exceptions. We do it in reverse.
Click to expand...

:ty: very much Jillio. :D
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Many seem to use that dichotomous thinking and are unable to understand that when we discuss the majority it does not rule out the few exceptions. Then they take it personally, when it is really their misunderstanding of the discussion that creates the objections to begin with. Just because something may be right for an exception, does not mean that is is a method that should be used across the board when it has already been shown with years of research and life results that it is not effective for the majority. Policies should be instituted based on the efficacy of the method for the majority, and accommodations made for the exceptions. We do it in reverse.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your belief, the posters in this thread over the past few days have demonstrated quite civilly their ability to understand the issues being addressed and when asked use their personal experiences to demonstrate a point of discussion.

No one here is advocating anyone method or course of action and quite the opposite have been quite specific in stating that there are many different avenues and paths to follow. Those of us who have mentioned our children's experiences are not stating that what we chose for them is the method or course of action that should be followed by all.

The only thing I will state, is that based primarily on my personal experiences plus to a much lesser extent research I have read over the years, the experiences being shared by myself, FJ and Grendel are not the "few exceptions".
Rick
 
Wirelessly posted

BecLak said:
faire_jour said:
It is the truth of YOU being deaf. It is not the truth for all deaf people. There are plenty of deaf people, even some here, who do not feel that way.
Click to expand...

FJ, you have not the right to reply in regards to this issue to me, you are hearing, how on earth would you know?
Click to expand...

there are deaf people on this thread who have said that. I didn't give my opinion, i said that there are deaf people who disagree with you. Why does my hearing status matter?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



there are deaf people on this thread who have said that. I didn't give my opinion, i said that there are deaf people who disagree with you. Why does my hearing status matter?
Click to expand...

Let them speak for themselves then. You will never know what is the truth about being deaf until you become deaf yourself.
 
jillio said:
Just because something may be right for an exception, does not mean that is is a method that should be used across the board when it has already been shown with years of research and life results that it is not effective for the majority. Policies should be instituted based on the efficacy of the method for the majority, and accommodations made for the exceptions. We do it in reverse.
Click to expand...

Jillio, I know that realistically we can't have a world fully customized for every person. But, let's say we're finding that CIs provide a positive outcome for 90% of early-implanted children and that AVT is the dominant methodology in use -- which is pretty close to what's shown by many of the measures in place right now. (Or pick 95%/80%, whatever study you happen to prefer -- the key is "majority."

Even though we are among those with positive outcomes, my family doesn't use AVT -- my child's primary language is ASL and she attends a bi-bi school. Don't your policies -- what works for the majority applies to all, with accommodations made for others -- endanger my daughter's resources, put her into an accommodated group rather than a supported group? AVT may be wonderful, but it's not right for us -- why would we be shoehorned into having to use that methodology because it's now being enforced as "policy".
 
deafgal001 said:
I was talking about Oral deaf with hearing aids and CI. When us oral deaf tell parents our experience, they think CI will be different but the truth is, there will always be some stuggle.
Click to expand...

Yes and I do not want to imply that there are none but rather it is not in comparison to those that have been described by those who grew up profoundly deaf, oral and without a ci. There will be struggles no matter what method or course of action is chosen but my child has not experienced anything remote to what Beclak has described she experiences on a daily basis.
Rick
 
Wirelessly posted

deafgal001 said:
acoustical information >>>> they also share the same lipreading form too. That's why I had a very, very difficult time figuring out if she saying bee or pee????
Click to expand...

but they do have acoustical differences, so if the audiologist tweaks the electrode that stimulates the nerve in the area of the difference.

my daughter's audi does the beep thing and then takes her in the booth and does speech perception testing to see how well she can discriminate speech sounds (he uses very similar words like dog vs dogs and gun vs gum) and then does extra adjustments to optimize her access to spoken language.
 
BecLak said:
Let them speak for themselves then. You will never know what is the truth about being deaf until you become deaf yourself.
Click to expand...
Not all deaf people have the same opinions or experiences on being deaf. One doesn't have to be deaf to see or comment on that. All one has to do is look at the mixed responses from deaf people.
 
GrendelQ said:
Jillio, I know that realistically we can't have a world fully customized for every person. But, let's say we're finding that CIs provide a positive outcome for 90% of early-implanted children and that AVT is the dominant methodology in use -- which is pretty close to what's shown by many of the measures in place right now. (Or pick 95%/80%, whatever study you happen to prefer -- the key is "majority."

Even though we are among those with positive outcomes, my family doesn't use AVT -- my child's primary language is ASL and she attends a bi-bi school. Don't your policies -- what works for the majority applies to all, with accommodations made for others -- endanger my daughter's resources, put her into an accommodated group rather than a supported group? AVT may be wonderful, but it's not right for us -- why would we be shoehorned into having to use that methodology because it's now being enforced as "policy".
Click to expand...
I know I will get reamed for saying this AGAIN but this re-enforces that one size does NOT fit all!! And you are correct. Why should your child or any child not be given access to what works for their particular situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top