Deaf child hears for the first time

Bottesini said:
Are you forgetting the recent famous case of the young gitl forced to wear CI because her hearing mother's family wanted it that way?
Click to expand...

Again, that would be a completely different situation. That is family.
 
Grummer said:
NO, that is exactly what they ARE lead to believe, and they are still afraid of all the hard work that goes with it....quite selfish really, what about the deaf child's own burden to WORK hard there, hardly fair.
also it is their (medical institutions') view of comprehensiveness.
they try act out as the be all , know all, power all, curing agency of some quasi-sort.
Click to expand...

Doctors have a legal obligation to make risks clear.

So, if the medical institutions are providing "their view of comprehensiveness", what is being done by the d/Deaf community to rectify that?
 
diehardbiker said:
Smh
Click to expand...

That was a legitimate question...

What do you believe would be a more appropriate phrase?

For the sake of clarity, that question bring posed is not a contentious question. It's a sincere and genuine question.
 
CSign said:
Doctors have a legal obligation to make risks clear.

So, if the medical institutions are providing "their view of comprehensiveness", what is being done by the d/Deaf community to rectify that?
Click to expand...

:lol:...
ONLY medical risks pertaining to surgery procedures, NOTHING ELSE !!!

comprehensiveness my donkey

Oh the deaf community have their woolies pulled over their eyes, thanks to sneaky medical professionals who have their eyes on ONE things, 'safety of procedures' and everything else is 'said to be their own faults'...
 
CSign said:
What else should they call it? If it is factual, it is not misleading.
Click to expand...


factual, :roll: we already know... being factual doesnt mean it's trustworthy, you can use facts AND be deceptive...

now

it is Still misleading, what IS misleading? you might ask? ok... it is the implication of it being a miracle, all done, the child CAN hear...(but leave out all the hard work, we want more advertising)...

so I defend DHB, it IS misleading...based on the use of factual events but the promises of the miracle fulfilled, NOT.
 
We all know 3 years old often loves attention and could give everybody false sense of accomplishment. This patient is 3 years old, image how much attention he is getting? That is why I can not consider this as a miracle. I see this as more of misleading. You see, why I wanted to wait at least 15 years because by that time, we will know whether this person have the ability to talk on phone without aid of ANY kind (except the implant). Talking on phone naturally is next to impossible for any one with hearing loss and that's the fact that we all know.
 
diehardbiker said:
That is normal for medical professional to respond that way.
Click to expand...

Blindness isn't the end of the world as is the same as deafness. What's the different?!

My friend has become blind after having a stroke. Her life hasn't ended. She's still enjoying life to the full.
 
CSign said:
What else should they call it? If it is factual, it is not misleading.
Click to expand...

Say CI is cure for deafness isn't fact, it is more of opinion.

It is misleading to me because you can still deaf with CI off or CI breaks, also CI didn't provide a natural hearing so sounds are different.
 
Just saw the video on MSNBC.... The child's reaction is priceless.
 
Foxrac said:
Say CI is cure for deafness isn't fact, it is more of opinion.

It is misleading to me because you can still deaf with CI off or CI breaks, also CI didn't provide a natural hearing so sounds are different.
Click to expand...

Wait............that's basicly what I was saying in the other thread but you guys were attacking me.......and yet in the thread you said that CI was almost like hearing.
 
deafdyke said:
Wait............that's basicly what I was saying in the other thread but you guys were attacking me.......and yet in the thread you said that CI was almost like hearing.
Click to expand...

No, you were calling it fake. Even if what we hear isn't exactly the same, that doesn't make it fake. What we hear is real.
 
I advise people opinion you argument to debate silly no reason you worstly you think so talk to personal opinion let know you you problem on serious.
we carefully on watch out someone. It is very serious!
 
deafdyke said:
Wait............that's basicly what I was saying in the other thread but you guys were attacking me.......and yet in the thread you said that CI was almost like hearing.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you about CI give HoH style and the definition of CI sound is pretty unique, that's not same as hearing aid that give a sound.

The CI sound is just louder as natural hearing but... not same as natural hearing due to bionic sounds - robotic.

It is just like saying prosthetic arm isn't same as natural arm.
 
TXgolfer said:
Doctors saying "Im sorry but your child has failed their hearing test" is oppression now?
Click to expand...

Describing the results of a hearing test as "failed" seems borderline oppressive to me. If I went to get my hearing tested, "pass" or "fail" are useless words to determine what should be done.
 
Back
Top