Some children who are born deaf recover from their deafness

Oh and rick............you think my reasoning is bizare? That is b/c you really have bought into the goals lock stock and barrel of AG Bell. You cannot see that MAYBE just MAYBE their philosophies on things are wrong. There're well meaning. Yes, it's true that it's no longer unusual to see 'terps at AG Bell conferences, but on the other hand AG Bell is still very deep in an audist philosophy and the opinon that the hearing and speaking and mainstream world is the best thing in the world.
 
:ty: dd, SCJsue, and shel

Cloggy--it is obvious that English is your second language, as you are unable to comprehend the abstract intention and instead apply the concrete definition to each and every word. A word can have both a concrete definition, and an abstract usae. That is the same problem that children who are raised orally have with language. They master the mechanics, but they do not USE the language as a native.

Rick 48 and Cloggy--If it were my intention to force all to do things MY way, I would have impalnted my child and forced him to communicate through speech and hearing only. After all, that is MY way as a hearing person. Instead, I adapted to HIS way, because as an adult it is my responisbility to do so for my child. The only ones here who insist that it be done THEIR way are the two of you.

Boult--damned straight I was steamed as in pissed off!
 
jillio said:
:ty: dd, SCJsue, and shel

Cloggy--it is obvious that English is your second language, as you are unable to comprehend the abstract intention and instead apply the concrete definition to each and every word. A word can have both a concrete definition, and an abstract usae. That is the same problem that children who are raised orally have with language. They master the mechanics, but they do not USE the language as a native.

Rick 48 and Cloggy--If it were my intention to force all to do things MY way, I would have impalnted my child and forced him to communicate through speech and hearing only. After all, that is MY way as a hearing person. Instead, I adapted to HIS way, because as an adult it is my responisbility to do so for my child. The only ones here who insist that it be done THEIR way are the two of you.

Boult--damned straight I was steamed as in pissed off!
Click to expand...

My goodness, you're so full of it!! :giggle:
 
deafdyke said:
I noticed that too. A LOT of it, does seem to be connected with having "designer" high acheiver kids. They buy into (admittly biased) marketing of oral only as being for high acheiver types. Like the unspoken message is that if the parent choses oral only, the kids will be fluent in seven languages (the kid from the 60's or 70's who spoke seven languages) or who will be otherwise "high acheieving"
There's no mention of the possibilty that the kid will have some spoken language skills, but not have a complete mastery of speech.
Like Oticon's booklet on methodolgy says that its VERY common for oral only dhh kids to say stuff like "How many spiders have legs?" for "how many legs do spiders have?"
Rick, you don't understand..........NONE of us are anti oral skills. We just think that pro-oral people should be more open to Sign as a possible helpful tool, that could REALLY help dhh kids.
I know SO many exoral kids who say they wish they'd learned Sign early on.
Why do pro oral-onliers insist that oral skills be the be all and end all of a dhh kids' existance? Why should life be an eternal speech therapy session for a dhh kid?
You simply do not see the downsides of oral only. Yes, its great that it worked for your daughter, but it's NOT a perfect method. It's just that you lucked out that it seemed to be a perfect fit. Your family didn't experiance a lot of the inequalities and fighting with special ed providers and things like that that a lot of other families experiance!
Click to expand...

To answer your question, it is all about appearances. God forbid, neever, never appear to be any different than the majority. Harsh judgement will fall on you as because you have produced "defective" offspring! It isn't about the kids. It's about the parents using their kids as some sort of accomplishment because of their own insecurities.
 
Oh boy..Rick, u say that Jillo and I are playing games...well here are some of your comments that werent so nice so u are doing it too.


After reading your posts, all I can do is quote the immortal words of James Tiberius Kirk: "Beam me up Scotty, there are no signs of intelligent life here."
Rick

That's a direct insult to another AD member about intelligence. Was that necessary?

They just don't get it. Never have, never will. They cannot see past their petty and self-limiting personal bias and animosity towards those who chose a different path then they chose for their children.

U say that our views are petty and self-limiting? We dont view things the way u do. Get over it. Not everyone views things the same way but not necessary to call our views petty or limiting. We all recognize that CIs do work but not for everyone. Why does that bother u?


Dd in post 181

"Very few dhh kids will need lifelong speech therapy. I have never said otherwise."

dd in post 201

"Why should life be an eternal speech therapy session for a dhh kid?"

Which one is it? At least pick one false statement and stick with it.

False..why are they false? How do u really know what DD experiences and what she knows? How do u know that they are false?


All those comments werent necessary. I have stopped being mean and have apologized and now I am trying to move on and have a civilized debate or discussion but kinda hard when u keep making these kinds of comments. If u are going to accuse us of playing games then I suggest u stop too and we can try to have a civilized debate? You have your views...nothing wrong with that and we have our views so could we try to meet halfway to ensure that no deaf children will ever be language delayed again?
 
As a hearing person, I don't know how much room I have to say in this; it is obviously a Deaf Culture debate, but please hear me out.

I always felt that if a baby is born D/deaf, let them be! I hate the term "Fixing Deafness." Automatically, this makes a point in itself that Deafness is something that needs fixing i.e. is a problem.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe things happen for a reason. Once a Deaf child is old enough to make their decisions, let them. If they want HAs or CIs, or just to stay as they are, great! It's when parents interfere and go ahead with invasive surgery on their baby I have a problem. They are changing who their child really is and will become.
 
Last edited:
Sheila said:
As a hearing person, I don't know how much room I have to say in this; it is obviously a Deaf Culture debate, but please hear me out.

I always felt that if a baby is born D/deaf, let them be! I hate the term "Fixing Deafness." Automatically, this makes a point in itself that Deafness is something that needs fixing i.e. is a problem.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe things happen for a reason. Once a Deaf child is old enough to make their decisions, let them. If they want HAs or CIs, or just to stay as they are, great! It's when parents interfere and go ahead with invasive surgery on their baby I have a problem. They are changing who their child really is and will become.
Click to expand...

Oh please give us a break! I am not going to start this debate all over again! If that is your opinion fine, then I support your right to make that decision for your child. I disagree with it 100% but as long as you do not interefere in how we, or other parents, raise our child, who cares.
Rick
 
Cloggy said:
My goodness, you're so full of it!! :giggle:
Click to expand...


QFT Cloggy, QFT!

Notice how the insults and misrepresentations have ratcheted up? Pay no attention and remember that raising Lotte is the most important thing!
Rick
 
rick48 said:
QFT Cloggy, QFT!

Notice how the insults and misrepresentations have ratcheted up? Pay no attention and remember that raising Lotte is the most important thing!
Rick
Click to expand...

Yep, we are all stupid people who are liars, just insult others, and know nothing about deaf children. :roll:
 
Rick,



Dd in post 181

"Very few dhh kids will need lifelong speech therapy. I have never said otherwise."

dd in post 201

"Why should life be an eternal speech therapy session for a dhh kid?"

Which one is it? At least pick one false statement and stick with it.
Click to expand...
Well the first statement refers to FORMAL speech therapy. Like one on one instructional sessions with a certified speech language pathologist.The second refers to the fact that being oral-only is essentially an eternal speech therapy session.
 
Rick, the difference is that very often the theory that pro oral onliers push, really doesn't work out in practice. We are NOT "oral failures" or people who bash oral only b/c it's "trendy" to bash it. We don't like it b/c the experts such as Carol Flexor etc make it sound like there's NO downside to going oral only. It's great that your daughter did so well, but that is NOT always the case. If its so, then how come there are TONS of exoral onliers who wish they'd learned Sign early on? We're not against oral only.............we just think that early intervention should be CHILD CENTERED so the CHILD can have the choice of whether or not to learn Sign, speech etc. I support speech therapy for dhh kids.........I think oral skills are a very vital thing.
The thing that YOU don't understand is that VERY few Deafies are anti-speech Sign only seperatists. Most of us had significent speech training.
 
rick48 said:
Oh please give us a break! I am not going to start this debate all over again! If that is your opinion fine, then I support your right to make that decision for your child. I disagree with it 100% but as long as you do not interefere in how we, or other parents, raise our child, who cares.
Rick
Click to expand...

I agree Rick. That is the nice thing about free will! :) I do my thing, you do yours!
 
deafdyke said:
Rick, the difference is that very often the theory that pro oral onliers push, really doesn't work out in practice. We are NOT "oral failures" or people who bash oral only b/c it's "trendy" to bash it. We don't like it b/c the experts such as Carol Flexor etc make it sound like there's NO downside to going oral only. It's great that your daughter did so well, but that is NOT always the case. If its so, then how come there are TONS of exoral onliers who wish they'd learned Sign early on? We're not against oral only.............we just think that early intervention should be CHILD CENTERED so the CHILD can have the choice of whether or not to learn Sign, speech etc. I support speech therapy for dhh kids.........I think oral skills are a very vital thing.
The thing that YOU don't understand is that VERY few Deafies are anti-speech Sign only seperatists. Most of us had significent speech training.
Click to expand...

dd,

Since in virtually every single post you tell me something new that I DON'T UNDERSTAND and link me to those who advocate an oral only approach for all deaf children, can you help me out with something else that I DON'T UNDERSTAND?

Please show me where I have said that every deaf child should be raised oral only? Please show me where I have said that the oral only approach is the PERFECT choice for all deaf children? Finally, please show me where I said that because the oral only approach was the best approach for my child, that all other deaf children should be raised that way?

I have never maintained that there is only one way to raise a deaf child or that they all must be treated the same. I am not that presumptuous, arrogant and full of myself to think that I could tell another parent how to raise their child. I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Rick
 
Sheila said:
As a hearing person, I don't know how much room I have to say in this; it is obviously a Deaf Culture debate, but please hear me out.

I always felt that if a baby is born D/deaf, let them be! I hate the term "Fixing Deafness." Automatically, this makes a point in itself that Deafness is something that needs fixing i.e. is a problem.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe things happen for a reason. Once a Deaf child is old enough to make their decisions, let them. If they want HAs or CIs, or just to stay as they are, great! It's when parents interfere and go ahead with invasive surgery on their baby I have a problem. They are changing who their child really is and will become.
Click to expand...

What choice? The choice as an adult is hollow and symbolic only, because a) it's too late for the brain to make good use of sound and b) the deaf adult may get denied by the insurance company or surgeon anyway because of reason a). Everyone has to go through a candidacy criteria and part of that assessment is focussed on potential benefit from a CI. Empircally, they have had poor results with CIs from deaf adults who have never heard sounds.

Effectively, by not implanting a child who is too deaf to benefit from aids you are making a choice for that child.

Please be honest and admit that. It doesn't matter whether you think the particular choice is good or bad....it's a choice.
 
R2D2 said:
What choice? The choice as an adult is hollow and symbolic only, because a) it's too late for the brain to make good use of sound and b) the deaf adult may get denied by the insurance company or surgeon anyway because of reason a). Everyone has to go through a candidacy criteria and part of that assessment is focussed on potential benefit from a CI. Empircally, they have had poor results with CIs from deaf adults who have never heard sounds.

Effectively, by not implanting a child who is too deaf to benefit from aids you are making a choice for that child.

Please be honest and admit that. It doesn't matter whether you think the particular choice is good or bad....it's a choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly !.....

However, I don't think what you just explained will be registered....
Like Rick said..... been through that discussion so many times...
But then again, it doesn't hurt...

I wish you luck..
 
Please show me where I have said that every deaf child should be raised oral only? Please show me where I have said that the oral only approach is the PERFECT choice for all deaf children? Finally, please show me where I said that because the oral only approach was the best approach for my child, that all other deaf children should be raised that way?

I have never maintained that there is only one way to raise a deaf child or that they all must be treated the same. I am not that presumptuous, arrogant and full of myself to think that I could tell another parent how to raise their child.
Click to expand...
You don't, but you have implied pretty much that oral only is some sort of glorious utopian method that magically assimulates dhh kids into the hearing world. You also take criticism of oral only as basicly a personal attack. I know too that the orgnaization of AG Bell is a little more libral about methodology, even from ten years ago. But, they still can be VERY audist about how hearing and talking means "freedom"....they seem obessed with the fact that Sign users use 'terps. "Oh wittle Smashly uses all those hearing gadgets you see in Harris Communications, but it doesn't matter that she does b/c she's not dependant on a 'terp!"
Please.....we are not against oral skills. We are against oral-ONLY, if it's not the child's choice. If a child has a full toolbox of tools, and decides to use only speech.....................FAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They debate should be more about which language should be first. AG Bell needs to encourage speech skills, but they should also really promote Cued Speech and Sign and other things, instead of hyperfocusing on speech, speech, speech.
Excellent point R2D2.
I do think that implantation criteria should be a little stricter, as some people are seeing it as the LATEST trendy "gotta have" hearing technology. Also think that there should be a little more experimenting with alternative hearing devices. For the pop that has NO benifit from hearing aids, IMPLANT them.....but also expose them to a dual language metholodology til they are old enough to decide what path they want to take.
 
:gpost:
deafdyke said:
You don't, but you have implied pretty much that oral only is some sort of glorious utopian method that magically assimulates dhh kids into the hearing world. You also take criticism of oral only as basicly a personal attack. I know too that the orgnaization of AG Bell is a little more libral about methodology, even from ten years ago. But, they still can be VERY audist about how hearing and talking means "freedom"....they seem obessed with the fact that Sign users use 'terps. "Oh wittle Smashly uses all those hearing gadgets you see in Harris Communications, but it doesn't matter that she does b/c she's not dependant on a 'terp!"
Please.....we are not against oral skills. We are against oral-ONLY, if it's not the child's choice. If a child has a full toolbox of tools, and decides to use only speech.....................FAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They debate should be more about which language should be first. AG Bell needs to encourage speech skills, but they should also really promote Cued Speech and Sign and other things, instead of hyperfocusing on speech, speech, speech.
Excellent point R2D2.
I do think that implantation criteria should be a little stricter, as some people are seeing it as the LATEST trendy "gotta have" hearing technology. Also think that there should be a little more experimenting with alternative hearing devices. For the pop that has NO benifit from hearing aids, IMPLANT them.....but also expose them to a dual language metholodology til they are old enough to decide what path they want to take.
Click to expand...

What this really comes down to is utilizing a child's stengths to overcome a weakness. By the time the majority of children are diagnosed and implanted, they have been, from birth, learning to interpret their world visually. As such, visual processing is a strength for them the way auditory processing is a strength for hearing kids. Why do we continue to insist that it is not necessary to use that strength. We take the weakness in auditory function and try to correct it by using the weakness. Would it not make much more sense to use those strengths they have already developed and use that remarkable ability to adapt to their environment and use it to improve the weak area?
 
R2D2 said:
What choice? The choice as an adult is hollow and symbolic only, because a) it's too late for the brain to make good use of sound and b) the deaf adult may get denied by the insurance company or surgeon anyway because of reason a). Everyone has to go through a candidacy criteria and part of that assessment is focussed on potential benefit from a CI. Empircally, they have had poor results with CIs from deaf adults who have never heard sounds.

Effectively, by not implanting a child who is too deaf to benefit from aids you are making a choice for that child.

Please be honest and admit that. It doesn't matter whether you think the particular choice is good or bad....it's a choice.
Click to expand...



I admit that. Different situations, different outcomes/methods.

Maybe I was thinking more than what I actually typed...re-reading it, I got a different impression than what I wanted when I wrote it. :Oops:

I have heard many stories of hearing parents with hearing families who have a D/deaf child. The hearing families REFUSE to learn sign or let their child learn sign. In some stories, the child is profoundly deaf, 5 years old, and only have a vocabulary (in spoken english) of 100 words. Hearing aids are obviously not the answer for this child. There are other ones who know sign and can talk and wear HA, that's fine too. I guess what I was protesting before was denying the child the right path when it is obvious that the one already chosen was the wrong one.

And Tousi, I'm in my early 20s.
 
Back
Top