See, it does happen.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very true.

Personally, I'm so sick of seeing some CI babies and toodlers anywhere (almost) every day because of the best technical things. It made me uncomfortable and personally offended me.

I believe each parent, who have a deaf child, should to wait until a child is a several years old or old enough to have a CI.

I think it'll be better if goes with HAs first and then to try CIs if HAs are not working. Y'know me, SkullChick, I just sick of *some* hearing people want little deafies have CI to make them a hearing person. The Deaf community is kinda of broke off because 90% deafies are born to hearing families, IMO.

By the way, thanks for this link in your first post. :)
 
Drew's Dad said:
It was nice of her to post the link, but the link doesn't say anything about hearing "coming back".
Click to expand...

But it does say that the child is receiving benefit from HA, and is speaking. So why the push for CI. What happened to the criteria of "no benefit from HA"? That seems to be the first and foremost cited justification for infant implantation. "My child received no benefit from HA." Obviously, that is not always the case.
 
SkullChick said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: Every little bit helps

Remember I mentioned that why its not good idea to implant babies because their hearing can recover even if its little bit and sometimes some became hoh instead of profoundly/severe deaf and rare case, normal hearing. here it is... I have the proof!
it does happen! it would be awful if you implant babies when 1-2 years later they turned out to be moderately hoh and you killed so much of residual hearing for nothing....
Click to expand...

as you've written this you are saying that the child's hearing has recovered. From reading the reponses what seems to be happening is the child is responding well to the use of HA's. Which is nice. My daughter adapted quite well to her aides when she got them, she gets the results expected by the professionals. I on the other had did not ever really achieve the results that would be expected from a person with my loss and the HA's I bought. Hence I was able t o get a CI, much better. Even in very young children, similar losses will not equal the same success with a HA. Hence the trail with aides to see if the child will benefit. This one does at this time.
 
jillio said:
But it does say that the child is receiving benefit from HA, and is speaking. So why the push for CI. What happened to the criteria of "no benefit from HA"? That seems to be the first and foremost cited justification for infant implantation. "My child received no benefit from HA." Obviously, that is not always the case.
Click to expand...

I think there is too little information in the blog. The only clue for the reason behind the "push" seems to be that the audiologist thinks that the HAs are okay for now but are on maximum setting and that further amplification will not be possible. This might be an issue theoretically in the future if for example if the little boy has a progressive loss.

Either way, I just don't think we can judge what is happening here without knowing the specifics about their situation or if indeed the audie has recommended a CI for right now. This isn't clear. Also, the CI clinic may have a different opinion to the audiologist and feel that sacrificing the residual hearing at this stage is too much of risk.
 
R2D2 said:
I think there is too little information in the blog. The only clue for the reason behind the "push" seems to be that the audiologist thinks that the HAs are okay for now but are on maximum setting and that further amplification will not be possible. This might be an issue theoretically in the future if for example if the little boy has a progressive loss.

Either way, I just don't think we can judge what is happening here without knowing the specifics about their situation or if indeed the audie has recommended a CI for right now. This isn't clear. Also, the CI clinic may have a different opinion to the audiologist and feel that sacrificing the residual hearing at this stage is too much of risk.
Click to expand...

True. I was basing benefit on the mother's statements of aided levels and reports of speech development. We don't know exactly what type of loss this child has, and the CI clinic might not consider him to be a candidate. But, according tothe mother, the audi is still a professional that is encouraging CI despite the benefit received from HAs at this time.
 
double post..oops!
 
In my opinion, I think the kid is developing language through speaking and signing therefore establishing a strong language foundation which in turn will lead to better use of hearing aids. Of course, the child is not going to respond to hearing aids immediately which I think that audi needs to back off! I hear 90 dB with my hearing aids and I can easily pass off as a hearing person when I want to in certain settings. I did that to my banker ...after an hour of meeting with him, he handed me the phone to talk to the district manager about my account and I told him that I am deaf. His jaw literally dropped wide open! I didnt know that he didnt know that I was deaf. :giggle:

My point of this..it TAKES time for children to get used to hearing aids but I am seeing that the medical society is quick to judge when hearing aids dont benefit the children. How would they know if they havent developed language yet? Duh!
 
shel90 said:
I hear 90 dB with my hearing aids and I can easily pass off as a hearing person when I want to in certain settings. I did that to my banker ...after an hour of meeting with him, he handed me the phone to talk to the district manager about my account and I told him that I am deaf. His jaw literally dropped wide open! I didnt know that he didnt know that I was deaf. :giggle:

My point of this..it TAKES time for children to get used to hearing aids but I am seeing that the medical society is quick to judge when hearing aids dont benefit the children. How would they know if they havent developed language yet? Duh!
Click to expand...

I agree and hopefully they will hold off on CI as long as he is doing well with his HAs.

I've always thought you have done very well with HAs with such a big loss. I don't think I would have coped in the same situation as long as you did! It makes sense that it was such a big strain for you growing up mainstream.
 
R2D2 said:
I agree and hopefully they will hold off on CI as long as he is doing well with his HAs.

I've always thought you have done very well with HAs with such a big loss. I don't think I would have coped in the same situation as long as you did! It makes sense that it was such a big strain for you growing up mainstream.
Click to expand...

Yea, it was very stressful...it didnt start out that way but when the classes got more difficult and social situations changed from play to group chats, that was when things changed.

Plus, I had no support system..just speech teachers and one teacher for the deaf who met me for an hour a week. My graduating class was over 500 students.

Yes, I have good memories but I dont have the connection to them like I have with my memories of with the Deaf community.
 
She seems pretty happy with the hearing aids for now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but she said that the audilogist was saying that they were maxing out on traditional amplification, and that it might be time for CI.
Neecy and Drews Dad, How do I put it this way? While many implantations are perfectly legitimate (ie the person has VERY poor speech perception even with aids) I have seen a trend of "OMG the CI is the best most modern hearing gadget out there!" I remember clearly in the 90's, the exact same thing happening with digital aids. Digital aids were hyped as the most modren thing...Lots of people thought that they were automaticly better then analogs.......The thing is, that EVERYONE'S different. No one (not even with the same audiogram) will respond the same to amplification. I realize the benifits of getting more of the speech banana, but b/c of the indivduality thing, I really think that when dealing with an ambigious canidate,(NOT a canidate who is obviously clearly a clear cut canidate) its better to experiment with all sorts of hearing aids, and leave the CI as a last resort thing.
 
deafdyke said:
Oh, and while this might not be what SkullChick thought at first..........it's still proof that the LATEST TECHNOLOGY gadget fever has taken the severe-profound world by storm. Like I've repeatly said, there's nothing wrong with implanting a kid who has VERY little benifit from aids.....but it's cases like these that really reinforce my belief that there are some people out there who are just shopping for the latest trendy hearing gadget!
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've been in the severe range with HA's. (very close to profound toward the end) Frankly I find it hard to understand why one should have to struggle with the limited amount of speech perception given by HA's when a CI is an alternative and gives much better clarity of speech. (you can even hear sirens when you're on the 10th floor of a building, that truely amazed me)

The biggest regret I have is I had to go through so many years struggling with Ha's because I would not have met the requirements for a CI. My Ha audiologist gave me a big lecture on how they were different and a CI isn't the same, no kidding. (he was upset that I was even going through the testing) I really do love my latest trendy tech. gadget.

As for residual hearing, I still have it. Would it be useful if I got a HA or had the CI removed? Probably not especially since I struggled so much with hearing speech with a HA prior to CI.
 
vallee said:
Live*Laugh*Love*Family: One Step Closer

Read update
Click to expand...

That's a GREAT blog, and I think its a wellspring of information for people who seem to think that parents one day hear about CI's and the next day they just walk into a hospital and then hand their deaf child over to a surgeon and say "implant him." They don't realize just what is involved in ensuring everything is done the best way possible, and the testing that parents and children have to go through. Thanks for posting this link, I'm going to add it to my list of blogs to keep an eye on.
 
neecy said:
That's a GREAT blog, and I think its a wellspring of information for people who seem to think that parents one day hear about CI's and the next day they just walk into a hospital and then hand their deaf child over to a surgeon and say "implant him." They don't realize just what is involved in ensuring everything is done the best way possible, and the testing that parents and children have to go through. Thanks for posting this link, I'm going to add it to my list of blogs to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...

Where are those people, neecy? I don't think anyone here believes the process is that quick, or that no testing is ever done. The question is, and always has been that parents are given one sided information, not complete information. And there have been any number of postings, most recently from a parent considering CI for his infant daughter, that support that.

I find it encouraging that this parent evidently has been using sign with this deaf baby prior to implantation, and it is indeed itneresting that he has developed some vocalizations, even though parents are still told that a baby will not try to use voice is they are allowed to use sign. Interesting also, that the child's sign vocab exceeds his oral vocab. Given that he has managed these accomplishments already, I do hope that this parent continues to offer all options in order to continue with optimal development of his communcation capacities.
 
neecy, Please understand...I realize that many parents who opt for implantation, don't treat it lightly. However, there are some (read SOME) parents and indivduals who almost shop around for a clinic that will implant. Granted, it's probaly somewhat rare, and granted that the same social phenonomoen has been seen with dx of ADD or gifted kids abusing the special ed system in order to get an edge.
I just think that the clinics need to standardize their 'will implant' criteria as well as require psychological counseling ( with a therapist who is familiar with such issues) That's all.....I just think that there's a bit too much wiggle room in the system. There are still people out there who think that a CI is baisicly THE ANSWER.Remember, Auditory verbal approach actually encourages people to see the newest technology as "the best, and the gotta have"
 
jillio said:
Where are those people, neecy? I don't think anyone here believes the process is that quick, or that no testing is ever done. The question is, and always has been that parents are given one sided information, not complete information. And there have been any number of postings, most recently from a parent considering CI for his infant daughter, that support that.

I find it encouraging that this parent evidently has been using sign with this deaf baby prior to implantation, and it is indeed itneresting that he has developed some vocalizations, even though parents are still told that a baby will not try to use voice is they are allowed to use sign. Interesting also, that the child's sign vocab exceeds his oral vocab. Given that he has managed these accomplishments already, I do hope that this parent continues to offer all options in order to continue with optimal development of his communcation capacities.
Click to expand...


Exactly - you don't see it HERE....but if you read other websites, and /or blogs you often see it claimed by those who don't know any better that CI's are handed out to deaf babies as readily as fries are handed out at McDonald's. Most of these things are said in comments on blogs about CI's, and perhaps once people read this kind of experience they'll realize that its not a decision that parents enter into lightly. And I fully encourage the full toolbox approach with both sign and speech/vocalization...that allows one to fully experience the wonders and uniqueness that exists in both the deaf and hearing worlds :)
 
deafdyke - if the "newest and best technology" was the clincher for getting somebody a CI...don't you think they'd turn to HA's instead, as there is much more advancement going on with HA's than CI's - and there are many more companies making HA's too. The HA's that they have available today compared to what I used 20 years ago are amazing!!!
 
deafdyke said:
neecy, Please understand...I realize that many parents who opt for implantation, don't treat it lightly. However, there are some (read SOME) parents and indivduals who almost shop around for a clinic that will implant. Granted, it's probaly somewhat rare, and granted that the same social phenonomoen has been seen with dx of ADD or gifted kids abusing the special ed system in order to get an edge.
I just think that the clinics need to standardize their 'will implant' criteria as well as require psychological counseling ( with a therapist who is familiar with such issues) That's all.....I just think that there's a bit too much wiggle room in the system. There are still people out there who think that a CI is baisicly THE ANSWER.Remember, Auditory verbal approach actually encourages people to see the newest technology as "the best, and the gotta have"
Click to expand...

I have met many parents like that. In fact, there are two parents that I know who are saying that the CI will cure their children's communication problems. Ok whatever to those parents. I am tired of hearing this shit.
 
neecy said:
Exactly - you don't see it HERE....but if you read other websites, and /or blogs you often see it claimed by those who don't know any better that CI's are handed out to deaf babies as readily as fries are handed out at McDonald's. Most of these things are said in comments on blogs about CI's, and perhaps once people read this kind of experience they'll realize that its not a decision that parents enter into lightly. And I fully encourage the full toolbox approach with both sign and speech/vocalization...that allows one to fully experience the wonders and uniqueness that exists in both the deaf and hearing worlds :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant it was on this website.

And happy to know that you support the full tool box. IMO, there simply isn't any other way to go if you want to maximize a child's capabilities. That holds true for implanted and non-implanted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top