ASL, SEE Sign, & Signed English

[Cheri]

You mean our kids aren't our possessions?

I mean kids are little people who deserve respect and consideration like anyone else.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I know! I was being sarcastic. Sorry

 

[Capmeister]

Thanks for explaining it. As with you, I am not anti CI in that I feel that it is my duty to make the decision for anyone else. My son chooses not to be implanted, and I fully support him in his decisions. Should he decide, for whatever reason, that he would like to be implanted in the future, then I will support him in that decision, as well. It is his deafness, and it is he who must decide the best way to cope with it. I have never experienced deafness, so how can I possibly say that hearing is a preferable condition and one that we must all strive for. That is what I am against. The imposition of a hearing perspective on an entire population of people who have managed to face untold obstacles--most of them imposed by hearing culture--and still survive and thrive intact. I am against the so called attempt to help from an ethnocentric perspective. If the issue was really one of being of assistance to the Deaf community, why is that that the Deaf viewpoint and experience is totally discounted in the decision making process?

It's a good point.

I was talking to a friend today about some of the issues here and how my brother has told me if someone could wave a magic wand and give him perfect hearing, he wouldn't want it if he couldn't turn it off. My friend asked why.

To demonstrate why, I lightly tapped his shoulder with my fingers. O said: "There. You now have a new sense. It's not hurting you. Would you like it to continue that way forever?" I continued tapping. "People are telling you this is meaningful and a gift." Tap tap tap. "It's a miricle and you're better with it than without it." Tap tap tap. "Those taps have meaning. Work for several years trying to figure out the meaning." Tap tap tap. "How's it working for you?" Tap tap tap.

He said, "Yeah, I get the point. It makes sense."

 

[jillio]

It's a good point.

I was talking to a friend today about some of the issues here and how my brother has told me if someone could wave a magic wand and give him perfect hearing, he wouldn't want it if he couldn't turn it off. My friend asked why.

To demonstrate why, I lightly tapped his shoulder with my fingers. O said: "There. You now have a new sense. It's not hurting you. Would you like it to continue that way forever?" I continued tapping. "People are telling you this is meaningful and a gift." Tap tap tap. "It's a miricle and you're better with it than without it." Tap tap tap. "Those taps have meaning. Work for several years trying to figure out the meaning." Tap tap tap. "How's it working for you?" Tap tap tap.

He said, "Yeah, I get the point. It makes sense."

Wow! I'll have to remember that one! Great analogy.

 

[Capmeister]

You mean our kids aren't our possessions?

If my child were born deaf, I'd strongly consider giving him a CI early as possible so that the brain adapted well for it, if the risk to his health would be minimal.

I'd also teach him sign, and talk at the same time, and foster all forms of communication.

I'd also ask him, when he was old enough, if he wanted a second CI, or wanted to remove the CI's external parts, or if he just wanted to decide later--or never.

But the world IS easier if you're hearing. It's a hearing world, no doubt. I'd want to give him the best possible chances to be as he wishes to be.

It's no crime to admit that deafness is a disability. It hampers communication in many ways, with hearing people. Less so every day, thanks to technology. But if a bionic ear could help my child, and not hurt him, I'd likely do it. I see no reason not to--it's not like if, with my brother, it's not a good experience it can't be just not used.

By the same token, I'd not work on my child's new hearing abilities in a way that would lessen his learning about life. If things can develop well because of a baby's adaptability, I think a CI is of value. If it cannot--it was worth a shot, I think. But I would never let a child of mine think it wasn't totally okay to feel the CI wasn't of value and not use it.

 

[Capmeister]

Wow! I'll have to remember that one! Great analogy.

Thanks. By the way, my friend has some hearing loss thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re's_disease and if he loses enough, he might need a CI.

For him it would be fantasic. I think for some deaf people--even born deaf--it can be a blessing. Just not for everyone.

 

[Boult]

Thanks. By the way, my friend has some hearing loss thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re's_disease and if he loses enough, he might need a CI.

For him it would be fantasic. I think for some deaf people--even born deaf--it can be a blessing. Just not for everyone.

just making it clickable

Meniere's disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boult]

If my child were born deaf, I'd strongly consider giving him a CI early as possible so that the brain adapted well for it, if the risk to his health would be minimal.

I'd also teach him sign, and talk at the same time, and foster all forms of communication.

I'd also ask him, when he was old enough, if he wanted a second CI, or wanted to remove the CI's external parts, or if he just wanted to decide later--or never.

But the world IS easier if you're hearing. It's a hearing world, no doubt. I'd want to give him the best possible chances to be as he wishes to be.

It's no crime to admit that deafness is a disability. It hampers communication in many ways, with hearing people. Less so every day, thanks to technology. But if a bionic ear could help my child, and not hurt him, I'd likely do it. I see no reason not to--it's not like if, with my brother, it's not a good experience it can't be just not used.

By the same token, I'd not work on my child's new hearing abilities in a way that would lessen his learning about life. If things can develop well because of a baby's adaptability, I think a CI is of value. If it cannot--it was worth a shot, I think. But I would never let a child of mine think it wasn't totally okay to feel the CI wasn't of value and not use it.

+1

 

[Cheri]

I'd also ask him, when he was old enough, if he wanted a second CI, or wanted to remove the CI's external parts, or if he just wanted to decide later--or never.
.

Just the CI external parts? The implant will still be stuck in that head of his, how fair is that? If can be removed, which I doubt it, then does he want to exposed to the risks of surgery again?

Plus There is no test a person can take before surgery that will predict how well he or she will understand language after surgery. It is unknown whether it'll work for your son as it'll work for those who had it. What if it doesn't work for your son? Wouldn't it be a wasted? a disappointing?


And you know how kids love to play with water, and water can damage the external parts, It'll gonna be expensive to repair it, and then again he'll be without hearing. How can you be able to watch your child 24/7 to make sure he is takes care of his CI? You can't.

I'm not trying to be harsh, if I was I apology.

 

[Capmeister]

just making it clickable

Meniere's disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks! Usually it's so good about parsing it into a link itself, I thought it would.

 

[Capmeister]

Just the CI external parts? The implant will still be stuck in that head of his, how fair is that? If can be removed, which I doubt it, then does he want to exposed to the risks of surgery again?

My brother has lived with a CI in his head for 20 years. Other than it being occasionally irritating (it can buzz a bit sometimes he says), most of the time he's unaware of it. It can be removed, and if an MRI is needed, most modern CI's are safe for that once the magnet is removed--something quick and relatively easy to do.

Is it a risk? Sure. Might it very well be a risk worth taking? Sure. It's risky every time we drive somewhere, but we cart our kids around, don't we? Life involves risks and as a parent one weighs risks and benefits for their children. If I had a deaf child, I'd do what I could--within reason--to give him the broadest possible options and opportunities.

I'd also teach him that deafness isn't a curse, that it's okay to say "this technology is great but it isn't for me," to feel confident that he can do anything but hear (naturally), to laugh at himself, to consider himself a HUMAN (who happens to be deaf) and not a deaf human, and to realize that we ALL have hardships to overcome, some easier than others, and what's most important is living a happy, moral life.

As a quick aside, about the "not a curse, laugh at yourself" thing, my brother likes to say "I'm not hearing impaired--I don't have any hearing to impair. I'm deaf as a stone." He's neither proud of it nor ashamed of it. It just IS. He's comfortable in his own skin. It's the way people should be.

Plus There is no test a person can take before surgery that will predict how well he or she will understand language after surgery. It is unknown whether it'll work for your son as it'll work for those who had it. What if it doesn't work for your son? Wouldn't it be a wasted? a disappointing?

Yup--would be a waste of time, money and effort. Still, worth a shot to make things easier in life. There's no doubt that life is easier in a hearing world if you can have some ability to hear and learn to speak. No doubt. What one must weigh is how much time, and effort, should be put into getting that value. I think some. Just not to exclusion of living, enjoyment, and most importantly LEARNING.

Would I be disappointed if it didn't work? Sure--a bit. I wouldn't cry over it. It's a tool some can use. If it works, bonus, if not, worth a try. Would he be disappointed? Well, we're talking about a person who doesn't exist--I don't know. Hell, I'm not even seeing anyone, let alone married. Probably the implant would be given so young that if it didn't work he might never know until older. I'd just make sure, like I say, that using it or not was explained as being totally okay either way.

And you know how kids love to play with water, and water can damage the external parts, It'll gonna be expensive to repair it, and then again he'll be without hearing. How can you be able to watch your child 24/7 to make sure he is takes care of his CI? You can't.

Kids get casts for broken bones that shouldn't get wet either. You do what you can. You teach your kids. I wore glasses at age 10 that I had to learn to take care of, too. I managed it. As for "again being without hearing" well that would be his natural state. That would happen a lot--in the shower, if swimming--sleeping at night. Perhaps to his liking--I know sometimes I wish I could turn off my hearing. Again, the benefits of the thing might far outweigh the hassles.

And, who is to say that seeing if this is the right thing--and perhaps learning it's not--isn't a positive? Like I said in this or another thread, I asked my brother recently if getting a CI and learning he didn't LIKE to hear perhaps made him more confident that he was fine the way he was and didn't need to "be fixed." He said that was a good posibility. When lots of hearies learn your deaf and then say "oh, sorry" there is perhaps a freeing quality to being able to say "don't be--I tried it your way and don't like it. "

I'm not trying to be harsh, if I was I apology.

Not at all! All good questions!

 

[Capmeister]

By the way... I asked my brother that if he someday has a deaf child, would HE consider giving it a CI at a young age? He said, "yeah, probably." Same reasons as I've stated. Just because it wasn't right for him--probably because he was too old for it even at age 9--doesn't mean it's not right for anyone who is profoundly deaf.

 

[rockdrummer]

yea and we have freewill but the children don't and if hearing people who don't have background knowledge on deafness, language acquisition, or understanding of the risk, it is those children who pays the price if they become delayed in language because nobody really knows what to do with them.

My primary focus is on the child's language development and I have seen success with children being exposed to both but people still like to argue about deaf people needing to fit in with hearing people or deaf people who didn't get implanted r missing out on spoken skills. To me it seems that oral skills take priority over the children's ability to acquire a full L! And develop rich lieracy skills.

I'm sorry but I don't see that happening at my son's school. Perhaps this is something that occurs in pockets.

 

[jillio]

I'm sorry but I don't see that happening at my son's school. Perhaps this is something that occurs in pockets.

You are very lucky in the educational environment that you have been able to obtain for your son. I would suggest that his situation would be the one occurring in pockets, and the situation shel describes as being more widespread. I, too, have encountered the same situation as shel, and it has occurred over a span of several states.

 

[rockdrummer]

I see this is a reply to Jilio, but just want to add something here, so excuse me. Interpreters was brought to us by deaf people, not hearings.

I didn't say anything about terps but since you mention it, It's believed that

the role of an interpreter began with cave persons. A Deaf cave person would ask a hearing person to act as an interpreter for both the Deaf and hearing, cave persons (Humphrey et al., 1996: 91).

Interpreting - Academic Paper - The Importance of Sign Language Interpreters for Deaf Clients: History, Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships

I am not sure what you mean with "various forms of sign", but if we are talking sign language/ASL, it was invented by deaf people, not hearing people. Sign language grows naturally where deaf people are.

The various forms of sign I speak of are American Signed English; Seeing Essential English (SEE1); Signing Exact English (SEE2); Linguistics of Visual English (LOVE); Conceptually Accurate Signed English (CASE) etc.

If you research the history of ASL as I did, you will see it was evolved by hearing people but derived from signs that originated from deaf populations. Read this history on ASL. It is consistant with several other sources. Deaf History - History of Sign Language

Closed captioning is also something that deaf people have demanded.

If you check into the history of cc you will find that is not true.

In 1970 the National Bureau of Standards began to investigate the possibility of using a portion of the network television signal to send precise time information on a nationwide basis. This led to a preview of captioning at the First National Conference on Television for the Hearing Impaired in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1971. Two possible technologies for captioning television programs were demonstrated that would display the captions only on specially equipped sets for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers. A second demonstration of closed captioning was held at Gallaudet College on February 15, 1972. ABC and the National Bureau of Standards presented closed captions embedded within the normal broadcast of Mod Squad. As a result of the enthusiasm these demonstrations created in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, the National Association of Broadcasters studied the technical and economic factors involved in establishing a captioning service. The Association concluded that this captioning system was technically possible, but certain steps had to be taken before it could become a reality. The federal government then said it would fund the development and testing of this system. The engineering department of the Public Broadcasting System started to work on the project in 1973 under contract to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).

A Brief History of Captioned Television

Hearing aids was brought to us by old deafened scientist who wantet to hear more. You would maybe find some books on deaf history interesting if you want to know more. Gallaudet Press have some.

Actually I have researched the history of hearing aids and perhaps you would change your position if you checked yourself. Here are some resources.
American Chronicle: Looking at the History of Hearing Aids: The Past, Present, and Future of Hearing Aid Technology
Hearing Aid Timeline
Hearing Aids - History

What is the "various forms of sign" anyway? Curious.

see above.

 

[rockdrummer]

What about children? They don't have no say in receiving cochlear implants, parents make the choice for them. It's the same thing about abortion, women have that right to choose to have the baby or aborted it, and again a child has no say in this. Where's the individual choice in this situation? Because they have no ability to make a choice because they're young and not fully understand? But again it's their life isn't it?

Cheri, we make a choice for our children if we go with a CI or not. I'ts still a choice. As parents our children are our responsibility and as such we make choices for them all of the time. Think about the choices you make for your own children and the reasons you make those choices.

 

[rockdrummer]

Saved me some typing time on this one.

Much of what he said isn't factual.

 

[rockdrummer]

You mean our kids aren't our possessions?

No they are not but our children are our responsibility and any good parent would want to do what they feel is in the best interest of their child. To not get a CI is also a choice that you make for your children. If the choice is made without investigating all of the issues then its not a good choice IMO.

 

[jillio]

Much of what he said isn't factual.

Huh?

 

[jillio]

No they are not but our children are our responsibility and any good parent would want to do what they feel is in the best interest of their child. To not get a CI is also a choice that you make for your children. If the choice is made without investigating all of the issues then its not a good choice IMO.

That wasn't a serious question. I was kidding with Cheri.