Baby's reactions to their with cochlear implant

A said:
I think they didn't want to ruin a perfectly good ear. But deaf ears are already ruined in their eyes.

They are concern because they discovered that children with implants at 12 months still struggle to keep up with their peers. So their solution is implant earlier. I wonder what they are going to do if they discovered that 6 months and 12 months don't really make that much of a different AFTER both group reach to high school (I know it seem like they are doing well while they are children). Then they will have to accept the fact that implant is just an implant and not a substitute for natural hearing.

Anyway being deaf is not a bad thing. They don't need to hurry.
Click to expand...

Actually, since the FDA didn't lower the age to 12 months until 2000, the children implanted at 12 months would just now be around age 10, so they haven't entered high school yet. I don't think there have been long term studies (longer than 3 or 4 years) with CI kids yet, because it is a very small number and they haven't been implanting kids for a long time.
 
Frisky Feline said:
Yes. If there are more deaf kids then those people who would make better for deaf kids' needs in school such as improving the academic systems and go on but they didn't. Guess thanks to the oral program that government ( states) are too focusing on it mroe than ASL program. =?


I was born deaf, and rely on ASL all my life. I admit that schools where I grew up, didn't have good academic system. I could have done better such as i could have work harder on writing skill but i wasn't. It was a long story. :)
Click to expand...

yes, they need more resource to help deaf people who use ASL.
 
faire_jour said:
Actually, since the FDA didn't lower the age to 12 months until 2000, the children implanted at 12 months would just now be around age 10, so they haven't entered high school yet. I don't think there have been long term studies (longer than 3 or 4 years) with CI kids yet, because it is a very small number and they haven't been implanting kids for a long time.
Click to expand...

I'm aware. I was talking about comparing the two group. once they enter high school.

I think the next thing they will blame in the future is lack of technology. That the kids who were implanted at 6 months used an older technology.
 
A said:
yes, they need more resource to help deaf people who use ASL.
Click to expand...

yeah for example, in my time, they hire some teachers who don't know how to sign, lack of visual aids, and some lack of resources that some of GOOD teachers have been fighting to request for something to get a good resource so useful and governemnt refused to provide them. Governemnt always provides good resources to the oral programs that pisses some of my teachers OFF big time. That was in late 1970s and 1980s.
 
faire_jour said:
What? There are only a few dozen pediatric cochlear implant centers in the US. For example, if you want a CI here, there are only 2 surgeons, one for adults, one for kids. It doesn't matter if you are 6 months or 16 years old, you will have the same surgeon. It is like that in most areas. It isn't like pediatricians. They isn't one down every street.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a monopoly to me. And still you want to claim that they are loosing money?:lol:
 
faire_jour said:
The guideline may be changed in the future, but right now many children are being implanted much younger than 12 months. (My daughter also got her CI programming "off label" because it is only approved for use in adults in the US, but is being used by children every day)
Click to expand...

And you see nothing wrong with that? There are reasons those guidelines are in place, and a reason that things are only recognized as being prescribed for a particular reason. Those guidelines protect the consumer. So, instead, you think it is perfectly fine to add additional risks to the ones already recognized by going off label and ignoring guidelines for age. For what? Spoken language. Create more risk immediately and longitudinally for that child so they will be able to say a few words. And you don't even know when you create that additional risk that the CI will assist them in speaking at all.

Frankly, it just does not make sense. If you love and value your child as a deaf individual, why would you create additional risk for that child to develop side effects and negative consequences to a surgery that is elective at best?
 
No doubt that the parents are signing a document that waives any recourse against the surgeon should the surgery/device go wrong. For any surgery, you've got to sign a "this may kill me" document.
 
jillio said:
And you see nothing wrong with that? There are reasons those guidelines are in place, and a reason that things are only recognized as being prescribed for a particular reason. Those guidelines protect the consumer. So, instead, you think it is perfectly fine to add additional risks to the ones already recognized by going off label and ignoring guidelines for age. For what? Spoken language. Create more risk immediately and longitudinally for that child so they will be able to say a few words. And you don't even know when you create that additional risk that the CI will assist them in speaking at all.

Frankly, it just does not make sense. If you love and value your child as a deaf individual, why would you create additional risk for that child to develop side effects and negative consequences to a surgery that is elective at best?
Click to expand...

What long term side effects and risks are you talking about?

The risk is the same as any general anesthesia, so do you think that a parent giving their child tubes is not "valuing" their child?

And no, it is not for "a few words", it is for the ability to communicate with 99% of the population using the language of the majority. It gives her access to that language in a way she never had before. It has added significantly to her quality of life because now she can interact with so many more people than she could before, including her own extended family. (I am not saying it is that way for all people, but it was for her.)
 
Frisky Feline said:
exaclty that's how they don't bother to check ASL or to check Deaf kids' needs. All they care is to make noises that everyone wants deaf babies to hear something. everyone is so joy that deaf babies won't miss the closed door to open the other things.
Click to expand...

Oh my god! That dreaded door closing!!! Run for your lives!!!
 
Ooohh....and here comes all the hating now....against parents of implanted deaf children, no less, instead of respecting parents' informed decision for their deaf/hh children.

Classic.

Yes, there is a "window of opportunity" when it comes to a young baby/toddler's plasticity of the brain when it comes to adapting and recognizing environmental sound. This is proven science. Beyond this "window of opportunity" time period it quickly becomes harder to adapt and recognize sound.
 
kokonut said:
Ooohh....and here comes all the hating now....against parents of implanted deaf children, no less, instead of respecting parents' informed decision for their deaf/hh children.

Classic.

Yes, there is a "window of opportunity" when it comes to a young baby/toddler's plasticity of the brain when it comes to adapting and recognizing environmental sound. This is proven science. Beyond this "window of opportunity" time period it quickly becomes harder to adapt and recognize sound.
Click to expand...

are you CI user?
 
faire_jour said:
What does that mean? If he isn't, he can't support parents and their choices?
Click to expand...

since he didn't have a ci user then it could apply to other babies who have hearing loss who prefers to use HAs. how suppose he knows if there is window of opportunaty when he does not have a ci user? why didn't he have one for himself? that's what I am concerned about babies' health and future. according to his comment that he is doing fine without ci user therefore it could apply to any babies.
 
Frisky Feline said:
since he didn't have a ci user then it could apply to other babies who have hearing loss who prefers to use HAs. how suppose he knows if there is window of opportunaty when he does not have a ci user? why didn't he have one for himself? that's what I am concerned about babies' health and future.
Click to expand...

Maybe he isn't a candidate (I'm sure he will answer that himself). The window of opportunity is to learn to listen. If you get appropriate benefit from hearing aids, you can learn to listen using them, if not, you can't.
 
Frisky Feline said:
since he didn't have a ci user then it could apply to other babies who have hearing loss who prefers to use HAs. how suppose he knows if there is window of opportunaty when he does not have a ci user? why didn't he have one for himself? that's what I am concerned about babies' health and future. according to his comment that he is doing fine without ci user therefore it could apply to any babies.
Click to expand...

What concerns do you have about the health of children who use implants?
 
kokonut said:
Ooohh....and here comes all the hating now....against parents of implanted deaf children, no less, instead of respecting parents' informed decision for their deaf/hh children.

Classic.

Yes, there is a "window of opportunity" when it comes to a young baby/toddler's plasticity of the brain when it comes to adapting and recognizing environmental sound. This is proven science. Beyond this "window of opportunity" time period it quickly becomes harder to adapt and recognize sound.
Click to expand...

Are you a doctor?
 
Yeah, I think it is possible he isn't a candidate. he can function just fine without accomadation (so that what he says).
 
Back
Top