California Bill AB 2027

Status
Not open for further replies.
shel90 said:
Hahaha..not gonna do it again. :)
Click to expand...

A disagreement doesn't mean a fight. Just because we have a difference of opinion, doesn't mean it is a fight. I acknowledged your concerns and raised points of my own. That is a discussion.
 
faire_jour said:
A disagreement doesn't mean a fight. Just because we have a difference of opinion, doesn't mean it is a fight. I acknowledged your concerns and raised points of my own. That is a discussion.
Click to expand...

Maybe some other time. I found that on a website...I forgot to credit it.
 
shel90 said:
AB 2072is fatally flawed 3 ways:

Fatal Flaw #1 The Bill’s over emphasis on communication options which implies that parents should pick only one option. Parents should not be forced to say no to any opportunity. Picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition. Remember that In order for a child to learn to communicate, he or she must have a developed language foundation. That development comes from access to and consistent exposure to language. Metaphorically, when a parent is offered “soup or salad” they need to know that they can just say “YES”.

I see no "implication" here on which ones to choose from. It's about providing mandatary information for parents to have since it also includes, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs that can help parents on topics about communication options given to them. If this bothers you then collaborate with Mendoza on inserting a language that'll make it less ambiguous.
AB 2072 (Mendoza): Hearing screening: resources and services.

Fatal Flaw # 2: Audiologists are legislatively being put into a situation where they become the de facto first contact early intervention. Audiologists are trained to focus on the hearing, and a “fix it” approach. They cannot see, what parents need to see, that the result of a hearing test is not the result of an intelligence test. The vast majority of audiologists do not know the importance of a child becoming bilingual in English & ASL and the positive impact that can have future academic results. The vast majority of audiologists do not have early intervention training. The vast majority do not have a parents’ experience of raising a deaf or hard or hearing child. The vast majority have not accessed the experiences of Deaf adults which are, so to speak, the living end result of our system.

Then expand on the portion where it says "other related professional" to include educational professionals and such. Or are you upset because "audiologist" was put in first? If so, then address this language portion in a way that will encompasses all of the necessary professionals who are required to provide these information to parents. There is nothing about professionals requiring to counsel parents on how to decide. The information given to parents are for their benefit to help them decide or who to contact, not the audiologists or other related professionals. .
AB 2072 (Mendoza): Hearing screening: resources and services.

Fatal Flaw # 3: Eliminating the restriction on only consumer based organizations for support. Without this important restriction, early intervention is opened up to the forces of the business and specifically to those organizations that are associated with their products or services. This is a tragic mistake. Deaf and hard of hearing children should not be treated as a market to be exploited. They and their parents need to be serviced by those consumer based organizations whose concern is about the success and happiness of their children."
Check out DCARA for the full Bill and updates.
Please stop this horrble abuse towards the Deaf community. Say No to AB2072.

This is about giving information to parents. Everybody has a stake in this to inform and help parents of babies with hearing loss.
Click to expand...

This is a working bill. It is continuously being amended should there be a need for further clarification on the language. ASL was already included so that's a start already. There is no "abuse" in this bill when it's already a working bill in the first place.
 
Second, at least they will be forced to give information on ALL options not just the ones they prefer.

Third, they do talk about ASL English bilingualism, along with all the other options. Are you saying that it is the only appropriate choice?
Click to expand...
Good points. But I do agree with some of the concerns raised. I think this bill is an awesome idea, BUT it could do with a few tweaks to make it perfect. I do think there's a Big Healthcare aspect that is influencing everything from the decision to implant or not to schooling etc.
It needs to be neutral and it needs to be pointed out that there are downsides to almost ALL options.
Too often audis etc seem to paint oral and auditory verbal as some sort of magicial thing that will allow complete access to the hearing world.
Sorry, but in a world where health care is a profit commodity, there's a very big danger that audis etc will subtly "push" parents towards the option that will make the most money for them.
 
deafdyke said:
Good points. But I do agree with some of the concerns raised. I think this bill is an awesome idea, BUT it could do with a few tweaks to make it perfect. I do think there's a Big Healthcare aspect that is influencing everything from the decision to implant or not to schooling etc.
It needs to be neutral and it needs to be pointed out that there are downsides to almost ALL options.
Too often audis etc seem to paint oral and auditory verbal as some sort of magicial thing that will allow complete access to the hearing world.
Sorry, but in a world where health care is a profit commodity, there's a very big danger that audis etc will subtly "push" parents towards the option that will make the most money for them.
Click to expand...

I get the points you are making, but honestly, my daughter's ENT and audiologist are not remotely "in it for the money". I'm sorry that there are people out there that behave that way, but I really don't think it is the majority. I think they are really trying to do what they believe is helping people.
 
I'm watching the bill conversation online because -- even though my home state of Massachusetts is a very different animal and we have what I think is a great (but always improvable) kind of all-option/unbiased information set provided by the state already -- I'm aware that I may not always live here and "as it goes in California, so goes the nation."

The bill seems to me like a good step in the right direction: adding ASL into the mix of what had been primarily a set of medical solutions based on each audiologist or early intervention representative's familiarity -- informed or not -- with what was available. Audiologists and ENTs are de facto first contact for most families that suspect or are notified that a child is deaf, they are the ones making that evaluation. We're not talking about grandma announcing the birth of a culturally Deaf child (whether he can hear or not), this is a medical diagnosis which had several medical options (including further tests and tubes/treatment and CIs/hearing aids and 'no medical intervention'). Giving these professionals a standard document and set of resources to point parents to seems key, especially since the language and learning implications of those aided vs. unaided routes goes far outside their fields of expertise.

I know that I'd have wanted to see a menu of and evaluate for myself all paths, whether they start with medical treatment (hair cell regen, tubes), an aided (HAs and CIs), or unaided approach and move into AVT, ASL, CS, or whatever the language learning model, and then on to the learning environment available based on those choices.

deafdyke said:
Good points. But I do agree with some of the concerns raised. I think this bill is an awesome idea, BUT it could do with a few tweaks to make it perfect. ... [snip]...
It needs to be neutral and it needs to be pointed out that there are downsides to almost ALL options. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be great (I would have loved a pros and cons grid for every path) -- but the problem is that what's pro and con and the weight assigned to each varies family by family, person by person. What you might consider a con (with a CI, you'll have to wear a BTE, change batteries, etc.) might be seen as a pro to someone else (with a CI, you wear a hi-tech, easily-upgradable processor that provides access to sound at your command) or something I might consider a pro (access to sound) may not be valuable at all to someone culturally deaf with a strong network of friends and family using a common signed language. Resources vary location by location, so while I might live within daily commuting distance of a School for the Deaf and have access to ASL (for me a pro might be: a local ASL learning environment is accessible to those without hearing), you might not (your con might be: an ASL learning environment is not accessible in my area).

Outcomes vary, too, and people shift or merge approaches as they find what works.

I think there needs to be an initial easily-digestible step in which the pathways, definitions, and resources are laid out at a very high-level, without any evaluation of merit. A straightforward, unbiased handout mapping the approaches to more in-depth resources that any medical professional or EI representative can give me as a starting point. The evaluation of each approach can be conducted by the parents with a great deal more research in hand after accessing the resources and professional services available.
 
I get the points you are making, but honestly, my daughter's ENT and audiologist are not remotely "in it for the money". I'm sorry that there are people out there that behave that way, but I really don't think it is the majority. I think they are really trying to do what they believe is helping people.
Click to expand...
Even if they are not in it for money, it's still a problem. They are in it of what they think will help. Which is why they have choosen that career path in the first place. In a way, they are somewhat biased. the only time I don't think they are biased if they taken every steps and learn everything about deaf culture, history, communications in deaf, etc. and support it without judgment even though they fit hearing aids/processors for a living.

I still wonder to this day why majority of audiologist don't know ASL and they work with hearing loss. JUst about most of them I met told me they don't know it. How are they suppose to work with deaf people that communicate in Sign Language who wear hearing aids ?
 
Last edited:
If I could go deeper, I've always felt that all these professionals enjoy this sort of thing. It gives them fields to study - studying deafness and how to fix it, jobs, etc. just to give themselves a title and a pat on the back. But that's just me and my weird way of thinking.
 
A said:
If I could go deeper, I've always felt that all these professionals enjoy this sort of thing. It gives them fields to study - studying deafness and how to fix it, jobs, etc. just to give themselves a title and a pat on the back. But that's just me and my weird way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how the world basically works, and why audiolgist mostly suck at ASL.

Too bad audiologists don't get as many pats on their back for their bimodal bilingual skills as they get for comforting parents with sparks of hope with "state of the art technology" and speech programs.

Human nature...
 
faire_jour said:
I get the points you are making, but honestly, my daughter's ENT and audiologist are not remotely "in it for the money". I'm sorry that there are people out there that behave that way, but I really don't think it is the majority. I think they are really trying to do what they believe is helping people.
Click to expand...

Very well said, FJ.

I know we do not agree on some issues but this one I agree with you 100%.

I have a family member in this field and she is very passionate about helping people because she comes from a big Deaf family.

I throughly enjoyed a wonderful discussion with a great friend of mine about this discussion. It is the "money-oriented" ones that wants to make a profit out of this business stand out in this field whereas it is those who genuinely wants to help others just fall back. They also receive the brunt of the abuse as well when I feel they shouldn't.
 
A said:
Even if they are not in it for money, it's still a problem. They are in it of what they think will help. Which is why they have choosen that career path in the first place. In a way, they are somewhat biased. the only time I don't think they are biased if they taken every steps and learn everything about deaf culture, history, communications in deaf, etc. and support it without judgment even though they fit hearing aids/processors for a living.

I still wonder to this day why majority of audiologist don't know ASL and they work with hearing loss. JUst about most of them I met told me they don't know it. How are they suppose to work with deaf people that communicate in Sign Language who wear hearing aids ?
Click to expand...

I think that they don't know Deaf culture and ASL because there are 33 million people in the US with hearing loss and between 500,000 and 1 million ASL users. That means that vast majority of the people they see are not culturally Deaf.
 
but the problem is that what's pro and con and the weight assigned to each varies family by family, person by person
Click to expand...
No. What I meant is that usually they list Auditory Verbal and auditory oral with absolutly NO downsides.........They tend to be all " oh they have to depend on a 'terp" for ASL fluency, and make NO mention of the fact that with oral only and auditory verbal they are simply trading a 'terp for very expensive health technology. They also don't mention that while oral abilty DOES give some access to the hearing world, it really doesn't give a TON of access.....even ex hearing/late deafened people don't always feel a part of the hearing world.
 
Actually you know what might help "tweak" this a bit? Mandating that parents go and see a psychologist who is knowledable with dhh issues. A lot of times, parents are STILL grieving, the "loss of a "perfect" or "healthy normal" child, and that can influence decisions.
 
deafdyke said:
Actually you know what might help "tweak" this a bit? Mandating that parents go and see a psychologist who is knowledable with dhh issues. A lot of times, parents are STILL grieving, the "loss of a "perfect" or "healthy normal" child, and that can influence decisions.
Click to expand...
:gpost:
That suggestion was a good one, never thought about it before. Deafness isn't just about physical hearing loss and language. People tend to make flawed decisions when grieving.
 
People tend to make flawed decisions when grieving.
Click to expand...
Yes, and AG BAD and Auditory Verbal KNOW this, which is why they push their methodology as being more "normal and healthy"
 
That's getting into hyperbole land there. Grieving? Sure, they'd be upset but they also turn around and become even more determined to help their child with his/her hearing loss by whatever means necessary using their informed decision process along the way.
 
kokonut said:
That's getting into hyperbole land there. Grieving? Sure, they'd be upset but they also turn around and become even more determined to help their child with his/her hearing loss by whatever means necessary using their informed decision process along the way.
Click to expand...

My mom was more than upset...she grieved deeply about my and my berother's deafness. She turned against her religous beliefs because she felt that God was puncishing her. Also, all she wanted to make us as hearing as she could and when my brother failed to meet her expectations, she grieved even more. To this day, I don't thin she has really fully accepted our deafness.
 
shel90 said:
My mom was more than upset...she grieved deeply about my and my berother's deafness. She turned against her religous beliefs because she felt that God was puncishing her. Also, all she wanted to make us as hearing as she could and when my brother failed to meet her expectations, she grieved even more. To this day, I don't thin she has really fully accepted our deafness.
Click to expand...

Back then 40 years ago hardly any support or resources on deafness were available for parents to get a hold of. My mother quickly accepted my deafness from the very beginning. She did things on her own and scoured for resources, talked to people, professionals, teachers and so on so that she can be as completely as informed as possible before making numerous decisions over time. She was not the "woe-is-me" type of person when it came to her deaf son. She made sure that I got the needed help, helped my self-esteem, motivation, educational input and so on. I thank her for her contribution and support of me while growing up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top