Change the future for a deaf child

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hear Again said:
exactly. besides, what is the harm in opting for a second ci? for all we know, this child could be highly successful with it. we just don't know.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
Hear Again said:
exactly. besides, what is the harm in opting for a second ci? for all we know, this child could be highly successful with it. we just don't know.
Click to expand...

She could be highly successful without it too, for all we know.
 
faire_jour said:
"Rob and LeAnn have been trying to get the second implant for Hannah since they realized how effective the first implant was."

That is why I said what I said.
Click to expand...

If the first CI was so effective then why did they make it sound like she will not survive without the 2nd one? And it is all speculation when anyone uses that word...it cud mean a number of things.
 
typeingtornado19 said:
true, reporters love that kind of stuff, but it is still for sympathy... and to make us feel bad...
Click to expand...

that's the point behind a human interest story. it's unfortunate, but true. i don't agree with it myself, but that's the way it goes...
 
Hear Again said:
exactly. besides, what is the harm in opting for a second ci? for all we know, this child could be highly successful with it. we just don't know.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with opting for a second CI. There is, however, something terribly wrong with attempting to invoke pity for the poor little deaf girl by using stereotypes and audist language.
 
jillio said:
Nothing wrong with opting for a second CI. There is, however, something terribly wrong with attempting to invoke pity for the poor little deaf girl by using stereotypes and audist language.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the whole thing is just retarded.
 
Hear Again said:
that's the point behind a human interest story. it's unfortunate, but true. i don't agree with it myself, but that's the way it goes...
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. My mother is famous within some circles and we have had some articles done on us that could be nothing farther from the truth. They entirely made up things like "they play tennis together as a bonding activity." I can't play tennis. Never have been able to. Complete utter lie, not even based in truth.
 
wait. after reading faire_jour's post, it appears that this article is saying two different things. on one hand, it's saying that this child's first implant was effective but on the other, it's saying that she cannot hear well and therefore needs a second ci. which one is it -- or am i missing something here?
 
Hear Again said:
wait. after reading faire_jour's post, it appears that this article is saying two different things. on one hand, it's saying that this child's first implant was effective but on the other, it's saying that she cannot hear well and therefore needs a second ci. which one is it -- or am i missing something here?
Click to expand...

I think so... the writer is confusing...
 
Hear Again said:
wait. after reading faire_jour's post, it appears that this article is saying two different things. on one hand, it's saying that this child's first implant was effective but on the other, it's saying that she cannot hear well and therefore needs a second ci. which one is it -- or am i missing something here?
Click to expand...

They have to imply effectiveness of the first in order to justify this shameless plea to the public for assistance in obtaining the second. Pure manipulative language, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Nika said:
Couldn't agree more. My mother is famous within some circles and we have had some articles done on us that could be nothing farther from the truth. They entirely made up things like "they play tennis together as a bonding activity." I can't play tennis. Never have been able to. Complete utter lie, not even based in truth.
Click to expand...

i know how you feel. i've had many human interest stories written about me that make me look like the second coming of helen keller. i just chalk it up to negative stereotypes and do the best i can to educate others about misconceptions raised in these articles.
 
jillio said:
That could simply mean that she had gained sound perception. There is nothing in that statement that implies she is using speech. You only see that implication because of your own perspective.
Click to expand...

It also comes from the fact that the article said the CI helped her with socalization.
But, even if all it did was give her enviromental sounds...GREAT! She should be allowed to have two.
And yes, my perspective as a parent of a child with a CI affects what I see. And the reason that I assumed she was getting speech was because I have met probably 50 kids with CI's and only 1 doesn't at least gain some understanding of speech from the implant. I have also spoken to probably 200 parents of kids with CI's and again, the ratio of kids who get no speech understanding from the implant is around 1-2%. I'm not saying that all these kids function with auditory only input, but that they get speech awareness and recognition.
 
jillio said:
No, it isn't. Hence we cannot ever state that "she will" but only that there is a chance that she will.
Click to expand...

The biggest thing I don't like is not that the parents "forcing" oralism, making their child have surgery, etc, but rather the "Oh if she gets both CI, she WILL be perfect"

Ever since I got the implant, Ive had to do NUMEROUS explanations to my family, coworkers, random people that the CI is a process and it's not a "fix". I understand if they have never heard of it before and assumed that it restored hearing, but some of them DID look up information about implants online, but either they read inaccurate/poor info or skimmed over it.

This sounds like Im bragging or something, but you'd have to be a strong person to handle the pressure of "hearing better" and "speaking better" after getting a CI, thanks to articles like above....
 
The article is contradictory because its main focus is to play on the reader's emotions. Forget things like reason and logic.
 
jillio said:
They have to imply effectiveness of the first in order to justify this shameless plea to the public for assistance in obtaining the second. Pure manipulative language, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

that's true.
 
faire_jour said:
It also comes from the fact that the article said the CI helped her with socalization.
But, even if all it did was give her enviromental sounds...GREAT! She should be allowed to have two.
And yes, my perspective as a parent of a child with a CI affects what I see. And the reason that I assumed she was getting speech was because I have met probably 50 kids with CI's and only 1 doesn't at least gain some understanding of speech from the implant. I have also spoken to probably 200 parents of kids with CI's and again, the ratio of kids who get no speech understanding from the implant is around 1-2%. I'm not saying that all these kids function with auditory only input, but that they get speech awareness and recognition.
Click to expand...

What? Kids can't socialize without speech?

No one is saying she can't have 2. If her parents want her to have two, then go for it. This is their fight, not the fight of the public.
And, as a parent, I would certainly be concerned about my child being portrayed to the public as a "poor little deaf child." What kind of message does that give to the child? "You poor little handicapped thing, you. You just aren't as capable as everyone else."
 
jillio said:
They have to imply effectiveness of the first in order to justify this shameless plea to the public for assistance in obtaining the second. Pure manipulative language, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Not only it is manipulative, it will further enforce the negative stereotypes on deaf people/children especially those withou oral skills/implants. Since this was a friend of the family who wrote it, it just makes the parents more responsible for these inaccurate views that the readers may adopt after reading this BS article.
 
Hear Again said:
wait. after reading faire_jour's post, it appears that this article is saying two different things. on one hand, it's saying that this child's first implant was effective but on the other, it's saying that she cannot hear well and therefore needs a second ci. which one is it -- or am i missing something here?
Click to expand...

I would say that my daughter's CI is effective and a success, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't get another and that it wouldn't help her even more.
There is good evidence that bilaterals work better than a single CI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top