Cochlear Implants Laws

[gnulinuxman]

I never said anything about it being all-oral, or not using sign - I said "other options will have to be investigated" which means ASL or SEE or cued speech, weighing whether to put a child in a deaf school, or a mainstream program - other OPTIONS to be considered if a CI does not work.

What's wrong with ASL and cued speech from the start?

How does that factor in to anything? They're profoundly deaf before implantation and if it doesn't work they're still profoundly deaf. Like I said it looks like you are saying if somebody is profoundly deaf they are guaranteed to fall behind in language development? Just because somebody is implanted with a CI doesn't mean they won't learn other languages as well (Cloggy is teaching his daughter ASL, as well as 2 other spoken languages, for example.)

The problem is that many parents opt for the CI not so they can open the possibilities for their children but so they don't have to sign.

And if a CI doesn't work - they'll still continue to learn whatever languages are exposed to them - hopefully the parents had planned to teach the children sign language, regardless whether they were implanted or not.

Key word: HOPEFULLY. Many parents want the CI in their children at least partially so they don't have to sign.

The issue that keeps coming up though are "failures of children implanted".... its been quoted that statistically there's a failure rate of 4-5%
So for every 100 children that are implanted, 95 of them will succeed in learning how to hear with the CI and 5 won't.

I am saying I care about those 5 children. They will end up languageless if they are in an oral-only program and their parents don't sign, which is often the case with implanted children.

Why does everybody focus on that 5 that won't instead of the 95 that are benefitting from it?

Because everybody is important, not just the majority.

I know people who get heart bypasses and sometimes it doesn't help and they still die. Does that mean because a few die, in spite of all the others where the surgery is successful, it should be banned too?

No. This isn't the same thing. A cochlear implant isn't necessary to sustain life, while a working heart is.

 

[neecy]

What's wrong with ASL and cued speech from the start?

Nothing at all -

The problem is that many parents opt for the CI not so they can open the possibilities for their children but so they don't have to sign.
Key word: HOPEFULLY. Many parents want the CI in their children at least partially so they don't have to sign.

And yet - all the parents who have come here who have had implanted children say they are focused on making sure their children learn sign, and are involved with deaf culture.

if you read this site, it reinforces what I just said: http://deafwiki.org/index.php?title=Implants_help_child_emerge_from_silent_world

Kimberly now speaks 85 words and smiles when her mother calls her name, Hunt said. Despite the success, Hunt still wants Kimberly to be part of deaf culture, able to use sign language and understanding deaf history and community

I am saying I care about those 5 children. They will end up languageless if they are in an oral-only program and their parents don't sign, which is often the case with implanted children.

But who is saying that their parents won't sign? Who is saying that they will be brought up oral -only? Statistially from this board - every parent with an implanted child has been teaching sign or those with children they might implant are teaching sign. So where are all these parents you say won't sign?

No. This isn't the same thing. A cochlear implant isn't necessary to sustain life, while a working heart is.

I never said it was - I was pointing out that a huge portion of negativity on CI's are the failures. There are failures in every single medical procedure. It doesn't mean because there are failures, it should be banned. Especially when the rate is as low as it is!

 

[deafmedicalpoet]

missing point warning!!!

What's wrong with ASL and cued speech from the start?
The problem is that many parents opt for the CI not so they can open the possibilities for their children but so they don't have to sign.
Key word: HOPEFULLY. Many parents want the CI in their children at least partially so they don't have to sign.
I am saying I care about those 5 children. They will end up languageless if they are in an oral-only program and their parents don't sign, which is often the case with implanted children.
Because everybody is important, not just the majority.
No. This isn't the same thing. A cochlear implant isn't necessary to sustain life, while a working heart is.

I agree Gnulinuxman, a point to all what is being agrued on is missing, even if children are too young to decide their choice. The parents should give them a chance to grow and then decide (If I wasn't abused in my life I would have said NO!! to a HA, but it was forced. Again what is wrong with ASL or any kind of signing. Will there be less comparing of other surgeries that don't fit in with CIs and HA? My Gosh!!!! That is the worst comparing I ever seen.

Deaflinuxgeek

 

[gnulinuxman]

Nothing at all -



And yet - all the parents who have come here who have had implanted children say they are focused on making sure their children learn sign, and are involved with deaf culture.

1. How do you know they're not just saying that?
2. These aren't necessarily all parents. I've met several parents of implanted children and NONE of them knew how to sign. In a deaf classroom I visited myself, all the implanted children were forced to speak instead of signing and taught that signing was bad.
3. Most hearing parents even of non-implanted deaf children (several I've met) are against Deaf Culture and want nothing to do with it or signing.

But who is saying that their parents won't sign? Who is saying that they will be brought up oral -only? Statistially from this board - every parent with an implanted child has been teaching sign or those with children they might implant are teaching sign. So where are all these parents you say won't sign?

In Wisconsin. My fiancee has parents like that, for example.

I never said it was - I was pointing out that a huge portion of negativity on CI's are the failures. There are failures in every single medical procedure. It doesn't mean because there are failures, it should be banned. Especially when the rate is as low as it is!

I only consider a CI to be as good as you say it is when it has a 100% success rate and a 0% failure rate when it comes to implanting babies.

 

[Eve]

The truth is that CI does not work for everyone.

AGREED

Among other things I have said are from the last 22 years of observations.

Know the difference between fact and opinion?

The problem is that many parents opt for the CI not so they can open the possibilities for their children but so they don't have to sign.

How do you know? Have you ever had a parent tell you verbatim that is the reason they opted for a CI in their child? I didn’t think so! I do not know of one single parent who would make such a selfish choice. Most parents only have their children’s best interest at heart. That is what parenting is all about.

The parents should give them a chance to grow and then decide

A non-decision (or waiting) on the part of the parents is still a decision. Giving a child a chance to grow and then decide cuts out much time in which that child could be learning to effectively use a CI, while simultaneously using ASL. To wait, means that a child is forced to use ASL as the only mode of communication, thus eliminating their desire to later learn speech and lip reading and thus disassociating themselves from the hearing world.

(If I wasn't abused in my life I would have said NO!! to a HA, but it was forced.

That isn’t abuse. You obviously have no clue what real abuse is.

Will there be less comparing of other surgeries that don't fit in with CIs and HA? My Gosh!!!! That is the worst comparing I ever seen.

I previously made a comparison in regards to a child born with a malformation which would prevent the child from being able to walk. If a surgery were available that could remedy the problem, I doubt any parent would deny their child such an opportunity to walk, so why would we deny our child an opportunity to hear?

 

[Fragmenter]

:they should at least be banned for children. If they don't work, the kid will forever be behind in language development, and it's irreversible.

:fu2:

any ignorant idiot > you.

 

[R2D2]

Ok I do see what you are saying, but what we were told (I think, as I said before, I could be wrong), the CI stimulates the pre-existing hairs. I will probably ask an audiologist who frequents another forum about this issue. It is certainly curious.

The CI stimulates the auditory nerve, which is not the same thing as the nerve hairs inside the cochlea. The auditory nerve is the connection point between the ear and the brain.

In my case the nerve hairs inside my cochlea (which the hearing aids needs to operate) are seriously stuffed up due to a sudden loss I had last year on top of the deafness I was born with. But my auditory nerve functions very well. When I was having all the tests done the surgeon tested my auditory nerve by sending some electronic signals to it using a probe.

Hope that helps!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Cochlear Implants Laws ?

I can't see the sense why anyone want to fix CI as law...

Remember, it's everyone's decision what they wants best for themselves. All what I wish for hearing parents to research cons and pros and meeting deaf people instead of depend on professional medical, etc. (keep your mind, I'm not for CI on babies and toddlers but every's choice).

I haven't wear HA for 20 years since Public Healthy Insurance support CI to HA. I have to buy batteries for HA by my own pocket and if I want CI then Public Health Insurance support 100%, no matter what.

No wonder why many parents are for CI because Health Insurance pay 100%.

I have to pay myself if I want to renew hearing aid which it's not right. I wish Public Health Insurance treat CI and HA users fair. *sigh*

 

[sr171soars]

...
I have to pay myself if I want to renew hearing aid which it's not right. I wish Public Health Insurance treat CI and HA users fair. *sigh*

Yea, that bothered me too especially when HAs got so expensive. I believe the reason is simple...economics. There are a whole lot more people that can use a HA than currently using a CI. The number of HA wearers probably outnumber the CI users even from a total cost perspective (CI cost is device itself and surgery).

 

[gnulinuxman]

That isn’t abuse. You obviously have no clue what real abuse is.

I take great offense at that comment about my fiancee. She has been beaten physically for not wanting her hearing aid. In fact, being beaten on the ears is what caused her deafness.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Blame it on doctors. When parents who are hearing, know nothing about deaf culture, have never met a deaf person in their whole life, and they have a deaf child, more often than not, doctors tell them about the CI option, and not about deaf education, deaf schools, or sign language. Insurance companies paying for the bill does not help either.
I personally have a CI. It was put in when I was 9. I thought it'd help me become hearing, I was wrong, I had to learn all over again like a baby, and I gave it up when I was 14, I was in a deaf school where everyone is screaming almost all the time, and it just was not pratical. I lobbied to get it taken out, but apparently, Insurance companies won't pay for that, they will only pay for things that help my health get better. It mystifies me that a CI betters a deaf person's health.
I still have it set in my mind to have the CI taken out someday, when I am able to put up the damned cash. I agree, there should be a law aganist parents putting CIs on their kids, it is almost manipulation. When and if a kid becomes 18 and still wants one, that is fine, do what you wish.

 

[R2D2]

Hi welcome Batou,

Sorry to hear that your CI experience didn't work for you and I wish you all the best in getting it taken out as it sounds like it's what you want.

The age of 9 is quite a late age to be implanted assuming you are profoundly deaf and were not getting much benefit from hearing aids and so there are more mixed results at that age. The research says that for those who are profoundly deaf under the age of 4 or 5 is the best time to implant - the earlier the better results there are. Were you doing well with hearing aids before that?

In an ideal world we could all wait until we were 18 before having an implant (so late - you can have sex before that!) but the later you wait the less likely a CI will work. This is the difficult thing. I have a friend who is profoundly deaf with no benefit from hearing aids and was implanted as an adult and it didn't work for him because he had had little exposure to sound and his brain didn't know what to do with it.

It's the same with hearing aids, they work well for some people but not others. Should the experiences of some people become policy for everyone else? I mean I have done well with hearing aids until now but not everyone else has. Should the experiences of those who didn't do well with hearing aids have influenced the decision to give me hearing aids at a young age?

I hope this post isn't interpreted as an attack on you. I respect your decision and your choices. But it's the choices of others that I am concerned about. In a way you are exercising a choice to have the CI turned off and taken out but an 18 year old who has never heard sound doesn't really have a choice to have a CI because it's too late.

 

[gnulinuxman]

Blame it on doctors. When parents who are hearing, know nothing about deaf culture, have never met a deaf person in their whole life, and they have a deaf child, more often than not, doctors tell them about the CI option, and not about deaf education, deaf schools, or sign language. Insurance companies paying for the bill does not help either.
I personally have a CI. It was put in when I was 9. I thought it'd help me become hearing, I was wrong, I had to learn all over again like a baby, and I gave it up when I was 14, I was in a deaf school where everyone is screaming almost all the time, and it just was not pratical. I lobbied to get it taken out, but apparently, Insurance companies won't pay for that, they will only pay for things that help my health get better. It mystifies me that a CI betters a deaf person's health.
I still have it set in my mind to have the CI taken out someday, when I am able to put up the damned cash. I agree, there should be a law aganist parents putting CIs on their kids, it is almost manipulation. When and if a kid becomes 18 and still wants one, that is fine, do what you wish.

Thanks for sharing your experience here. It's nice to see someone with a different experience than the all-positive first-hand posts that are so common around here.

That said, this is the kind of thing that bothers me about implanting children. The pros and other people who praise CI's say your story almost never happens, but truthfully, I've met more implantees with a story similar to yours than with a success story.

 

[R2D2]

but truthfully, I've met more implantees with a story similar to yours than with a success story.

How representative is your social circle of friends of the CI population?

 

[gnulinuxman]

How representative is your social circle of friends of the CI population?

Most of my deaf friends don't have cochlear implants. 2 do, and I've met a handful of others. There aren't a lot of cochlear implant users in this part of Wisconsin. Most deaf people here don't have implants.

We do have fairly good interpreter access here, though, even in public schools, so that might explain it.

 

[gnulinuxman]

How do you know? Have you ever had a parent tell you verbatim that is the reason they opted for a CI in their child? I didn’t think so!

Actually, truthfully, YES. 2 moms told me that's one reason they implanted their children, and a couple others told me that it's why they went oral for their deaf children. Some called signing a "stupid little game nobody wants to play" and said "Nobody else has to sign...why should I?" and "What good is signing if nobody uses it?" And the most common excuse: "It's too hard!!!"

I do not know of one single parent who would make such a selfish choice. Most parents only have their children’s best interest at heart. That is what parenting is all about.

While you are right about most parents, you can't ignore the fact that many parents are abusive and selfish too. I've met plenty of selfish parents. I've also met plenty of good ones.

 

[jag]

My husband had to view DVD’s, read booklets, interview others with CIs (those with negative experiences, not just positive), undergo balance testing, be screened by an entire team, including psychological, etc. I really don’t see how they could have been any more thorough!

.

Hmmm, I have had my CI since May 3,2006 and I only had to do the CI hearing tests and consult with my ENT. It was the first time I'd actully seen this ENT for myself, he's my dd's ENT.

I 'technically' do not meet insurance (and gov) criteria to qualify for a CI. I was granted approval based on my hearing in the noise tests. The only benefit from my HA's in a noisy enviroment was I could hear the first sentence....the rest were lost in the noise.

I've been activated since May 10. First Maps were way off but STILL helped achieve the clarity of speech I was hoping for when I started to look into CI's about 6 months ago. Was just reprogrammed (evidently my loud but comfortable was two loud causing any little noise to set off a swirl of noise, I assume from overstiulation....if you feel a buzz it's to loud even if it doesn't sound loud, hehe) anyway with reprogramming WOW even better....and thing are supposed to improve as your brain adjusts to the stimulation/sound. Sound is fairly normal since I use HA in my other ear.

It has actually gone way beyond what my HA's were giving me. The 'laws' regaring implantation are actually the decision of the insurance companies and the gov. as to when they think a person would benefit from a CI. You can possibly get approval from a private insurance company as I did, but the CI audi. did state that if I'd been on medicaid/care with my hearing status all they'd be able to say is tough luck, keep coming back every year to retest. I'm very happy so far that my insurance company let me get a CI.

 

[SxyPorkie]

Why the insurance would not coverage for my breast lift up?

Youre FUNNY... youre right about insurance not paying breasts

Thanks...

SxyPorkie

 

[GalaxyAngel]

Why the insurance would not coverage for my breast lift up?

*spill my drinks*... Hardly laugh, what you're stated about it..

Actually expense on your pockets.. unless if good reason by health.. then will be okay for insurance coverage breast sugery but not lift up...

simalir alike CI.. So many vary insurance companies who willing accept expense on ci but not too always.

Parents can be selish actually yes and no.. depends.. which some of parents are selfish all want their happy instead child's happiness..

Just in my opnioin..

Just the best for everyone who make their decision as 16 yrs old over.. instead younger child so young.. Not my business.. as long I hope you could stick w/Deaf Cultures and education your deaf child who have ci.


I've seen lotsa of issues ci all over threads... mostly high percentage debate.. than negoitation as respect their wishes.. which it's good thing..
I'm very netural... I do support my hubby's "almost going get ci" but his made decision doesn't want to reason his age almost overhill.. isn't worth it.

 

[greema]

In case I wasn’t clear with my previous statement *see quote*…they do make sure that all potential CI recipients understand that a CI is NOT a cure and will not restore 100% hearing. To qualify for a CI, one must undergo a battery of tests, not limited to audiological testing. My husband had to view DVD’s, read booklets, interview others with CIs (those with negative experiences, not just positive), undergo balance testing, be screened by an entire team, including psychological, etc. I really don’t see how they could have been any more thorough!

You really should do some research before spewing such crap. A hearing aid merely amplifies what one is already capable of hearing, whereas a CI clarifies what is being heard. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Only those who have actually experienced a CI know exactly what it can do. Consequently, maybe we should be paying more attention to neecy than some ignoramus who thinks they know it all.

R2D2 do you have a CI? Just curious, because I may have misunderstood….I really thought you had to have sufficient nerve hairs for a CI to be affective (I could be wrong). I guess I should ask an audiologist on this one.

Originally Posted by R2D2
Hearing aids are no good to me as my nerve hairs are too damaged for them to work! Can you please invent a hearing aid that can help me then and then we can talk about banning CIs.

Eve, I think you misunderstood R2D2. Not trying to be anal about it. (and I find that an interesting fact) Still learning more and more everytime I come on here.