Decline of sign language

[Foxrac]

The decline of sign language is occured in most developed countries except for USA. Norway, Denmark, Australia and some other countries that 80%-90% children got implanted because of free medical center. Only 2% deaf children got implanted in USA, deaf culture is strong in USA and thanks to Bush for passed ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) in 1990. USA has more services to improving the deaf people life without got implanted. ASL (American Sign Language) is fast-growing in USA (sizable in Canada and Mexico) and many hearing people can learn to use ASL from ASL classes at most universties and some high school. I have many hearing friends that want learn to use ASL and they are interesting with deaf culture.

I'm encourage to hearing people for not implant the deaf children and some of hearing students at school said CI is nothing to help improving the oral and sounds are mess up like too loud. I'm enjoy to teach deaf children to use ASL and learn about deaf culture. We are expected to see deaf population are growing in USA due high birth rate from immigrants like Mexico, Central America, South America, Asia, Europe (mostly from formerly Soviet Union countries) and Middle East. We are thankful for growing more deaf population.

 

[Brian]

TrippLA - do you have the link for this?

 

[Foxrac]

TrippLA - do you have the link for this?

check wikipedia about CI and many parts are writen by my thought about deaf people and ASL.

If you don't know so why are u live in USA?

 

[R2D2]

In Australia all candidates have to go through strict criteria tests for eligilibity for a CI. Only those who cannot benefit from hearing aids are implanted, so the 80-90% statistic that you mentioned is surprising to me.

Public "free" hospital systems have very restrictive budgets to keep to and they do not have free rein to slap implants on any child with a hearing loss. They are expected to be accountable. Even in the private sector insurance companies don't want to spend their money on implants for those who don't need them. They have shareholders to report to!

I also have a friend who teaches sign language to children and he tells me that the number of deaf children being born has dropped significantly period. He cited rubella immunization programs as a reason.

Can I have a link please to actual statistics reported by an independent study showing that 80-90% of all Australian deaf children are implanted?

 

[Foxrac]

In Australia all candidates have to go through strict criteria tests for eligilibity for a CI. Only those who cannot benefit from hearing aids are implanted, so the 80-90% statistic that you mentioned is surprising to me.

Public "free" hospital systems have very restrictive budgets to keep to and they do not have free rein to slap implants on any child with a hearing loss. They are expected to be accountable. Even in the private sector insurance companies don't want to spend their money on implants for those who don't need them. They have shareholders to report to!

I also have a friend who teaches sign language to children and he tells me that the number of deaf children being born has dropped significantly period. He cited rubella immunization programs as a reason.

Can I have a link please to actual statistics reported by an independent study showing that 80-90% of all Australian deaf children are implanted?

Like told to brian, just find from wikipedia. Just put "Cochlear Implant" in search. If not found so I will show to u in morning (my time-PST)

 

[R2D2]

I can see it in wikipedia but there is no reference to where they got the figures from. I looked at the references at the end of the page but nothing is clearly stated there.

If it was 80-90% of profoundly deaf children then yes that would be credible but not ALL deaf children.

I just went and had a look at the webpage for the Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre and here is what it says:

93% of profoundly deaf children in NSW are referred to SCIC for assessment

NSW is the most populous state in Australia and would be pretty typical of Australia as a whole. The website also clearly states that those who will benefit from CIs are those who get no benefit from hearing aids, meaning those who are profoundly deaf.

Look I know how public, free medical systems work (I've lived in UK and Australia) and believe me they don't just dole out operations to all and sundry who demand them. There has to be a proven need and they have tight budgets. UK and Australian public medical systems are run on far less money than US hospital systems.

If it's only 2% of deaf children getting implanted in the US then why all the fuss about the threat to deaf culture for such small numbers?

I think that we are probably not comparing the same thing. You need to get figures for profoundly deaf children in the US for a true comparison.

 

[Foxrac]

I can see it in wikipedia but there is no reference to where they got the figures from. I looked at the references at the end of the page but nothing is clearly stated there.

If it was 80-90% of profoundly deaf children then yes that would be credible but not ALL deaf children.

I just went and had a look at the webpage for the Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre and here is what it says:



NSW is the most populous state in Australia and would be pretty typical of Australia as a whole. The website also clearly states that those who will benefit from CIs are those who get no benefit from hearing aids, meaning those who are profoundly deaf.

Look I know how public, free medical systems work (I've lived in UK and Australia) and believe me they don't just dole out operations to all and sundry who demand them. There has to be a proven need and they have tight budgets. UK and Australian public medical systems are run on far less money than US hospital systems.

If it's only 2% of deaf children getting implanted in the US then why all the fuss about the threat to deaf culture for such small numbers?

I think that we are probably not comparing the same thing. You need to get figures for profoundly deaf children in the US for a true comparison.

Just read so carefully from wikipedia:
In the United States, medical costs run from USD$15,000 to $40,000; this includes evaluation, the surgery itself, hardware (device), and rehabilitation. Some of this can be covered by health insurance. In developed countries with some form of free public health care, the rate of implantation is greater than in the US, as the costs (or some of the costs) are borne by the government. In Australia, Denmark and Norway, 80 to 90% of deaf children have cochlear implants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

 

[Foxrac]

I can see it in wikipedia but there is no reference to where they got the figures from. I looked at the references at the end of the page but nothing is clearly stated there.

If it was 80-90% of profoundly deaf children then yes that would be credible but not ALL deaf children.

I just went and had a look at the webpage for the Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre and here is what it says:



NSW is the most populous state in Australia and would be pretty typical of Australia as a whole. The website also clearly states that those who will benefit from CIs are those who get no benefit from hearing aids, meaning those who are profoundly deaf.

Look I know how public, free medical systems work (I've lived in UK and Australia) and believe me they don't just dole out operations to all and sundry who demand them. There has to be a proven need and they have tight budgets. UK and Australian public medical systems are run on far less money than US hospital systems.

If it's only 2% of deaf children getting implanted in the US then why all the fuss about the threat to deaf culture for such small numbers?

I think that we are probably not comparing the same thing. You need to get figures for profoundly deaf children in the US for a true comparison.

In few years ago, the one of deaf teacher from elementary school in LA area and she said that only 2% deaf kids got implanted in USA. She's strongly opposed that any people got implanted. Deaf culture is strong and much better in USA and some people are just helps hearing families for not implant the deaf children, don't listen what doctor gives advertise about CI and I know that many hearing families in around LA area don't want children get implanted for personal reason. There's free ASL classes for hearing parents at some public school in LA area. We love to take good care with deaf culture.

 

[Deaf Images]

Asl Is Forever!

Screw those audists and selfish people who want to oppress our proud deaf culture! ASL is here forever!

Like George Veditz in 1913, National Association of Deaf president signed in Colorado conference, "As long as we have Deaf people on Earth, we will have our beautiful sign language, the noblest gift God has given to Deaf people!"

 

[Foxrac]

That's nice one :fruit: :fruit: :fruit: :fruit:

 

[Cloggy]

Just read so carefully from wikipedia:
In the United States, medical costs run from USD$15,000 to $40,000; this includes evaluation, the surgery itself, hardware (device), and rehabilitation. Some of this can be covered by health insurance. In developed countries with some form of free public health care, the rate of implantation is greater than in the US, as the costs (or some of the costs) are borne by the government. In Australia, Denmark and Norway, 80 to 90% of deaf children have cochlear implants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

So you can also say that because of the health system in USA, parents of deaf children have to take into account economical reasons.
That means that lower-income families cannot afford to have the child implanted. So much for free choice.
When the government pays for the operation, the economical part is taken out of the equasion and a real choice can be made.

 

[Cloggy]

Screw those audists and selfish people who want to oppress our proud deaf culture! ....

 

[Foxrac]

So you can also say that because of the health system in USA, parents of deaf children have to take into account economical reasons.
That means that lower-income families cannot afford to have the child implanted. So much for free choice.
When the government pays for the operation, the economical part is taken out of the equasion and a real choice can be made.

not only reason... there's too many reason that parents in USA don't want deaf children get implant. stop force them to get implant. u live in norway, that where all of ur crap is in norway, not our problem. thanks to god for not live in ur country.

 

[R2D2]

Just read so carefully from wikipedia:
In the United States, medical costs run from USD$15,000 to $40,000; this includes evaluation, the surgery itself, hardware (device), and rehabilitation. Some of this can be covered by health insurance. In developed countries with some form of free public health care, the rate of implantation is greater than in the US, as the costs (or some of the costs) are borne by the government. In Australia, Denmark and Norway, 80 to 90% of deaf children have cochlear implants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

You obviously haven't read or understood my post. I found the above paragraph that you have copied easily. I studied statistics at college and I need to see the source of those statistics. This means the study from which those statistics were taken. This is so I can understand what they mean by "deaf children".

You can prove anything from statistics. I would suggest that the article has been badly worded and that it should say 80-90% of profoundly deaf children.

No way in Australia are 80-90% of all deaf children are implanted. I've seen deaf children around with hearing aids.

 

[Foxrac]

You obviously haven't read or understood my post. I found the above paragraph that you have copied easily. I studied statistics at college and I need to see the source of those statistics. This means the study from which those statistics were taken. This is so I can understand what they mean by "deaf children".

You can prove anything from statistics. I would suggest that the article has been badly worded and that it should say 80-90% of profoundly deaf children.

No way in Australia are 80-90% of all deaf children are implanted. I've seen deaf children around with hearing aids.

I don't know that someone who wrote it.

I'm apologize if you are frustrated but wikipedia is doing wrong sometime.

 

[R2D2]

Screw those audists and selfish people who want to oppress our proud deaf culture! ASL is here forever!

Like George Veditz in 1913, National Association of Deaf president signed in Colorado conference, "As long as we have Deaf people on Earth, we will have our beautiful sign language, the noblest gift God has given to Deaf people!"


[/QUOTE]

Yeah, yeah whatever. But we're still gonna do it anyway. The world has changed a lot since 1913.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Australia, Denmark and Norway, 80 to 90% of deaf children have cochlear implants..

. and that it's how all the lies and misiniformations starts, and then spreads.


All those who are against implanting jump to conclusion- oh, 80%-90% implanted! then they don't do SL! bad bad hearing pple!

How do we know about SL?, there is nothing mentioned in there about SL...

Secondly, I agree with R2D2 - unless you know who wrote it and why,
you have no way to know if they mean ALL deaf children, or just PROFOUNDLY deaf children, or only children with profound SENSORI-NEURAL loss, or whatever.
Is up to interpretation.

Sadly, the anti-CI extremists jump to conlcusion and declare- they don't do SL! 80% -90% deaf children in Autralia do not know SL!!

what's worse other believe this unproven information, and that is how now probably half of a deaf community in Alldeaf will believe 80-90% of deaf Australian children do not know sign language. which is most likely NOT true.

sigh..

Fuzzy

 

[Foxrac]

Australia, Denmark and Norway, 80 to 90% of deaf children have cochlear implants..

. and that it's how all the lies and misiniformations starts, and then spreads.


All those who are against implanting jump to conclusion- oh, 80%-90% implanted! then they don't do SL! bad bad hearing pple!

How do we know about SL?, there is nothing mentioned in there about SL...

Secondly, I agree with R2D2 - unless you know who wrote it and why,
you have no way to know if they mean ALL deaf children, or just PROFOUNDLY deaf children, or only children with profound SENSORI-NEURAL loss, or whatever.
Is up to interpretation.

Sadly, the anti-CI extremists jump to conlcusion and declare- they don't do SL! 80% -90% deaf children in Autralia do not know SL!!

what's worse other believe this unproven information, and that is how now probably half of a deaf community in Alldeaf will believe 80-90% of deaf Australian children do not know sign language. which is most likely NOT true.

sigh..

Fuzzy

u never know if census bureau said same thing also what u do? that's fine if u don't believe me.

btw, that all ur opinion though, none of them are fact.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I am just saying unless you can provide more detailed information about these children, all you have is ASSUMPTION.

Fuzzy

 

[Foxrac]

I am just saying unless you can provide more detailed information about these children, all you have is ASSUMPTION.

Fuzzy

Wikipedia has alot of offer to find it. I'm going find something soon and you are hard head.