Hearies view on a CI kid... its a bummer

Status
Not open for further replies.
But what about the view of the woman described in the original post?
 
Maria said:
No way will I support CI for children. CI caused complications. Ok, you can go to the hospital where there's a nursery room - use your imagination: Think of a doctor usin' a knife to carve up on a deaf child's head while this child don't know what's goin' on. Of course, doctor will give this deaf child some anthesia ( sp ? ) to numb the pain. This deaf child will probably cry when she/or he wakes up. Somethin' hurt inside ? or ___ . You fill in yourself. It takes away a deaf child's natural senses - maybe, she/or he confuses or maybe, she/or he gets sick, vomittin'. Think it is alright to do that ? :hmm: I don't!
Click to expand...

Maria you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you seen a child the first day they got implant. My son had his surgery at 8 in the morning at noon we were at home at 1 in the afternoon he was riding his tricycle. So unless you have been with a parent/child that day how do you know what happens.
I have 2 children that have received implants they were not in pain after surgery. I have a class of 6 children with implants and they were not in pain.
What natural sense are you talking maybe hearing sense which they didn't have to begin with.
Why would the child be confused. When the child wakes from the surgery their parent is sitting right next to him.

IF SOMEONE WOULD SHOW ME HOW I WOULD BE MORE THEN HAPPY TO POST A PICTURE OF MY SON WHILE HE WAS RECOVERING FROM SURGERY IN THE HOSPITAL OR OF HIM RIDING IS TRICYCLE 4 HOURS AFTER SURGERY.
 
Maria said:
I feel sorry for future CI small children when their hearin' parents put a " bionic " device stuff in on their " deaf " child to become a bionic kid to be able to hear. I feel it is NOT right to create a real livin' and normal deaf child to become a robot livin' creature. Yikes ! Hate to think of that. I feel soo sorry for the deaf child when their hearin' parents DON'T think of the deaf child's welfare. That deaf child is NOT a guinea pig!
Click to expand...


Explain how my 2 deaf children with cochlear implants are robots. Or explain how my class of 6 preschool age deaf children with cochlear implants are robots. Or how my children's 10+ teenage deaf friends with cochlear implants are robots. What you Maria are scared of is the fact that you are losing members of your Deaf culture.
How dare you say that I a hearing parent do not think of the welfare of my children? You are making assumptions without knowing who I am.
This is where I think Jillo and I are a little alike our children deafness has impact our lives so much that now we have devoted our professional lives to helping deaf children. The difference is that Jillo has gone through the signing route and I have gone through the oral route. I do not think Jillo should have gotten an implant for her son or that she should have gone the oral route. It was her child her decision and she made an informed decision just as I did.
 
deafdyke said:
Rick, you just don't see...........it's yet another case about not seeing the forests for the trees.



I do not know too many parents of CI kids IRL. However I DO know MANY parents of special needs kids in general! This "healthy normal attitude" is VERY VERY common in the whole disabilty spectrum, from dhh kids to blind/low vision kids to wheelchair users. Granted the "healthy normalism" isn't blatent.....but I mean from "oral sucesses" who are encouraged to mostly be a part of the hearing world, to blind/low vision kids who are encouraged to use their residual vision to the max, and not concentrate on the "crutch" of Braille, it is THERE! Believe me...........I have lived it. And its' not something that existed now and is just in the past. I see it every day on my special needs kids listservs! Parents are still devastated emotionally by relatively mild disabilites in their kids (ie physical issues, but no mental issues) Many of them STILL have baggage about the trappings of disabilty, and think "oh if Wittle Smashlie doesn't need to use what I think of as special needs tools, everything is fine and dandy!"
How many of those parents have actively introduced their kids to ASL and Deaf culture? How many felt a secret relief that their kids wouldn't "need" to use "special" methods? How many of them have boasted of how well their kids are doing in the hearing world? Do you see what I'm getting at now? It's audism so inherent in the hearing world, that you don't even realize what's going on! It's just like white privilage basicly!
Oh, and while I don't think they are robots, I do think there's some merit in them being called gunia pigs. Especially if they are oral onlyized. End hearing results from CI are pretty much a crapshoot. Yes, some people do get pretty good hearing, but most get hearing that varies as to its qualities.
Click to expand...


You admitted that you do not know many parents of CI kids but then you think you know what we are about and what we do.
How is it that you think our children are gunia pigs? What do you know about this. Deafness is so unlike other disabilities. You should know that.
 
jillio said:
But what about the view of the woman described in the original post?
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. This lady had no idea what she was talking about. I mention this many times, cochlear implants are not for everyone. Take Shel, she is happy with who she is and there no need to implant her because she is happy. A cochlear implant can be a very valuable tool but it is not miracle. This lady was not an informed person she knew about the implant. Being that she is not infomred or educated, she has no idea what she is talking about.
The cochlear implant has been very successful for my kids because I was informed, I did everything in my power to help my children. I have seen the implant not be as successful as possible because parents did not do the work they needed to do or though the implant was a miracle.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are 100% correct. This lady had no idea what she was talking about. I mention this many times, cochlear implants are not for everyone. Take Shel, she is happy with who she is and there no need to implant her because she is happy. A cochlear implant can be a very valuable tool but it is not miracle. This lady was not an informed person she knew about the implant. Being that she is not infomred or educated, she has no idea what she is talking about.
The cochlear implant has been very successful for my kids because I was informed, I did everything in my power to help my children. I have seen the implant not be as successful as possible because parents did not do the work they needed to do or though the implant was a miracle.
Click to expand...

And sometimes it is not the fault of the parents, but simple variables in the results that can't be accounted for. But the point is, that woman was responsible for assessing the needs and the progress of a child with a CI. Not only was she very offensive in the way she talked about this child, I find that when an educator functions under the assumption that a CI has just made a deaf child a hearing child, and therefore does not need any other accommodations, that child will be woefully under served educationally. And because she is an educator, she has a responsibility not to disseminate misleading information. I find her behavior unethical.
 
jillio said:
But what about the view of the woman described in the original post?
Click to expand...


What about it. Go back and re-read the post and you will see that what we are being told is the author's perception of what she overheard (remember that the author is HOH so can you really be certain that she heard the entire conversation correctly?). We are also getting her perception filtered through her personal bias against cochlear implants and I will bet that she is also against mainstreaming.

Still, what we are being told is that after observing a child in the mainstream with a ci she was obvioulsy impressed and thinks that the child possesses the skills to make it in the mainstream. What was her crime? That she used the word "normal" to describe the child, please get a grip!

Poor choice of words absolutely but that should not overshadow the fact that this teacher was obviously impressed by this cochlear implanted child.

Funny, the use of the word "normal" sends some of you into a rabid frenzy, jumping on this woman's remarks like dogs in heat but calling children "robots" and "guinea pigs" and accusing their parents of not caring about them elicits no response.

Interesting.
 
rick48 said:
What about it. Go back and re-read the post and you will see that what we are being told is the author's perception of what she overheard (remember that the author is HOH so can you really be certain that she heard the entire conversation correctly?). We are also getting her perception filtered through her personal bias against cochlear implants and I will bet that she is also against mainstreaming.

Still, what we are being told is that after observing a child in the mainstream with a ci she was obvioulsy impressed and thinks that the child possesses the skills to make it in the mainstream. What was her crime? That she used the word "normal" to describe the child, please get a grip!

Poor choice of words absolutely but that should not overshadow the fact that this teacher was obviously impressed by this cochlear implanted child.

Funny, the use of the word "normal" sends some of you into a rabid frenzy, jumping on this woman's remarks like dogs in heat but calling children "robots" and "guinea pigs" and accusing their parents of not caring about them elicits no response.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
jillio said:
And sometimes it is not the fault of the parents, but simple variables in the results that can't be accounted for. But the point is, that woman was responsible for assessing the needs and the progress of a child with a CI. Not only was she very offensive in the way she talked about this child, I find that when an educator functions under the assumption that a CI has just made a deaf child a hearing child, and therefore does not need any other accommodations, that child will be woefully under served educationally. And because she is an educator, she has a responsibility not to disseminate misleading information. I find her behavior unethical.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think my kids are very successful with their implants. They do good in school but they are not out there alone they have their accommodations. Plus they have a mom that is a teacher and supports them at home with whatever they need. They are still deaf even with the implant.
 
Jillo and Shel,
I was wondering what your thoughts were on what Cheri and Maria said. Honestly I am not looking for a fight, I really want to know what you feel about what these 2 ladies have said. Especially the part of CI kids being robots or how we CI parents are not looking out for child's welfare.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Jillo and Shel,
I was wondering what your thoughts were on what Cheri and Maria said. Honestly I am not looking for a fight, I really want to know what you feel about what these 2 ladies have said. Especially the part of CI kids being robots or how we CI parents are not looking out for child's welfare.
Click to expand...

At the risk of getting another bash session going by other posters........here goes. We've been able to discuss things reasonably lately, so I'm going to take you at your word!:giggle:

No, I don't agree with calling CI implanted children robots, any more than I agree with hearing children making fun of deaf children in the mainstream classroom. That kind of behavior is just not acceptable to me.

As far as looking out for the child's welfare.....I don't think that Maria meant that as it maybe sounded. I believe that hearing parents who opt for CI on an infant have often times rushed their decision a bit, and there are those who haven't taken the time or been provided the opportunity to have all of the information available or been exposed to alternatives. Mind you, I'm saying some, not all.

Despite the disagreements in philosophy that we have, jackie, I don't believe that I have ever referred to your children as "robots". Our disagreement is not in the use of CI, and shel and I have both said many times that CI is a parent's decision. I had reasons for not going the CI route with my son, just as you had reasons for going the CI route with your children. But those are my reasons, and my child. Same with you.

I do think that this article at the beginning of the thread, however, is an example of the disservice that is still done to some kids in the mainstream. My concern is not whether this child has a CI, or doesn't have a CI, but that those responsible for her education understand that she is not a hearing child simply because she has a CI. When that attitude is allowed to exist, it is the deaf CI child that suffers, because they are not provided with a proper education. And the parent that allows an educator to teach their child with that attitude, and doesn't co anything to correct those misperceptions, has done a disservice to their child as well.

I hope that answers your questions.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Jillo and Shel,
I was wondering what your thoughts were on what Cheri and Maria said. Honestly I am not looking for a fight, I really want to know what you feel about what these 2 ladies have said. Especially the part of CI kids being robots or how we CI parents are not looking out for child's welfare.
Click to expand...

FYI, I am against CI itself, not your deaf children. Understand ? I really wish that the company DON'T invent that CI in the first place.

Did you read the link I just provided ? Did you read what the risks are ? I don't think it is helping at all. If the company KNEW about what the risks are, then they wouldn't have invented it. ASL will last long time because ASL don't have any risk. The future will always have ASL, but CI ?

I remember when I was a child wearin' HAs, I felt that the purpose of it was for my hearin' parents. They EXPECTED me to talk with voice for THEM. When it comes to me, I felt out of league, because I am NOT hearin' like my parents with my HAs. It was different. I was in my own " deaf " world.

I believe that CI children will feel the same way that they HAVE to speak FOR the hearin' people in despite of themselves bein' deaf. They have to put aside " deaf " and put themselves in " hearin' " for the hearin' people, because of CI for what it is representin' to. CI for who ? For hearin' parents and people, of course. That's one thing I opposed.
 
Maria said:
FYI, I am against CI itself, not your deaf children. Understand ? I really wish that the company DON'T invent that CI in the first place.

Did you read the link I just provided ? Did you read what the risks are ? I don't think it is helping at all. If the company KNEW about what the risks are, then they wouldn't have invented it. ASL will last long time because ASL don't have any risk. The future will always have ASL, but CI ?

I remember when I was a child wearin' HAs, I felt that the purpose of it was for my hearin' parents. They EXPECTED me to talk with voice for THEM. When it comes to me, I felt out of league, because I am NOT hearin' like my parents with my HAs. It was different. I was in my own " deaf " world.

I believe that CI children will feel the same way that they HAVE to speak FOR the hearin' people in despite of themselves bein' deaf. They have to put aside " deaf " and put themselves in " hearin' " for the hearin' people, because of CI for what it is representin' to. CI for who ? For hearin' parents and people, of course. That's one thing I opposed.
Click to expand...

And you have valid points, Maria.
 
My only interest is that the attitude from the general public is that CIs make deaf people normal as if we arent normal to begin with along with the idea that ASL is not needed.
Click to expand...
Actually as an armchair language geek I've noticed that the language used to describe CI has changed.
Ten or fifteen years ago CI was generally described as some "miricle" device. It would make hearing aids and Sign obsolete. YAY for latest technology! Kids can HEAR (implication like hearing people) Now, there seems to be more of a down to earth attitude about CIs. They're great and all, BUT the end results tend to be more like those seen with hoh folks with hearing aids.
Jackie, I said I don't know too many parents of CI kids IRL. I know MANY on line. Some of them are really rather openminded as to Sign and things like that. *gasp* I've actually noticed that younger parents tend to be a little more accepting of Sign or other "special equiptment or methodologies." They see it as something WICKED cool.
Oh my kid's hoh! That's fine! I'll get to learn Sign and everything! Just like that little kid in my class who was hoh! Sign is SO cool!"
Whereas as recently as the '40's, disabilty was really something to be OUTRIGHTLY ashamed of! (read for example "Karen" that story of the little girl who had CP, and whose parents founded United Cerebal Palsy")
That said, the experiance of trying to accept "differences" is UNIVERSAL no matter WHAT the disabilty is. I went through that myself as a matter of fact. Up til I was SIXTEEN, I really hadn't come to terms with being hoh.
The thing is.........the justification for parents getting their kids CIs, does tend to be very biased towards "Oh my child won't "need" ASL, and can be a part of the hearing world" (the implication "normal") rather then "Oh this will be just another tool in the toolbox"
Jackie, we agree that speech and training need to be done immeidatily. The debate just is HOW much, and which language should be the kid's first language. Not all kids can afford really good therapy, or have access to oral classrooms. Only about 20% of the programs in the US are oral, you know. And of those oral programs MANY if not most of them are very "oral supermatist" (ie oral only is the best. Oral language should be the first language)
Quite frankly I think that dhh kids have the RIGHT to a full toolbox EARLY ON. That way the KID (the person who is actually AFFECTED by the decision) can decide which tools they want to use or not.
My friend Katie's daughter Remy, started out with Sign.....she even went to the school for the deaf part time, and later went to a magnet program for the dhh (one of those schools where a dhh program is housed) Fast forward a few years, and she's DROPPED the Sign. That's awesome.........b/c it was REMY'S choice. I also know the parents who run the AG Bell Mass chapter. Their kids have CIs. They started out with ASL, and then DROPPED IT. It really needs to be the KIDS' choice. Too often with oral only or oral programs the mentality is that "oh those kids don't "need" ASL....they are doing fine with just oral. Oral oral oral should be the sole focus of a dhh kid's life.
 
Maria said:
I believe that CI children will feel the same way that they HAVE to speak FOR the hearin' people in despite of themselves bein' deaf. They have to put aside " deaf " and put themselves in " hearin' " for the hearin' people, because of CI for what it is representin' to. CI for who ? For hearin' parents and people, of course. That's one thing I opposed.
Click to expand...

Touche!

I often think that the parents would go for CI for their child because they are afraid of sign language, afraid of what other people think of them using sign language. Peer pressure can be the downside.
 
Maria said:
jackiesolorzano -

Benefits / Risks

Good luck ! :)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for provide those links... That's link I want to look for ages at several threads in the past.

I tried to convince the people what I know CI users in real life is hear different sounds between CI and normal hearing, facial nerves, tinnitus, etc.. Unfortunlately, my share posts about them are being denied or ignored. Those link is prefect... Again, thank you very much!!!

That's why I am not for CI on babies and toddlers because it's their body, not mine... It's their decision, not mine.
 
Maria said:
FYI, I am against CI itself, not your deaf children. Understand ? I really wish that the company DON'T invent that CI in the first place.

Did you read the link I just provided ? Did you read what the risks are ? I don't think it is helping at all. If the company KNEW about what the risks are, then they wouldn't have invented it. ASL will last long time because ASL don't have any risk. The future will always have ASL, but CI ?

I remember when I was a child wearin' HAs, I felt that the purpose of it was for my hearin' parents. They EXPECTED me to talk with voice for THEM. When it comes to me, I felt out of league, because I am NOT hearin' like my parents with my HAs. It was different. I was in my own " deaf " world.

I believe that CI children will feel the same way that they HAVE to speak FOR the hearin' people in despite of themselves bein' deaf. They have to put aside " deaf " and put themselves in " hearin' " for the hearin' people, because of CI for what it is representin' to. CI for who ? For hearin' parents and people, of course. That's one thing I opposed.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
jackiesolorzano said:
I agree. I think my kids are very successful with their implants. They do good in school but they are not out there alone they have their accommodations. Plus they have a mom that is a teacher and supports them at home with whatever they need. They are still deaf even with the implant.
Click to expand...

I respect you but I also beleive the children are successful with or without CI and HA.

Look at many deaf people - lead normal life like hearing people before CI comes.

No, it's not CI or HA itself who make the children successful but the children themselves and their own moviation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top