misdiagnosis of the deaf

they are an idiot for trying to divide the family by discouraging sign language or for whatever reasons that have to do with speech.
 
I don;t believe psychiatric label mute , I am label deaf that is true I notice psychiast said warned me I am shrug I don't care psychiatric is very serious warned! I am tired it
 
Failure to take communication and cultural differences into account has resulted in misdiagnosis of the deaf. That is why the field is working toward getting more mental health counselors and psychologists into the field that are familiar with deafness and deaf culture. There are currently 2 mental health hospitals in the U.S. that treat only deaf clients. We need, however, to get more clinicians in the field of out patient care.

Unfortuantely, many of the labels of the past have come under the auspices of the educational system. That, too, needs to change. Many kids in the mainstream are misdiagnosed as having comorbid learning disorders or borderline mr as a result of mainstream teachers and administrators that have no experience with, or training related to, the deaf student.
 
Somewhat related. I know a child that was misdiagnosed profoundly deaf in one ear and hard-of-hearing in the other. This child was tested several times, he failed the first few times, then passed a couple. However, a while ago, he was discovered to have severe hearing loss in one and moderate hearing loss in the other. Later, he was re-tested, he passed with flying colours.

He's over 2 and half. I wonder how common this is because cochlear implants can be done on babies before they reach their first birthday.

Just a thought.
 
Banjo said:
Somewhat related. I know a child that was misdiagnosed profoundly deaf in one ear and hard-of-hearing in the other. This child was tested several times, he failed the first few times, then passed a couple. However, a while ago, he was discovered to have severe hearing loss in one and moderate hearing loss in the other. Later, he was re-tested, he passed with flying colours.

He's over 2 and half. I wonder how common this is because cochlear implants can be done on babies before they reach their first birthday.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons why hospitals require ABRs, CT scans, and MRIs as well as other testing on children who are candidates after the initial diagnosis and before surgery. They don't rely on that initial assessment that typically serves as a diagnosis alone.
 
Banjo said:
Somewhat related. I know a child that was misdiagnosed profoundly deaf in one ear and hard-of-hearing in the other. This child was tested several times, he failed the first few times, then passed a couple. However, a while ago, he was discovered to have severe hearing loss in one and moderate hearing loss in the other. Later, he was re-tested, he passed with flying colours.

He's over 2 and half. I wonder how common this is because cochlear implants can be done on babies before they reach their first birthday.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

There have been several anecdotal cases like you have spoken of. Unfortunately, if a child is implanted in infancy, we will never know if the test would have showed improved results.

It is actually expected that a child's test levels will improve somewhat after they have been aided for awhile, or even after, unaided, they have learned to turn random sound into something meaningful. They ignore those sounds that possess no meaning for them at that age. Therefore, they may be hearinging it somewhat, but not responding because it means nothing to them.
 
GrendelQ said:
That's one of the reasons why hospitals require ABRs, CT scans, and MRIs as well as other testing on children who are candidates after the initial diagnosis and before surgery. They don't rely on that initial assessment that typically serves as a diagnosis alone.
Click to expand...

And ABRs, CT scans, and MRIs only tell a part of the story when it comes to hearing loss.
 
jillio said:
And ABRs, CT scans, and MRIs only tell a part of the story when it comes to hearing loss.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Those weren't available in my time and I was simply thrown into the mix. The result is what I am today. If those resources WERE available then, I don't think the results would have been much different.
 
Beowulf said:
Absolutely correct. Those weren't available in my time and I was simply thrown into the mix. The result is what I am today. If those resources WERE available then, I don't think the results would have been much different.
Click to expand...

I doubt seriously that they would have. They show only a very narrow picture of deafness. Very limited from a practical sense.
 
GrendelQ said:
That's one of the reasons why hospitals require ABRs, CT scans, and MRIs as well as other testing on children who are candidates after the initial diagnosis and before surgery. They don't rely on that initial assessment that typically serves as a diagnosis alone.
Click to expand...

Actually, they did all of these tests, even the ABRs and other scans.
 
GrendelQ said:
No one said they tell all.
Click to expand...

They actually tell very little. If one is deciding to implant based on those tests, they are making a decision based on limited information. Your post suggested that these tests were used to fool proof the system of deciding who should be eligible for childhood implantation, and to prevent implanting children needlessly. They don't.
 
jillio said:
It is actually expected that a child's test levels will improve somewhat after they have been aided for awhile, or even after, unaided, they have learned to turn random sound into something meaningful. They ignore those sounds that possess no meaning for them at that age. Therefore, they may be hearinging it somewhat, but not responding because it means nothing to them.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the ability to comprehend the meaning and source of sound (in this case, the sound would be 'clicks' and the child would be asleep or under anesthesia) has an impact on an auditory brainstem response test?
 
Banjo said:
Actually, they did all of these tests, even the ABRs and other scans.
Click to expand...

Yep. And the reason there are still errors made is because of the immaturity of the child's brain and the variance in response.
 
GrendelQ said:
Do you think that the ability to comprehend the meaning and source of sound (in this case, the sound would be 'clicks' and the child would be asleep or under anesthesia) has an impact on an auditory brainstem response test?
Click to expand...

ABRs still function on a response for their readings. Immaturity in the infant's brain can lead to a false reading. Other neurological conditions could be present that are muddying the test readings.
 
GrendelQ said:
No one said they tell all.
Click to expand...

Then why even bother having them done? I know the parents want the best for their child, but grasping at improbable results show THEIR fear, not the child's. Sorry if that sounds brutal.
 
Beowulf said:
Then why even bother having them done? I know the parents want the best for their child, but grasping at improbable results show THEIR fear, not the child's. Sorry if that sounds brutal.
Click to expand...

Very valid point. Parental fear is a huge factor. And the medical community uses it.
 
Beowulf said:
Then why even bother having them done? I know the parents want the best for their child, but grasping at improbable results show THEIR fear, not the child's. Sorry if that sounds brutal.
Click to expand...

Initial screening has a high margin for error. But ABRs alone tell a great deal about the hearing level of a child. And there are a whole range of tests employed in assessing a child for candidacy, not just that one.

Unlike Jillio's suggestion that profoundly deaf children who receive amplification find that their unaided hearing typically improves over time (how many of you have found that to be the case? How many reports have you read making such a claim?) -- my daughter's un-implanted ear (with which we used a HA) declined rapidly within the profound range during her 2nd year. I have no question based on both the many tests we undertook and the experience with the ear that was not implanted, that she was not going to miraculously gain some hearing that she had never had before by waiting.
 
jillio said:
ABRs still function on a response for their readings. Immaturity in the infant's brain can lead to a false reading. Other neurological conditions could be present that are muddying the test readings.
Click to expand...

Other neurological conditions are screened for.
 
GrendelQ said:
Initial screening has a high margin for error. But ABRs alone tell a great deal about the hearing level of a child. And there are a whole range of tests employed in assessing a child for candidacy, not just that one.

Unlike Jillio's suggestion that profoundly deaf children who receive amplification find that their unaided hearing typically improves over time (how many of you have found that to be the case? How many reports have you read making such a claim?) -- my daughter's un-implanted ear (with which we used a HA) declined rapidly within the profound range during her 2nd year. I have no question based on both the many tests we undertook and the experience with the ear that was not implanted, that she was not going to miraculously gain some hearing that she had never had before by waiting.
Click to expand...

You are completely distorting what I stated. I did not say that hearing improved over time. I said that test results improved over time, even unaided. That is very different from hearing improved over time.:roll:
 
Back
Top