cochlear implants

Smartiesgeek · 04-29-2003, 11:31 PM

I am totally against the idea of cochlear implants.

Babies should not be implanted in when they are baby. hearing parents just are so stupid, no offend. So, Let them to grow up and see if they want any of this, then it will be okay, than put it in the baby's head. it is just so touche to see that, stupid HEARING PARENTS who did this.

Also, I dont like when the people are trying to making it more and killing more people if they are having a problem with cochlear implants.

I think it is unnecessary to create this, dont ya all agree with me?

if you was a hearing kid all since you was born and lost ur hearing then, u can have the cochlear implants if u want, but if you're deaf and forced to have a cochlear implants. Thats make me pissed off.

If you are a deaf kid who have a cochlear implants, speak it up for yourself. Dont be a passive. Just stand up for yourself to say no to ur parents.

Cain Marko · 04-30-2003, 06:59 AM

It bothers you to think that some people actually like their implant...doesnt it?

Even kids.

~Heather~ · 04-30-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smartiesgeek
I am totally against the idea of cochlear implants.

Babies should not be implanted in when they are baby. hearing parents just are so stupid, no offend. So, Let them to grow up and see if they want any of this, then it will be okay, than put it in the baby's head. it is just so touche to see that, stupid HEARING PARENTS who did this.

Also, I dont like when the people are trying to making it more and killing more people if they are having a problem with cochlear implants.

I think it is unnecessary to create this, dont ya all agree with me?

if you was a hearing kid all since you was born and lost ur hearing then, u can have the cochlear implants if u want, but if you're deaf and forced to have a cochlear implants. Thats make me pissed off.

If you are a deaf kid who have a cochlear implants, speak it up for yourself. Dont be a passive. Just stand up for yourself to say no to ur parents.

I had this discussion in my class @ college. We were all discussing about this topic. Then I said, you know hearing people force deaf kids to have CI, I think thats wrong and said how would you like if I have hearing child, want my hearing child to be same as me "deaf" and want my hearing child to have operation to be deaf just like me. Teacher said thats child abuse. I said hey, whats the difference, hearing people are abusing deaf children too by having them on CI? My teacher just went quiet and said nothing. You know I have point here.

Fly Free · 04-30-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ~Heather~

I had this discussion in my class @ college. We were all discussing about this topic. Then I said, you know hearing people force deaf kids to have CI, I think thats wrong and said how would you like if I have hearing child, want my hearing child to be same as me "deaf" and want my hearing child to have operation to be deaf just like me. Teacher said thats child abuse. I said hey, whats the difference, hearing people are abusing deaf children too by having them on CI? My teacher just went quiet and said nothing. You know I have point here.

yayayayay u GO Heather!!!! thats EXACTLY what i said in the other forum talking abt CI and the on topic debate over it

Scatterwater · 04-30-2003, 12:15 PM

Ohh I agree about not forcing CI, basically I'm anti-CI BUT i do believe in "choices". I don't like the idea of forcing a child to get CI. What should be done is like wait until they're older and able to decide and know what CI is and the pro and cons. My parents asked me if I wanted CI when I was in early teens and I firmly said no and that I'm happy with the way I am. I appreciate them asking me first. What of people that was given no choice and forced CI? I've met few, and some of them said that they wish they never got it but never was given a choice.

04-30-2003, 12:42 PM

Basically, you benefit from CI the most, when it is implanted inside you as early as possible. For instance, if you are a 30 year old woman, and want to be implanted, you won't have the full benefit of a CI like a 2 or 3 year old child would, because the child still is in developmental stage to start recognising sounds in their brain, etc... That is why this is a very tough subject to discuss.

Myself, I am against CI, but I do also believe in choices. The problem is that if they wait too late, they may not benefit as much from it.

radiohead · 04-30-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kuifje75
Basically, you benefit from CI the most, when it is implanted inside you as early as possible.
Myself, I am against CI, but I do also believe in choices. The problem is that if they wait too late, they may not benefit as much from it.

Your completely right. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a fact that's been documented and studied and published on, and seems to be a fact most Deaf people ignore. The brain develops neural pathways in response to sound at a very early age. After the age of 2 these pathways stop being formed. Therefore, waiting till they are older to implant them means they may not recieve as much benifit as they would if they were younger.

So why not implant them young and let them decide if they want to be Deaf or not as they get older? You can take it off and not have to wear it and be completely deaf. When I take mine off, I can't hear a thing. Why not give them full benifit of a CI and if they decide at an older age to be Deaf they can take it off, rather than forcing them to be Deaf and not be able to recieve much benifit from the CI.

If you think forcing them to be implanted is child abuse, then forcing them to be Deaf can be construed the same way. If you're all about choices, then implanting at an early age really DOES give them the full range of choices. Not vice versa- it's just a matter of logic.

Smartiesgeek · 04-30-2003, 07:55 PM

hey hey hey, heather!

I love ur points! you go girl.

~Heather~ · 04-30-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by radiohead
Your completely right. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a fact that's been documented and studied and published on, and seems to be a fact most Deaf people ignore. The brain develops neural pathways in response to sound at a very early age. After the age of 2 these pathways stop being formed. Therefore, waiting till they are older to implant them means they may not recieve as much benifit as they would if they were younger.

So why not implant them young and let them decide if they want to be Deaf or not as they get older? You can take it off and not have to wear it and be completely deaf. When I take mine off, I can't hear a thing. Why not give them full benifit of a CI and if they decide at an older age to be Deaf they can take it off, rather than forcing them to be Deaf and not be able to recieve much benifit from the CI.

If you think forcing them to be implanted is child abuse, then forcing them to be Deaf can be construed the same way. If you're all about choices, then implanting at an early age really DOES give them the full range of choices. Not vice versa- it's just a matter of logic.

Sorry for off point...I was wondering is that you Ace aka Andrew? hehe

~Heather~ · 04-30-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smartiesgeek
hey hey hey, heather!

I love ur points! you go girl.

Yeah, thanks.

radiohead · 05-01-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ~Heather~
Sorry for off point...I was wondering is that you Ace aka Andrew? hehe

Nope, never heard of him. Why?

WonderBum · 05-01-2003, 12:09 PM

I'm researching the EMR's interference around the growth of satellite technology that causes buzzing or bleeping noises. I have a concern that the growth Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR)is not suitable for CI and Hearing Aid users due to high attracation rate to the brain cells.

Such fields have changed a long way since the 1990's when a few satellite dishes were around. We are now in the 2000's and there are more dishes on almost every house. With the growth of cellular technology, EMR increases.

While such evidence is not available in this area, I wish to draw to your attention of the work of Dr Neil Cherry who pushed for such controls in the region of Canterbury in NZ.

http://www.nzine.co.nz/articles/Elec...ion/more2.html

My question here is... why are Deaf continuing to support a fast tracked Deaf sentence through such technology?

deafdyke · 05-01-2003, 11:40 PM

WORD, Radiohead! I think research has indicated that most deaf and hoh kids who grow up oral do pick up ASL as a second language. If a child is implanted then they should be taught BOTH ASL and Spoken English so they can make the choice of which worlds they want to be a part of...I know far too many people who are bitter that their parents never learned ASL and never exposed them to deaf culture.

~Heather~ · 05-02-2003, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by radiohead
Nope, never heard of him. Why?

Well theres someone I know who has similar username as yours but little different tho...so I thought it might be you or not. But thanks for responding back to me.

deafgal01 · 05-02-2003, 12:55 AM

Hm.... Why not implant the children that were born hearing and lost their hearing at an early age, and allow children born deaf to be deaf but give them hearing aids if that works (CI as a last choice if the hearing aids don't work out)? I so agree that we should be given a choice if possible. I totally appreciate that my parents waited until I was old enough (7th grade) to see if I wanted to switch to CI.

I have been raised oral and see why my parents had wanted me to grow up in the hearing world. Now they allow me the option of learning sign language and learning my deaf culture so I can find my identity within both worlds that I live in.

radiohead · 05-02-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deafgal01
Hm.... Why not implant the children that were born hearing and lost their hearing at an early age, and allow children born deaf to be deaf but give them hearing aids if that works (CI as a last choice if the hearing aids don't work out)?

That's generally what DOES happen if a child is born with a mild-moderate loss. But for severe/profound losses, a hearing aid doesn't always give them the full range of sounds for development. In that case, a CI would be better, giving them more options.

radiohead · 05-02-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ~Heather~
Well theres someone I know who has similar username as yours but little different tho...so I thought it might be you or not. But thanks for responding back to me.

De nada

Cain Marko · 05-02-2003, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by radiohead
Your completely right. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a fact that's been documented and studied and published on, and seems to be a fact most Deaf people ignore. The brain develops neural pathways in response to sound at a very early age. After the age of 2 these pathways stop being formed. Therefore, waiting till they are older to implant them means they may not recieve as much benifit as they would if they were younger.

So why not implant them young and let them decide if they want to be Deaf or not as they get older? You can take it off and not have to wear it and be completely deaf. When I take mine off, I can't hear a thing. Why not give them full benifit of a CI and if they decide at an older age to be Deaf they can take it off, rather than forcing them to be Deaf and not be able to recieve much benifit from the CI.

If you think forcing them to be implanted is child abuse, then forcing them to be Deaf can be construed the same way. If you're all about choices, then implanting at an early age really DOES give them the full range of choices. Not vice versa- it's just a matter of logic.

Good post.

Cain Marko · 05-02-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deafgal01
Hm.... Why not implant the children that were born hearing and lost their hearing at an early age, and allow children born deaf to be deaf but give them hearing aids if that works (CI as a last choice if the hearing aids don't work out)? I so agree that we should be given a choice if possible. I totally appreciate that my parents waited until I was old enough (7th grade) to see if I wanted to switch to CI.

I have been raised oral and see why my parents had wanted me to grow up in the hearing world. Now they allow me the option of learning sign language and learning my deaf culture so I can find my identity within both worlds that I live in.

To many people worry about being "accepted". Its like they cant live on their own or feel confident with what they do.

BTW, a CI is the last choice after hearing aids. Always.

Liza · 05-02-2003, 07:11 PM

I am pro choice. Great if anyone benefits from CI. Sucks if you dont. Ultimately parents have the last word on their children. I support that, despite my funny feelings regarding children being involved. I wouldnt want people to question my authority either as a parent. I have never heard of a parent who hated his or her child... just because they made them get CI. Ultimately parents get the final word, no matter what you say about it.

I have learned so much from having interactions with other folks who had CI..... before "them" I didnt have much exposure on CI. I decided to do the research myself. It takes so much dedication and training, even after the operation.

I do understand, this technology has a lot of room for improvement.... my dad nixed against having it for me, because of that. I respect his decision.

Liza · 05-02-2003, 07:13 PM

Even if a parent (likely me) doesnt decide to get a CI for their child.... that is their choice, and that doesn't mean they want anything less for their child. I hope that is acknowledged as well...

deafdyke · 05-02-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

That's generally what DOES happen if a child is born with a mild-moderate loss. But for severe/profound losses, a hearing aid doesn't always give them the full range of sounds for development. In that case, a CI would be better, giving them more options.

HUH? I've NEVER heard of someone being implanted who has a mild-moderate loss. I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great) As virtually everyone knows, CI is covered by insurance...hearing aids aren't covered by insurance. There is a reason for that, and that's b/c only a small percentage of deafies can benifit from CI. More can benifit from hearing aids.

Cain Marko · 05-03-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liza
I am pro choice. Great if anyone benefits from CI. Sucks if you dont. Ultimately parents have the last word on their children. I support that, despite my funny feelings regarding children being involved. I wouldnt want people to question my authority either as a parent. I have never heard of a parent who hated his or her child... just because they made them get CI. Ultimately parents get the final word, no matter what you say about it.

I have learned so much from having interactions with other folks who had CI..... before "them" I didnt have much exposure on CI. I decided to do the research myself. It takes so much dedication and training, even after the operation.

I do understand, this technology has a lot of room for improvement.... my dad nixed against having it for me, because of that. I respect his decision.

I agree with everything you say. I appreciate the clear headed/open minded thinking on CI's. Its a welcome change from others that generally post on CI hearing aids.

radiohead · 05-03-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deafdyke
HUH? I've NEVER heard of someone being implanted who has a mild-moderate loss. I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great) As virtually everyone knows, CI is covered by insurance...hearing aids aren't covered by insurance. There is a reason for that, and that's b/c only a small percentage of deafies can benifit from CI. More can benifit from hearing aids.

No, I meant that for children with a mild/moderate loss, hearing aids are used instead of a CI, but for severe/profound loss a CI is recommended instead of hearing aids.

"I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great)"

Wrong. Anyone with a 70dB loss or greater and with a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss. Those are the guidelines set by the FDA, but sometimes people with even more hearing than that are implanted outside of the guidelines, by signing a special FDA waiver, if there is reason enough for them to be implanted. Reasons can be because of ossification of the cochlear due to meningitis or people with Auditory Neuropathy sometimes have a loss of 20dB or less, but speech discrimination is terrible and are implanted to help stabilize their hearing.

You can find all this information and more on most cochlear implant informational websites and also on the FDA site.

deafdyke · 05-03-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss.

Would that be aided or unaided? I was under the impression that only those who didn't get all that much benifit from aids (those that didn't have any residual hearing) were the only ones eligable. Have they changed eligbilty requirements for CI? I'm surprised as I would have thought that the insurance companies would have fought that tooth and nail. The reason why they cover CI is b/c only a very small percentage of deaf people can benifit from it. That way they don't have to pay out millions of dollars in insurance claims. A big reason why they don't cover hearing aids is b/c lots of people can benifit from aids.
Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)

radiohead · 05-03-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deafdyke
Would that be aided or unaided? I was under the impression that only those who didn't get all that much benifit from aids (those that didn't have any residual hearing) were the only ones eligable. Have they changed eligbilty requirements for CI? I'm surprised as I would have thought that the insurance companies would have fought that tooth and nail. The reason why they cover CI is b/c only a very small percentage of deaf people can benifit from it. That way they don't have to pay out millions of dollars in insurance claims. A big reason why they don't cover hearing aids is b/c lots of people can benifit from aids.
Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)

That would be aided. 70dB loss aided and a 40% or less speech discrimination aided. You're right, it's not for conductive loss, but for sensoneural loss, which is the most common form of hearing loss.

Insurance companies have fought it tooth and nail, but the results have been too good for them to deny. The benifit to the person is greater than the cost and a cochlear implant is classifies as a prothesis (like an artificial arm or leg) when filing for an insurance claim. It has nothing to do with how many people would benifit from it, it has to do with how it works and how it is classified. A CI is not a hearing aid- it's a prosthetic electro-medical device. That's why they cover it, not because "only a small percentage of Deaf people can benifit from it."

In certain cases of medical necessity, hearing aids are covered by insurance. Rarely, but it does happen. With CI's it's rare that they are turned down.

Boult · 05-04-2003, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by radiohead
No, I meant that for children with a mild/moderate loss, hearing aids are used instead of a CI, but for severe/profound loss a CI is recommended instead of hearing aids.

"I was under the impression that only a very small percentage of people with severe/profound losses qualified as "deaf enough" (either zero residual hearing or their residual hearing with hearing aids isn't that great)"

Wrong. Anyone with a 70dB loss or greater and with a speech discrimination score of 40% or less is considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. It's not a "small percentage," it's pretty much anyone who has a severe/profound loss. Those are the guidelines set by the FDA, but sometimes people with even more hearing than that are implanted outside of the guidelines, by signing a special FDA waiver, if there is reason enough for them to be implanted. Reasons can be because of ossification of the cochlear due to meningitis or people with Auditory Neuropathy sometimes have a loss of 20dB or less, but speech discrimination is terrible and are implanted to help stabilize their hearing.

You can find all this information and more on most cochlear implant informational websites and also on the FDA site.

I have said this many time in DN to CSN or anyone regarding 70db loss.. they don't believe me! :shrug:

Boult · 05-04-2003, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by radiohead
That would be aided. 70dB loss aided and a 40% or less speech discrimination aided. You're right, it's not for conductive loss, but for sensoneural loss, which is the most common form of hearing loss.

Insurance companies have fought it tooth and nail, but the results have been too good for them to deny. The benifit to the person is greater than the cost and a cochlear implant is classifies as a prothesis (like an artificial arm or leg) when filing for an insurance claim. It has nothing to do with how many people would benifit from it, it has to do with how it works and how it is classified. A CI is not a hearing aid- it's a prosthetic electro-medical device. That's why they cover it, not because "only a small percentage of Deaf people can benifit from it."

In certain cases of medical necessity, hearing aids are covered by insurance. Rarely, but it does happen. With CI's it's rare that they are turned down.

That's right..

Boult · 05-04-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Oh, and not everyone with a severe-profound loss is eligable for CI. I actually have a severe loss (70 dcb) but I am not eligible for CI b/c I have a conductive loss (absent/ very narrow ear canals, absent eardrums and fused middle ear bones)

you don't need any of this to qualify for CI! because CI bypasses those parts.. (outer and middle) the only thing it needs is cochlea itself which is inner ear!

you have 70db loss but need to be bilateral sensioneural hearing loss looks like yours is not bilateral then you won't qualify.

again, I have posted several links to requirements for everyone to check over at DN, so go there and do a search!

Amby · 05-04-2003, 09:08 AM

I myself would let my child make the decision, allow them to chart the cons and pros.
As in other terms, i wouldn't implant it when its a baby, I would let it grow up do be deaf and proud.. or.. well if its what they desire, then okay.

04-29-2003, 11:31 PM	#1 (permalink)
Smartiesgeek Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Hammond, Indiana Posts: 965	cochlear implants I am totally against the idea of cochlear implants. Babies should not be implanted in when they are baby. hearing parents just are so stupid, no offend. So, Let them to grow up and see if they want any of this, then it will be okay, than put it in the baby's head. it is just so touche to see that, stupid HEARING PARENTS who did this. Also, I dont like when the people are trying to making it more and killing more people if they are having a problem with cochlear implants. I think it is unnecessary to create this, dont ya all agree with me? if you was a hearing kid all since you was born and lost ur hearing then, u can have the cochlear implants if u want, but if you're deaf and forced to have a cochlear implants. Thats make me pissed off. If you are a deaf kid who have a cochlear implants, speak it up for yourself. Dont be a passive. Just stand up for yourself to say no to ur parents.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-30-2003, 06:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Cain Marko Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: MN Posts: 230	It bothers you to think that some people actually like their implant...doesnt it? Even kids.

04-30-2003, 12:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
Scatterwater Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 31	Ohh I agree about not forcing CI, basically I'm anti-CI BUT i do believe in "choices". I don't like the idea of forcing a child to get CI. What should be done is like wait until they're older and able to decide and know what CI is and the pro and cons. My parents asked me if I wanted CI when I was in early teens and I firmly said no and that I'm happy with the way I am. I appreciate them asking me first. What of people that was given no choice and forced CI? I've met few, and some of them said that they wish they never got it but never was given a choice.

04-30-2003, 12:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
kuifje75 Guest Posts: n/a	Basically, you benefit from CI the most, when it is implanted inside you as early as possible. For instance, if you are a 30 year old woman, and want to be implanted, you won't have the full benefit of a CI like a 2 or 3 year old child would, because the child still is in developmental stage to start recognising sounds in their brain, etc... That is why this is a very tough subject to discuss. Myself, I am against CI, but I do also believe in choices. The problem is that if they wait too late, they may not benefit as much from it.

04-30-2003, 07:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
Smartiesgeek Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Hammond, Indiana Posts: 965	hey hey hey, heather! I love ur points! you go girl.

05-01-2003, 12:09 PM	#12 (permalink)
WonderBum Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 615	I'm researching the EMR's interference around the growth of satellite technology that causes buzzing or bleeping noises. I have a concern that the growth Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR)is not suitable for CI and Hearing Aid users due to high attracation rate to the brain cells. Such fields have changed a long way since the 1990's when a few satellite dishes were around. We are now in the 2000's and there are more dishes on almost every house. With the growth of cellular technology, EMR increases. While such evidence is not available in this area, I wish to draw to your attention of the work of Dr Neil Cherry who pushed for such controls in the region of Canterbury in NZ. http://www.nzine.co.nz/articles/Elec...ion/more2.html My question here is... why are Deaf continuing to support a fast tracked Deaf sentence through such technology?

05-01-2003, 11:40 PM	#13 (permalink)
deafdyke Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Trebekistan Posts: 13,088	WORD, Radiohead! I think research has indicated that most deaf and hoh kids who grow up oral do pick up ASL as a second language. If a child is implanted then they should be taught BOTH ASL and Spoken English so they can make the choice of which worlds they want to be a part of...I know far too many people who are bitter that their parents never learned ASL and never exposed them to deaf culture.

05-02-2003, 12:55 AM	#15 (permalink)
deafgal01 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Lost in the woods of Indiana Posts: 203	Hm.... Why not implant the children that were born hearing and lost their hearing at an early age, and allow children born deaf to be deaf but give them hearing aids if that works (CI as a last choice if the hearing aids don't work out)? I so agree that we should be given a choice if possible. I totally appreciate that my parents waited until I was old enough (7th grade) to see if I wanted to switch to CI. I have been raised oral and see why my parents had wanted me to grow up in the hearing world. Now they allow me the option of learning sign language and learning my deaf culture so I can find my identity within both worlds that I live in.

05-02-2003, 07:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
Liza Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 4,367 Blog Entries: 2	I am pro choice. Great if anyone benefits from CI. Sucks if you dont. Ultimately parents have the last word on their children. I support that, despite my funny feelings regarding children being involved. I wouldnt want people to question my authority either as a parent. I have never heard of a parent who hated his or her child... just because they made them get CI. Ultimately parents get the final word, no matter what you say about it. I have learned so much from having interactions with other folks who had CI..... before "them" I didnt have much exposure on CI. I decided to do the research myself. It takes so much dedication and training, even after the operation. I do understand, this technology has a lot of room for improvement.... my dad nixed against having it for me, because of that. I respect his decision.

05-02-2003, 07:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
Liza Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 4,367 Blog Entries: 2	Even if a parent (likely me) doesnt decide to get a CI for their child.... that is their choice, and that doesn't mean they want anything less for their child. I hope that is acknowledged as well...

05-04-2003, 09:08 AM	#30 (permalink)
Amby Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New York Posts: 121	I myself would let my child make the decision, allow them to chart the cons and pros. As in other terms, i wouldn't implant it when its a baby, I would let it grow up do be deaf and proud.. or.. well if its what they desire, then okay.