Whoa! - Page 2

deafbajagal · 07-22-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechBill

The story is too far fetched to be true.

.

Are you calling me a liar?

**RedheadGrrl** · 07-22-2008, 11:35 PM

Audiologist is wrong for what she did!! She is not making any decision for the little girl who is NOT her kid!! Its up to the mother. If the mother wasnt sure about CI then respect her and be patience till maybe she changes her mind..

I feel bad for the mother..

Bebonang · 07-22-2008, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

I just found out about something that had happened very recently in my hometown. A mother very recently found out her two year old daughter is deaf. She's overwhelmed with all of the information about deafness, communication philosophies, etc. Her audiologist discussed getting a CI. The mother said she wanted to wait until she had time to sort through all of the information first (and to have time for her shock to sink in).

The audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery anyway. She insisted that if the mother puts off the CI, then it may be "too late" for the child. Now the mother feels pressured to proceed with the CI surgery.

What's wrong with this picture?

Indeed, there is something wrong with this picture. It is suppose to be decision between the doctor and the patient. Beside the doctor need the consent from the mother to go ahead with the CI surgery like signing on the form to agree upon. The audiologist is doing the very wrong to go ahead and make plan to have the child get CI without the consent of the mother. If the audiologist sign the form pretending to be the mother of the child which is way far out of this world and she might as well be in the mental institution to have her head check on why she would do a thing like that. Beside it is against the medical law to go ahead without the knowledge of the child's parent. The mother have a right to think and wait for the right time and to get over her shock of finding out about her child's deafness. It is her decision, not the audiologist.

jillio · 07-22-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

I called the audiologist just a few moments ago because I wanted a straight answer. Apparently she does this (call for an appointment to meet with the surgeon and even will schedule the surgery because the surgeon and her are great friends) for a lot of parents to help them with the "transition process." This person is claimed to be one of the most successful audiologists (who is also a speech pathologist) in the state. She has a lot of recognition for her work...and is highly praised by the field. Oh, boy.

Of course she is highly praised by the field. She is nothing more than a salesperson, and she is probably topping the charts with tactics like these. Sounds like there might be some financial incentive offered for referrals by her friend the doctor. In which case, he is acting not just unethically, but illegally.
This action is totally unethical. It has absolutely nothing to do with trasitioning. It is making a decision for a client, that is unacceptable. She needs to be reported to the licensing board, and the doctor that is collaborating with her on this little scheme needs to be reported to the state medical board. In fact, get me their names, and I'll freakin' report them both myself!

R2D2 · 07-22-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

The parent is a friend of a friend, so she gave written consent for the audiologist to speak with me. And unfortunately, it is true what I've posted. It is outrageous, and it does seem far-fetched. What the audiologist has scheduled is the initial part of the whole, long process of getting the child approved for a CI. Thenshe told the mother that she needs to go to the appointment. This practice is unethical and by doing so, she's overstepping the boundaries.

It makes me very angry that a person in this field would abuse her "power." She should give her advice to the parent...and leave it to the parents to make the next step of what they think is the best.

The mother and I both are going to meet with her this week.

Yes, I agree with you. The way the audiologist has gone about this without the parent's consent sounds very unethical and unprofessional.

I hope you can make notes from our own experiences when you go to meet her. i.e. dates should only be arranged by the surgeon, when candidacy has been established by surgeon, when consent forms signed and risks read and understood. I think in my case, it took about 6 weeks from the time I signed the consent form before they contacted me with a date in a further 6 weeks. So plenty of time to think about things!

Good luck with your meeting and let us know how it goes.

TechBill · 07-23-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Are you calling me a liar?

Nope just saying the story is too far fetched. Are you a liar?

.

deafbajagal · 07-23-2008, 02:45 AM

I'm not a liar. Saying the story is "too far fetched" implies that the story is untrue, thus drawing the conclusion that the OP (which in this case would be me) is lying.

To tell you the truth, I wish it was an untrue story.

**deafskeptic** · 07-23-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bebonang

Indeed, there is something wrong with this picture. It is suppose to be decision between the doctor and the patient. Beside the doctor need the consent from the mother to go ahead with the CI surgery like signing on the form to agree upon. The audiologist is doing the very wrong to go ahead and make plan to have the child get CI without the consent of the mother. If the audiologist sign the form pretending to be the mother of the child which is way far out of this world and she might as well be in the mental institution to have her head check on why she would do a thing like that. Beside it is against the medical law to go ahead without the knowledge of the child's parent. The mother have a right to think and wait for the right time and to get over her shock of finding out about her child's deafness. It is her decision, not the audiologist.

Agreed. I didn't have anything like that happen to me though my father tried to cancel my surgery once but both my audie and my doctor have been nothing less than professional; this audie doesn't sound professional.

Miss-Delectable · 07-23-2008, 04:01 AM

I hope this Audie will learn her lesson once you've showed up supporting this poor mother.

Makes me sick to hear stories of hearie pushing those sort of technology on kids when the parents feel unsure, and to top on that with no ASL comment.

Oceanbreeze · 07-23-2008, 04:26 AM

[QUOTE=deafbajagal;1042130]And this deaf girl has a lot of other medical problems, not just deafness. She's undergone several medical treatments that includes a head shunt.

Uh..do we implant children with head shunts?[/QUOTE]

Good question! Unfortunately, I can't answer you, but my instinct tells me no, because hydrocephalus (fluid on the brain, which the shunt is alleviating), can cause an increased risk for meningitis.

I developed hydrocephalus at just a few days old and was shunted at 3 weeks of age. I also contracted bacterial meningitis when I was 8 mos old. I recovered with my hearing intact, but it is NOT something you wanna mess with! I'm absolutely appalled that the audi would arbitrarily schedule the CI evaluation against the parents wishes and without first consulting a neurosurgeon !

deafdyke · 07-23-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

The mother and I both are going to meet with her this week.

EXCELLENT!!! GOOD!!! And I have to admit, I do believe you bajagirl......I mean there's a lot of ookyness about Big Pharm and doctors....it doesn't surprise me that something like this would happen.
Especially since healthcare in our country is SO damn for profit......except for the military and Medicaid, everything else is for profit. They prolly reached most of the "obviously need it" canidates a few years ago, so now they are fudging on canidacy requirements etc, so that the CI companies can make more money.

**Liebling:-)))** · 07-23-2008, 04:51 AM

*shake my head sigh* this is an old news...

It's not first time, I learn that some audiologists & doctors are an ignorants... I received the stories like that before from real life situation and Forums.

web730 · 07-23-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

The parent is a friend of a friend, so she gave written consent for the audiologist to speak with me. And unfortunately, it is true what I've posted. It is outrageous, and it does seem far-fetched. What the audiologist has scheduled is the initial part of the whole, long process of getting the child approved for a CI. Thenshe told the mother that she needs to go to the appointment. This practice is unethical and by doing so, she's overstepping the boundaries.

It makes me very angry that a person in this field would abuse her "power." She should give her advice to the parent...and leave it to the parents to make the next step of what they think is the best.

The mother and I both are going to meet with her this week.

Yep, so shame of their being so unethical! Let us know what results soon.

**Phillips** · 07-23-2008, 06:14 AM

wow Jeez..

Grummer · 07-23-2008, 07:53 AM

i suspect they would have a very different idea of what ethical means, its like 'the child needs it soon for the langauage (speech) acquisition', and all rubbish, but the same old story remains, as all the 'real' deaf people knows all too well, hearing people dont consider language is as important as learning to speak and hear. Indeed, all the restructuring associated with how to apply cochlear implants have brought back a very strong medical backings for audism, which leads to the second wave of oralilsm, (first died a slowle death from 1970s when Sign language was first proven as a language in the 1960's read about Stokoe)
SO back to the present, regarded to Bajagals highlighting of this outright obvious unethical action took place, it was quite unbelieviable given to the lengths of preparation for this procedure of this scale of complexity, not only that the scale of committment required to actually reap (if any) real benefit of using CI. To me, i had a strong exposure to oralism - i didn't like it much but i was too busy to appease everybody in my childhood and right through to even as an adult, looking back ,it was damn cruel. Moreso it is quite hard to believe that within my life time, there was body aids, bte, radio aids, and countless of failure (mine wasnt as big failure as some but i do have had alot sweep under the carpet i can tell you that, also that appearances are only voice-deep) but to the point, its just hard to believe hearing people never ever listen to us nor the parents (or to the parents). When is this kind iof ignorance is going to stop? or be halted for an alternative considerations? i thought they are doing that Now?!, Nope.
Everyone involved should to be given light in how a more humane (yes i said this word - humane!) approach is yet to be fully considered and committed?? its very sad.
you go girl bajagal, look after them and i bid you all best wishes. Dreadful rash action if really a pressured to try out hearing and speech as the only solution, well damn it compromise, use hearing aids for starters, and darn it again, using sign language is so far more forgiving for the wee child's need of communication. damn it damn it it just so im lost for words

**Angel** · 07-23-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedheadGrrl

For CAT/MRI, the ENT wants to make sure there is fluid in the cochlea that they can put the wire go thru without any trouble. If its no fluid then it will be very difficult. Also they want to see if theres cochlea in the ear. Some deaf people born without cochlea. So thats why they need to get CAT/MRI

As for blood test, they need what type if need for tranfusion, in case.

As for the shot, we need to get vaccine to prevent to get menitigtis (SP)

Ah I got it now.

Reddie.

**RedheadGrrl** · 07-23-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Ah I got it now.

Reddie.

Your welcome.

Angel

jillio · 07-23-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

I'm not a liar. Saying the story is "too far fetched" implies that the story is untrue, thus drawing the conclusion that the OP (which in this case would be me) is lying.

To tell you the truth, I wish it was an untrue story.

Unfortuantely, it is not untrue. And to discount such an occurrance based on the fact that one simply has difficulty believing that anyone could be so unethical is to allow the behavior to continue. I'm glad that you and the mother are meeting with this audi. Do what you can to educate the poor, ignorant woman!

john57 · 07-23-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

The parent is a friend of a friend, so she gave written consent for the audiologist to speak with me. And unfortunately, it is true what I've posted. It is outrageous, and it does seem far-fetched. What the audiologist has scheduled is the initial part of the whole, long process of getting the child approved for a CI. Thenshe told the mother that she needs to go to the appointment. This practice is unethical and by doing so, she's overstepping the boundaries.

It makes me very angry that a person in this field would abuse her "power." She should give her advice to the parent...and leave it to the parents to make the next step of what they think is the best.

The mother and I both are going to meet with her this week.

So the audiologist scheduled the initial part not the surgery part of long process of getting the child approved for CI as you were saying.

David · 07-23-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechBill

Nope just saying the story is too far fetched. Are you a liar?

.

She doesn't lie. Don't insult her again.

deafbajagal · 07-23-2008, 06:49 PM

It's okay, DD3.

Some people are going to choose to believe it and some will not. Really doesn't make a difference to me.

Grummer · 07-23-2008, 07:00 PM

Yeah she doesnt lie. go search and look at her other posts, its all consisent.

also adding to my previous post up above, is that, often CI receivers tend not to get the whole deal is weird like ti doesnt matter if the child gets the full package of speech training and dedication or not, I mean whan t i say not, like often CIers just get the surgery but the commitment cease after this, for I suspect it has a lot to do with teachers being bewildered with just how difficult is to implement actual oralism, I DONT CARE HOW "ADVANCED" their new DO_DAND gizmo equipment they have and use, it doesnt alway translate from theory to practice as well as they'd like to believe (euqipment i mean is the speech training devices they might use today - hell i dont know what they look like, but i have a hunch it isnt much different from the past except its likely to be digital than analog all with the 'idea' to with the CI processors.... anyway.....
some one could tell me if im wrong? or is this subject to opinions? but my stance remains that they insist implants because like the 'team' likes to be paid well, even they say its 'free' to the implantees (at least in NZ it is), but I still dont buy this as I feel its just a clever ploy to maximise the assilimation,. It's all part of the self-serving professionals intentions to ensure they have a nice job going with a nice income to satisfy themselves they don't really care how hard is it going to be for d/Deaf individuals, after all we all play the sick role, we all learn it quick, and play that role well, and we all know if we conform to the role well we'd get a better help and more assistence to make it easier for us but it doesnt always go this way, you get useless teachers, certain incompatiabilty problems, tireness from actual oralist training on top of ordinary schooling.

Someone else said earlier in this thread they many CI children get to received the operation then failures unfolds as the support is all muddled and cease away..... mainly what they (who ever posted the reply in here) is likely to be pointing out that its all boils down to profit with the common mindset through out 'deaf industry in deaf education" that follows the lines like; "you received the implant?, good, NEXT!".
They forget, and forget, even if they really really did 'well' they forget the drain and torturious effort a deaf child endures...its no surprise the deaf community objects to it. althought i have to admit yes it's getting accepted, but i still dont buy it - i mean like Of Course the Implant teams/hospitals/educators are working towards this acceptance they have long planned this transistion to be smooth as possible as moving from hearing aids to cochlear implants on all the youngest as possible, Hearing aids are now seem to tend to be 'market solution' for those are late deafen, or not wishing to phase out from the BTE mode of aided-hearing, or just those prefer external aids- that is without surgery. There is a couple of deaf adults I do know locally, which claims to be 'Deaf' but they aren't really, just a political namesake for pandering their professional status (as cousellors) they have recently received implants and they are very oral, more so than me, (while i have a more rebelious attitude I dislike authority). I can see they choose to have it as they have placed their BELIEF into the value of hearing more, which it is partly true implants 'makes you hear more, even though the sounds is different etc' after all they want to be more Oral.
I disapprove the fact that while they tell everybody else in the Deaf community that they are Deaf, yet they dont mix with deaf, and have a slight stand-offish body language and attitudes. All the while even thought they do ' help d/Deaf to understand relationships and communication better I mean interaction to get on with people and being assertive sort of way not so much the language aspect.
That is their choice, they are adults making their own decisions -Fine, but i myself dissapprove of them claiming to be Deaf where this is far from the truth. Sorry that was off-topic im talking as I have thought darn it it happens anyway, Back to the thread, little children dont have this opinions, experience, to know what they want, only if parents go by their hunches first.
A full range of options should have been laid on the table, this has been said frequently by many ADers in here. so Im sayig nothing new but yeah we're fighting a losing battle. Technology always wins, and the owners of technology (i dont mean the wearers, i meant the makers and sellers).

**Cheri** · 07-23-2008, 07:15 PM

I cannot believe that the audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery, what the heck was she thinking?! Don't they exam the external, middle, and inner ear for signs of infection, or vaccines to prevent meningitis before the surgery? She is putting this child in a dangerous situation. If I were the mother of that little girl, I would had report her.

Pinky · 07-23-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I cannot believe that the audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery, what the heck was she thinking?! Don't they exam the external, middle, and inner ear for signs of infection, or vaccines to prevent meningitis before the surgery? She is putting this child in a dangerous situation. If I were the mother of that little girl, I would had report her.

Yes, It's true! I can't believe that audiologist didn't put a vaccine before surgery. It's so ridiculous! The mother should to fill out the lawsuit to sue on audiologist. I think audiologist don't have a license for ENT! Geez!

My cousin has 2 CI. He did put vaccine before surgery. He did well.

rick48 · 07-23-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john57

So the audiologist scheduled the initial part not the surgery part of long process of getting the child approved for CI as you were saying.

Yep, that's what appears to have happened but that is not stopping people from continuing to post that that audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery.

**shel90** · 07-23-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Yep, that's what appears to have happened but that is not stopping people from continuing to post that that audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery.

Were u there?

Of course, u would defend anyone in the CI industry. They are your Gods and of course, they dont do any wrong in your eyes.

It is funny since that the OP has always gave u support in the other threads but u are quick to degrade her thread and practically accuse her of a liar.

jillio · 07-23-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Yep, that's what appears to have happened but that is not stopping people from continuing to post that that audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery.

Whether it was for surgery, for pre-surgical workup, or for consultation, the audiologist had no right to schedule the appointment without the parents express permission to do so. That is the point.

You're so big on a parent's rights to implant. A parent also has the right to take any amount of time they choose before making a decision. An audiologist does not have the right to make the decision for the parent.

Oceanbreeze · 07-23-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Yep, that's what appears to have happened but that is not stopping people from continuing to post that that audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery.

I made an error in what I posted, but I still think the audi overstepped herself. This child appears to have a lot of extrordinary medical issues, which needs to be taken into consideration. It sounds like this audi is putting more importance on this child's speech instead of the other medical concerns.

That's alarming! I'm NOT anti CI, but I have a shunt. I know what's involved. Giving that a meningitis risk already exists with implantation, I would proceed VERY cautiously in implanting this child!

**shel90** · 07-23-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

I made an error in what I posted, but I still think the audi overstepped herself. This child appears to have a lot of extrordinary medical issues, which needs to be taken into consideration. It sounds like this audi is putting more importance on this child's speech instead of the other medical concerns.

That's alarming! I'm NOT anti CI, but I have a shunt. I know what's involved. Giving that a meningitis risk already exists with implantation, I would proceed VERY cautiously in implanting this child!

Hey, u are entitled to your feelings. Some people just dont give a damn...being "hearinng' is all what matters to them.

jillio · 07-23-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Hey, u are entitled to your feelings. Some people just dont give a damn...being "hearinng' is all what matters to them.

Bingo.

07-23-2008, 04:01 AM	#39 (permalink)
Miss-Delectable V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,174 Blog Entries: 3	I hope this Audie will learn her lesson once you've showed up supporting this poor mother. Makes me sick to hear stories of hearie pushing those sort of technology on kids when the parents feel unsure, and to top on that with no ASL comment. __________________ "Walking with a friend in the dark is better than walking alone in the light." - Helen Keller

07-23-2008, 04:26 AM	#40 (permalink)
Oceanbreeze Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: S. FL Posts: 9,967	[QUOTE=deafbajagal;1042130]And this deaf girl has a lot of other medical problems, not just deafness. She's undergone several medical treatments that includes a head shunt. Uh..do we implant children with head shunts?[/QUOTE] Good question! Unfortunately, I can't answer you, but my instinct tells me no, because hydrocephalus (fluid on the brain, which the shunt is alleviating), can cause an increased risk for meningitis. I developed hydrocephalus at just a few days old and was shunted at 3 weeks of age. I also contracted bacterial meningitis when I was 8 mos old. I recovered with my hearing intact, but it is NOT something you wanna mess with! I'm absolutely appalled that the audi would arbitrarily schedule the CI evaluation against the parents wishes and without first consulting a neurosurgeon ! __________________ "There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living." Last edited by Oceanbreeze; 07-23-2008 at 08:43 AM.

07-23-2008, 04:51 AM	#42 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Sussi 7.7.86 - 18.6.09 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 31,038	shake my head sigh this is an old news... It's not first time, I learn that some audiologists & doctors are an ignorants... I received the stories like that before from real life situation and Forums. __________________

07-23-2008, 06:14 AM	#44 (permalink)
Phillips Lets ride horses! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Spaceship Posts: 11,170	wow Jeez.. __________________ My journal! http://poochie21.blogspot.com/ *Enjoy life today, Yesterday has past and Tomorrow may never come.*

07-23-2008, 07:53 AM	#45 (permalink)
Grummer Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In the Batcave Posts: 9,528	i suspect they would have a very different idea of what ethical means, its like 'the child needs it soon for the langauage (speech) acquisition', and all rubbish, but the same old story remains, as all the 'real' deaf people knows all too well, hearing people dont consider language is as important as learning to speak and hear. Indeed, all the restructuring associated with how to apply cochlear implants have brought back a very strong medical backings for audism, which leads to the second wave of oralilsm, (first died a slowle death from 1970s when Sign language was first proven as a language in the 1960's read about Stokoe) SO back to the present, regarded to Bajagals highlighting of this outright obvious unethical action took place, it was quite unbelieviable given to the lengths of preparation for this procedure of this scale of complexity, not only that the scale of committment required to actually reap (if any) real benefit of using CI. To me, i had a strong exposure to oralism - i didn't like it much but i was too busy to appease everybody in my childhood and right through to even as an adult, looking back ,it was damn cruel. Moreso it is quite hard to believe that within my life time, there was body aids, bte, radio aids, and countless of failure (mine wasnt as big failure as some but i do have had alot sweep under the carpet i can tell you that, also that appearances are only voice-deep) but to the point, its just hard to believe hearing people never ever listen to us nor the parents (or to the parents). When is this kind iof ignorance is going to stop? or be halted for an alternative considerations? i thought they are doing that Now?!, Nope. Everyone involved should to be given light in how a more humane (yes i said this word - humane!) approach is yet to be fully considered and committed?? its very sad. you go girl bajagal, look after them and i bid you all best wishes. Dreadful rash action if really a pressured to try out hearing and speech as the only solution, well damn it compromise, use hearing aids for starters, and darn it again, using sign language is so far more forgiving for the wee child's need of communication. damn it damn it it just so im lost for words __________________ "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." Albert Einstein

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

07-22-2008, 11:35 PM	#32 (permalink)
RedheadGrrl Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,827	Audiologist is wrong for what she did!! She is not making any decision for the little girl who is NOT her kid!! Its up to the mother. If the mother wasnt sure about CI then respect her and be patience till maybe she changes her mind.. I feel bad for the mother..

07-23-2008, 02:45 AM	#37 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	I'm not a liar. Saying the story is "too far fetched" implies that the story is untrue, thus drawing the conclusion that the OP (which in this case would be me) is lying. To tell you the truth, I wish it was an untrue story.

07-23-2008, 06:49 PM	#51 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	It's okay, DD3. Some people are going to choose to believe it and some will not. Really doesn't make a difference to me.

07-23-2008, 07:00 PM	#52 (permalink)
Grummer Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In the Batcave Posts: 9,528	Yeah she doesnt lie. go search and look at her other posts, its all consisent. also adding to my previous post up above, is that, often CI receivers tend not to get the whole deal is weird like ti doesnt matter if the child gets the full package of speech training and dedication or not, I mean whan t i say not, like often CIers just get the surgery but the commitment cease after this, for I suspect it has a lot to do with teachers being bewildered with just how difficult is to implement actual oralism, I DONT CARE HOW "ADVANCED" their new DO_DAND gizmo equipment they have and use, it doesnt alway translate from theory to practice as well as they'd like to believe (euqipment i mean is the speech training devices they might use today - hell i dont know what they look like, but i have a hunch it isnt much different from the past except its likely to be digital than analog all with the 'idea' to with the CI processors.... anyway..... some one could tell me if im wrong? or is this subject to opinions? but my stance remains that they insist implants because like the 'team' likes to be paid well, even they say its 'free' to the implantees (at least in NZ it is), but I still dont buy this as I feel its just a clever ploy to maximise the assilimation,. It's all part of the self-serving professionals intentions to ensure they have a nice job going with a nice income to satisfy themselves they don't really care how hard is it going to be for d/Deaf individuals, after all we all play the sick role, we all learn it quick, and play that role well, and we all know if we conform to the role well we'd get a better help and more assistence to make it easier for us but it doesnt always go this way, you get useless teachers, certain incompatiabilty problems, tireness from actual oralist training on top of ordinary schooling. Someone else said earlier in this thread they many CI children get to received the operation then failures unfolds as the support is all muddled and cease away..... mainly what they (who ever posted the reply in here) is likely to be pointing out that its all boils down to profit with the common mindset through out 'deaf industry in deaf education" that follows the lines like; "you received the implant?, good, NEXT!". They forget, and forget, even if they really really did 'well' they forget the drain and torturious effort a deaf child endures...its no surprise the deaf community objects to it. althought i have to admit yes it's getting accepted, but i still dont buy it - i mean like Of Course the Implant teams/hospitals/educators are working towards this acceptance they have long planned this transistion to be smooth as possible as moving from hearing aids to cochlear implants on all the youngest as possible, Hearing aids are now seem to tend to be 'market solution' for those are late deafen, or not wishing to phase out from the BTE mode of aided-hearing, or just those prefer external aids- that is without surgery. There is a couple of deaf adults I do know locally, which claims to be 'Deaf' but they aren't really, just a political namesake for pandering their professional status (as cousellors) they have recently received implants and they are very oral, more so than me, (while i have a more rebelious attitude I dislike authority). I can see they choose to have it as they have placed their BELIEF into the value of hearing more, which it is partly true implants 'makes you hear more, even though the sounds is different etc' after all they want to be more Oral. I disapprove the fact that while they tell everybody else in the Deaf community that they are Deaf, yet they dont mix with deaf, and have a slight stand-offish body language and attitudes. All the while even thought they do ' help d/Deaf to understand relationships and communication better I mean interaction to get on with people and being assertive sort of way not so much the language aspect. That is their choice, they are adults making their own decisions -Fine, but i myself dissapprove of them claiming to be Deaf where this is far from the truth. Sorry that was off-topic im talking as I have thought darn it it happens anyway, Back to the thread, little children dont have this opinions, experience, to know what they want, only if parents go by their hunches first. A full range of options should have been laid on the table, this has been said frequently by many ADers in here. so Im sayig nothing new but yeah we're fighting a losing battle. Technology always wins, and the owners of technology (i dont mean the wearers, i meant the makers and sellers). __________________ "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." Albert Einstein

07-23-2008, 07:15 PM	#53 (permalink)
Cheri Prayers for my dad. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 22,819	I cannot believe that the audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery, what the heck was she thinking?! Don't they exam the external, middle, and inner ear for signs of infection, or vaccines to prevent meningitis before the surgery? She is putting this child in a dangerous situation. If I were the mother of that little girl, I would had report her. __________________ Avoid being a victim of a stroke, a stroke can happen to anyone at anytime. You will never know how devastating this could be until you had live through it. It affects everybody. So Support Stroke Awareness to find a cure and hope.

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