Feelings on how a Deaf child should be taught

rick48 - Excellent posts! :dance2:
 
You can't even see the perspective of NAD in regards to early implantation? I think it is a rather conservative, but definitely well thought out and reasonable position. By implanting a child before they can be involved in the decision you are permantely changing THEIR body without their consent. I know you (general you) are their parent, but why do you (again, general you) have the right to put a child through an invasive surgery in a situation that is obviously not life threatening? Especially when there are so many other non-surgical options available.

A parent is supposed to be a steward over a child's body until they are mature enough to make their own decisions, but often in America children are viewed as property that parents can do with as they wish. (Sorry, that last bit is more about my feeling on America and our tolerence of child hitting and other childhood issues than CI's specifically)

Oh, and Rick, would your chapter of AG Bell welcomed me, really? When I communicate with my daughter we are voice-off most of the time. That was their problem with us. I had a "friend" who was highly involved with AG Bell, and they invited us to an activity. We were having a good time, when she came up to us and said that "all the signing was making some of the other parents uncomfortable" so could we "at least voice some", especially when just my husband and I were chatting. I said no, and we left.
 
Last edited:
faire_jour said:
You can't even see the perspective of NAD in regards to early implantation? I think it is a rather conservative, but definitely well thought out and reasonable position. By implanting a child before they can be involved in the decision you are permantely changing THEIR body without their consent. I know you (general you) are their parent, but why doyou (again, general you) have the right to put a child through an invasive surgery in a situation that is obviously not life threatening? Especially when there are so many other non-surgical options available.

A parent is supposed to be a steward over a child's body until they are mature enough to make their own decisions, but often in America children are viewed as property that parents can do with as they wish. (Sorry, that last bit is more about my feeling on America and our tolerence of child hitting and other childhood issues than CI's specifically)

Oh, and Rick, would your chapter of AG Bell welcomed me, really? When I communicate with my daughter we are voice-off most of the time. That was their problem with us. I had a "friend" who was highly involved with AG Bell, and they invited us to an activity. We were having a good time, when she came up to us and said that "all the signing was making some of the other parents uncomfortable" so could we "at least voice some", especially when just my husband and I were chatting. I said no, and we left.
Click to expand...

I am SO SORRY that you and your daughter were treated that way!! I am also SO SORRY for the "oral deaf" who are treated badly by those in the Deaf community who think ALL deaf people should sign and not use their voices. BOTH of those situations are SHAMEFUL and do not show TOLERANCE of DIFFERENCES!!!

I am also going through something through my former church regarding "traditionalists" and "progressives"--yes, a completely different subject, but still kind of similar. Basically, what it boils down to is this: some people(the traditionalists) want to do things the way they have always done them--they see no need to change because what they have always done works for them and they do not see any reason to change the "status quo"--they are from the "who needs change/we don't need anything new or different because the traditions of old has worked for so long" kind of thinking. This can be found in BOTH the oral side and the Deaf community. The more progressive side says things like--that sounds interesting, never tried that before but maybe it is worth looking into, there is no need to do things the old way when there are newer and better ways to do things--and people like this can be found in BOTH the oral side and the Deaf community as well.

While I don't want to be "ageist", I have noticed, in many arenas including religion and other social environments, that the line can sometimes be divided generationally. Older people who were raised a certain way often have no desire to change their viewpoints--I guess this would be people older than Boomers. In America, at least, we can seem HUGE differences between the Boomer generation and older generations in MANY MANY aspects of life. I see it very clearly in religion--old timers not wanting any kind of changes, the Boomers and younger people insisting that it just cannot be done the old way anymore. Maybe this traditionalist vs. progressive thinking is a BIG part of the division between the oral side and the Deaf community.

All I know is this--the younger generations of deaf people seem more tolerant of differences than the older generation does--and I know there are ALWAYS exceptions to that, so I won't overgeneralize and say ALL older deaf people feel that way. You can find older people at the modern churches that the Boomers enjoy, and you can find older deaf people who are tolerant of the different and varied decisions made within the entire realm of deafness. BUT--you can also find groups of older people huddling together in their "old style" churches and communities, too--there are many 'traditionalists" who refuse to acknowledge progress and look down on anything new or different from what they experienced.

I am just glad that the younger generation is more tolerant about many things--this includes race issues, gender issues, and yes--even deaf issues. I think some of us "middle agers" can learn a lot from their tolerant attitudes--and some of the "elderly" can, too. Yes, we can learn things from our "elders," but when they continue to insist on doing things "the old way" because they think it is "the only way"--therein lies the problem. I think the younger generations of deaf people, and the future generations of deaf people, will be a MUCH more diverse group--perhaps they will turn away from all of the groups that choose to separate based on communication modes and form larger groups that combine all sides of the issue! :)
 
Deborah said:
I am SO SORRY that you and your daughter were treated that way!! I am also SO SORRY for the "oral deaf" who are treated badly by those in the Deaf community who think ALL deaf people should sign and not use their voices. BOTH of those situations are SHAMEFUL and do not show TOLERANCE of DIFFERENCES!!!

I am also going through something through my former church regarding "traditionalists" and "progressives"--yes, a completely different subject, but still kind of similar. Basically, what it boils down to is this: some people(the traditionalists) want to do things the way they have always done them--they see no need to change because what they have always done works for them and they do not see any reason to change the "status quo"--they are from the "who needs change/we don't need anything new or different because the traditions of old has worked for so long" kind of thinking. This can be found in BOTH the oral side and the Deaf community. The more progressive side says things like--that sounds interesting, never tried that before but maybe it is worth looking into, there is no need to do things the old way when there are newer and better ways to do things--and people like this can be found in BOTH the oral side and the Deaf community as well.

While I don't want to be "ageist", I have noticed, in many arenas including religion and other social environments, that the line can sometimes be divided generationally. Older people who were raised a certain way often have no desire to change their viewpoints--I guess this would be people older than Boomers. In America, at least, we can seem HUGE differences between the Boomer generation and older generations in MANY MANY aspects of life. I see it very clearly in religion--old timers not wanting any kind of changes, the Boomers and younger people insisting that it just cannot be done the old way anymore. Maybe this traditionalist vs. progressive thinking is a BIG part of the division between the oral side and the Deaf community.

All I know is this--the younger generations of deaf people seem more tolerant of differences than the older generation does--and I know there are ALWAYS exceptions to that, so I won't overgeneralize and say ALL older deaf people feel that way. You can find older people at the modern churches that the Boomers enjoy, and you can find older deaf people who are tolerant of the different and varied decisions made within the entire realm of deafness. BUT--you can also find groups of older people huddling together in their "old style" churches and communities, too--there are many 'traditionalists" who refuse to acknowledge progress and look down on anything new or different from what they experienced.

I am just glad that the younger generation is more tolerant about many things--this includes race issues, gender issues, and yes--even deaf issues. I think some of us "middle agers" can learn a lot from their tolerant attitudes--and some of the "elderly" can, too. Yes, we can learn things from our "elders," but when they continue to insist on doing things "the old way" because they think it is "the only way"--therein lies the problem. I think the younger generations of deaf people, and the future generations of deaf people, will be a MUCH more diverse group--perhaps they will turn away from all of the groups that choose to separate based on communication modes and form larger groups that combine all sides of the issue! :)
Click to expand...

The funny thing about that one is that in the bible I believe it was with Moses, there was many times that situations had to change or improve. They never kept to the old ways. They found new ways to improve on how things work. That is why I laugh at people who believe that they should stick to the old ways and those who believe it is wrong to try something new.
 
faire_jour said:
You can't even see the perspective of NAD in regards to early implantation? I think it is a rather conservative, but definitely well thought out and reasonable position. By implanting a child before they can be involved in the decision you are permantely changing THEIR body without their consent. I know you (general you) are their parent, but why do you (again, general you) have the right to put a child through an invasive surgery in a situation that is obviously not life threatening? Especially when there are so many other non-surgical options available.

A parent is supposed to be a steward over a child's body until they are mature enough to make their own decisions, but often in America children are viewed as property that parents can do with as they wish. (Sorry, that last bit is more about my feeling on America and our tolerence of child hitting and other childhood issues than CI's specifically)

Oh, and Rick, would your chapter of AG Bell welcomed me, really? When I communicate with my daughter we are voice-off most of the time. That was their problem with us. I had a "friend" who was highly involved with AG Bell, and they invited us to an activity. We were having a good time, when she came up to us and said that "all the signing was making some of the other parents uncomfortable" so could we "at least voice some", especially when just my husband and I were chatting. I said no, and we left.
Click to expand...


Oh screw those parents! Where is the respect for the deaf children? Why is it about THEM? That is so awful!
 
Last edited:
shel90 said:
Oh screw those parents! Where is the respect for the deaf children? Why is it about THEM? That is so awful!
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a movie my ASL teacher showed us called "For a Deaf Son" I belive that was the name. but anyways the mother refused to let her son learn ASL. He had to be able to speak, he had to be able to hear. The father was trying everything he could to do what would be best for his son which was going to different Deaf schools and deciding ASL would be best for his son and trying to convince his wife to let his son go. It made me mad at her. It was a documentery made by the father. I believe that movie forced her into letting her son take ASL. GO DAD!!:lol:
 
Celticty said:
That reminds me of a movie my ASL teacher showed us called "For a Deaf Son" I belive that was the name. but anyways the mother refused to let her son learn ASL. He had to be able to speak, he had to be able to hear. The father was trying everything he could to do what would be best for his son which was going to different Deaf schools and deciding ASL would be best for his son and trying to convince his wife to let his son go. It made me mad at her. It was a documentery made by the father. I believe that movie forced her into letting her son take ASL. GO DAD!!:lol:
Click to expand...

Sounds like my parents...I was forced to be 100% fully oral without any visual languages nor cues all of my life. It was difficult and I didnt enjoy it.
 
I've seen that movie too....is it true that the boy committed suicide when he was a teen?
 
My ASL teacher told me that he never did get to learn to sign. And then we he was about 15, he had one last fight with his family and then went upstairs and killed himself.

Don't have anything to back it up...just what I heard.
 
I would just say that it would be hard living a life in constant conflict. His parents constantly fought about what was right for him and from what the movie showed he wasn't a stellar oral sucess. He was frustrated and unable to communicate very basic needs....doesn't sound like a happy life to me.

I also heard that in his teen years he had begun to ask to learn sign for himself, but that his mother insisted that he was fine and refused to allow it....again, unconfirmable.
 
faire_jour said:
I would just say that it would be hard living a life in constant conflict. His parents constantly fought about what was right for him and from what the movie showed he wasn't a stellar oral sucess. He was frustrated and unable to communicate very basic needs....doesn't sound like a happy life to me.
Click to expand...

Right, doesnt sound like a happy life to me either. Heck, I should know..growing up oral only was so difficult so I grew up very unhappy but not knowing why.
 
faire_jour said:
You can't even see the perspective of NAD in regards to early implantation? I think it is a rather conservative, but definitely well thought out and reasonable position. By implanting a child before they can be involved in the decision you are permantely changing THEIR body without their consent. I know you (general you) are their parent, but why do you (again, general you) have the right to put a child through an invasive surgery in a situation that is obviously not life threatening? Especially when there are so many other non-surgical options available.

A parent is supposed to be a steward over a child's body until they are mature enough to make their own decisions, but often in America children are viewed as property that parents can do with as they wish. (Sorry, that last bit is more about my feeling on America and our tolerence of child hitting and other childhood issues than CI's specifically)"

If you are directing your comments to me, then you should first familiarize yourself with the NAD's original position on cochlear implants for children which they trumpeted through a hearing person at the time when our daughter was implanted in 1989 and not the postion they adopted after they began losing membership and their own Board members were opting for implants for themselves and for their children.

I am the parent and as as such entrusted with the responsibility and obligation to make decisions on behalf of my child. Last time I looked, there are very few infants and yes, even 5 year olds, who can make intelligent, mature and rational decisions on their own without parental input and guidance.

BTW please enlighten all of us as the many non-surgical options available to profoundly deaf children who do not benefit from HAs that allows them to acquire access to spoken language as easily and as successfully as the cochlear implant.

You are considering a cochlear implant for your 5 year old. Do you seriously contend that she is making a well informed and reasoned decision or merely agreeing with what Mommy and Daddy want her to do? What are her views on the research she has read regarding the correlation between onset of deafness and implantation?

Giving our daughter the opportunity to access speech and sound and to allow her to be an active participant in her family, neighborhood and community is not to be dismissed as easily as you seek to do by labeling our decision as doing to her what we "wish"."Oh, and Rick, would your chapter of AG Bell welcomed me, really? When I communicate with my daughter we are voice-off most of the time. That was their problem with us. I had a "friend" who was highly involved with AG Bell, and they invited us to an activity. We were having a good time, when she came up to us and said that "all the signing was making some of the other parents uncomfortable" so could we "at least voice some", especially when just my husband and I were chatting. I said no, and we left.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes we would have although we would probably wonder why in a group of people who are not fluent in sign you would choose to be voice-off when communicating with them but getting the sense of your personality through your posts it was most likely done intentionally by you to seek a confrontation and to be rude. It seems that you achieved the response you desired and can relate yet another instance of how "badly" you were treated by those god awful "oralists" from AGBell.

I have no doubt you have many other such stories to regale us with because it cannot possibly be you and your attitude now can it?
Rick
 
I wasn't voice-off when communicating with other people. I am voice-off when using ASL.

Children with hearing loss were taught to speak long before hearing aids were invented. Bell himself tried, right?

I was looking into an implant for my daughter, but our audiologist says he will not implant unless we drop signing, so it isn't really an option for us. I do actually have friends who have implanted their children very young (18 months) and yes, I know that they struggled with the decision. But everyone of them used ASL with their children too. They are a part of the Deaf community along with my daughter.

And for your information my daughter was born hearing. That is why we considered an implant.
 
Back
Top