Rebuttal to Roz Rosen's attack on Cochlear Implants.

ASLuser101

New Member
The following is a rebuttal to comments Dr. Roz Rosen made. While I did not write the rebuttals (IN CAPS), I do agree with most of them. These rebuttals are for discussion purposes only. Readers are urged to do their OWN research into CIs and decide for themselves. Neither I or Roz Rosen can know what's best for your child!



[NOTES ARE IN CAPITALIZED LETTERS IN BRACKETS, BELOW]
=================================
CI Jan 01 | Newborn Hearing Systems Conference
http://www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/dcc/CIjan01/newborn.html

[NOTE THAT THESE COMMENTS, FROM JANUARY 2001, ARE STILL THE POSITION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NEWEST RESEARCH AND UPGRADES IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT TECHNOLOGY.THIS POSITION IS BASED ON VERY OLD INFORMATION]

Newborn Hearing Systems Conference
by Roz Rosen

About the author: Roz Rosen, (roz.rosen@gallaudet.edu) is one of the
strongest supporters of Deaf Culture, since she derives her own
extensive income and her "prestige" from the Deaf Culture movement. She
is a driving force behind all three of the major Deaf Culture advocacy
groups: Board Member of the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD),
Professor at Gallaudet University, and Executive Director of the Council
on Education of the Deaf (CED).

ARTICLE

Milan, Italy, was the venue for the Newborn Hearing Systems 2000
Conference, October 2000. The theme was early identification and
intervention for infants who may have hearing losses.

[THIS CONFERENCE WAS HELD SO THAT YOUNG INFANTS WITH PROFOUND HEARING LOSS WOULD BE DISCOVERED EARLY ENOUGH IN LIFE TO RECEIVE COCHLEAR IMPLANTS SO THEY WOULD NOT SUFFER THE DETRIMENTS OF ISOLATION, EXCLUSION, SEGREGATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING, AND SO THEY COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN TO SPEAK CLEARLY AND LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE SPEAKING]

Deaf people and hearing professionals often have different perspectives
on early identification and intervention goals and purposes.

[THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT "DEAF PEOPLE" LIKE ROZ ROSEN, ARE STILL DEAF, AND THEREFORE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR "PERSPECTIVE" ON WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HEAR EVERYTHING]

Many people think that the cochlear implant (CI) is, in itself, "early
intervention" and will solve all problems.
CIs are but a tool, which must be accompanied by all the other tools
available to deaf children, to complete their education and development.

[THE CI IS A DURABLE MEDICAL DEVICE THAT PERMITS PROFOUNDLY DEAF INDIVIDUALS TO HEAR ALL SOUNDS. THEREAFTER, THESE CHILDREN "COMPLETE THEIR EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT" IN THE SAME WAY AS EVERYONE ELSE. THIS THREATENS THE FUNDING FOR THE DEAF CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS, FOR WHICH DR. ROZEN IS A PRIMARY AND SELF-INTERESTED ADVOCATE]

Milan, Again
When I was invited to keynote at this conference, I thought, Milan, here
we go again!

Milan was the site of the infamous International Conference on Education
of the Deaf in 1880, which gave birth to the edict that sign language be
verboten in educating deaf youth and to the dark age that ensued for the
international deaf community. But then I thought, perhaps this
conference might reverse that for the new millennium.

[ONCE AGAIN, DEAF CULTURE UTILIZES "TWISTED HISTORY." THE 1880
CONFERENCE IN MILAN ORDERED THE "DEAF CULTURE" INSTITUTIONS TO TEACH DEAF CHILDREN IN EITHER PURELY AURAL/ORAL METHODS, OR IF THE CHILDREN DID NOT "GET" THAT METHOD, THEN TO TEACH THE DEAF CHILDREN IN A COMBINED METHOD OF AURAL/ORAL TRAINING (VIBROTACTILE AND LIPREADING) PLUS SIGN-ASSISTED LIPREAD PHONETIC LANGUAGE. THOSE DEAF CHILDREN ALL BECAME
QUITE LITERATE IN PHONETIC LANGUAGE. THE ONLY THING THAT THE 1880 MILAN CONFERENCE BANNED WAS THE USE OF "NATIVE SIGNING" (I.E. "STREET SIGNING OF THE ILLITERATE AND UNEDUCATED DEAF" -- THE ONE WITH NO WRITTEN OR SPOKEN FORM) IN ACADEMIC CLASSROOMS]

There were about 450 participants in this conference from 53 countries.
Only five of those were deaf, including Dr. Jay Innes, Director of the
NAD Educational Policy and Program Development Center, who presented on
the NAD position paper on pediatric implants (the WFD is currently
working on one) [THE NAD AND WFD "WORKING GROUPS" ARE COMPRISED OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL DEAF AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS EXPERIENCED BY PEOPLE WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS];

Ms. Beth Sonnenstrahl Benedict, a member of the delegation from the
Gallaudet University departments of education and audiology [SHE IS
STILL DEAF, HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS OR WITH FULL HEARING ABILITY, AND WHY IS SHE "REPRESENTING" THE DEPARTMENT OF AUDIOLOGY?];

Ms. Helga Stevens, Executive Director of the European Union of the Deaf;
[SHE IS FULLY PHONETIC LANGUAGE FLUENT, HAVING GRADUATED WITH A JD IN LAW FROM BOALT HALL AT UC BERKELEY. SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, IN FACT SHE CALLED PEOPLE WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS "ALIENS" IN A VIDEOTAPE TAKEN OF HER AT THE WFD CONFERENCE IN MONTREAL IN JULY, 2003;
AND SHE ALSO STATED FROM THE STAGE AT THAT CONFERENCE THAT THE POSITION OF THE WFD IS THAT EVERYONE MUST "FIGHT" COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

Ms. Elizabeth Rodriguez, Executive Director of the Puerto Rico
Association of the Deaf; [NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH HEARING, OR WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS. THIS ASSOCIATION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO WFD, AND FOLLOWS THE GALLAUDET AND NAD POSITIONS IN THE USA]

and myself. [ROZ ROSEN (SEE ABOVE)]

We were delighted that Ms. Barbara Raimondo also presented. [NO
INFORMATION ON THIS PERSON IS GIVEN, BUT APPARENTLY SHE IS NOT DEAF]

Ms. Krista Walker was invited as an interpreter, along with two others
from the United States. [NOTE THAT THREE INTERPRETERS WERE INVOLVED. THEY ARE DRIVING AND BEHIND THIS DEAF CULTURE MOVEMENT, BECAUSE IF ALL DEAF PEOPLE BECOME INDEPENDENT WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, THEN THE INTERPRETERS WILL BE UNABLE TO ASSERT TO PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE "EXPERTS"
ON DEAF INDIVIDUALS, SINCE ALL OF THE PRELINGUALLY DEAF AND
EARLY-DEAFENED PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES (AND ALSO WILL NOT NEED INTERPRETERS)]

Topics at this conference included identification, intervention,
infrastructures supporting infant hearing programs, language
development, genetic and medical research, hearing aids and cochlear
implants.


Diversity and Partnerships
My keynote was entitled "Perspectives of the Deaf Community: A Case for Diversity and Partnerships." The three basic themes of my presentation, as related to deaf people, were:

human rights and diversity;

[DEAF INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS WITH NORMAL HUMAN BRAINS AND DAMAGE TO THEIR MICROSCOPIC COCHLEAR HAIR CELLS -- A SITUATION WHICH CAN NOW BE SUBSTANTIALLY REMEDIATED BY A COCHLEAR IMPLANT. AS A DISABILITY MATTER THERE IS NO ISSUE OF "DIVERSITY"]

newborn hearing loss identification and intervention;

[THEY ONLY SUPPORT NEWBORN HEARING LOSS SCREENING SO THEY CAN GET ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION AND PROPAGANDIZE THE PARENTS NOT TO GIVE THE DEAF CHILDREN A COCHLEAR IMPLANT]

considerations and challenges for the future.

[THEY ARE DESPERATELY WORRIED ABOUT LOSING THEIR FUNDING, WHICH WILL HAPPEN IF THE HEARING LOSS OF DEAF INDIVIDUALS IS REMEDIATED, ESPECIALLY IN INFANCY]

I quoted international conventions supported by the United Nations and
the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) related to the rights of children
and the rights of people with disabilities.

[THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT "SUPPORT" ANY SUCH THING. THE WFD LOBBIES THE U.N. CONTINUOUSLY]

The deaf child's bill of rights [WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN RATIFIED OR
ACCEPTED BY ANYONE, OTHER THAN THE WFD] includes:

identity as a visual being;

[ADVOCATING THAT ALL DEAF PEOPLE "IDENTIFY" THEMSELVES SOLELY WITH THEIR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, SO THEY WON'T GET COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

language and bilingualism;

[USING INAPPLICABLE ARGUMENTS BASED ON ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIOND FOR PHONETIC NATURAL LANGUAGES, AND "TWISTING" THOSE ARGUMENTS, WITHOUT ANY
PROOF WHATSOEVER, TO MAKE THEM "APPLY" TO NONPHONETIC FORMS OF COMMUNICATION]

and membership in the deaf community as well as that of the family.

[PAYING DUES TO, SUPPORTING, AND ADVOCATING FOR THE CONTINUING FUNDING OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NOW COMPLETELY OUT OF DATE]

In preparation for this speech, I conducted an electronic survey,
emailed to 150 key leaders and educators in the United States and other
countries.

[150 IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. THE SURVEY WAS SENT TO ONLY THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS. THE SURVEY WAS ALSO SENT TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH HEARING EVERYTHING OR TO THOSE WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

There were 96 responses from 11 countries, many with written comments.

[MEANING THAT, ON AVERAGE, THEY ONLY GOT 8 OR 9 RESPONSES FROM EVERY COUNTRY, AND THOSE WERE FROM THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS]

The top concerns as perceived by the deaf community were:

[THIS SURVEY DEFINITELY DOES NOT INDICATE RESPONSES FROM THE "DEAF COMMUNITY" ANYWHERE]

that the primary focus of early identification would be on the ear
rather than on the child;

[HEARING LOSS OCCURS IN THE EAR, DOESN'T IT? THE PRIMARY FOCUS IS TO ENABLE A DEAF CHILD TO FUNCTION AUDITORILY AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE, BEGINNING AS EARLY IN LIFE AS POSSIBLE, SO THE CHILD CAN GROW UP WITHOUT ISOLATION, SEGREGATION AND DEPRESSION. THAT IS DEFINITELY A FOCUS ON THE CHILD AND ON THE CHILD'S ENTIRE FUTURE]

that hearing loss would be treated as a medical rather than a human
issue;

[SINCE WHEN IS HEARING LOSS "NOT A MEDICAL ISSUE"?]

that there was insufficient knowledge about deaf people among the
medical and intervention communities;

[THIS IS SOLELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DEAF CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS ARE DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSING AND TWISTING INFORMATION ABOUT COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, AND, IN FACT, DELIBERATELY FRIGHTENING PEOPLE AWAY FROM
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

end of pt 1
 

ASLuser101

New Member
[part 2]

that there is a lack of partnerships among doctors, professionals,
families and deaf people;

[THERE IS SUCH A PARTNERSHIP. BUT THE PROFESSIONALS WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE "WISHES AND DESIRES" OF THE DEAF CULTURE GROUPS TO DENY THE ABILITY TO HEAR ALL SOUNDS TO PERSONS WITH HEARING LOSS]

that deaf people are rarely included on teams;

[TEAMS INVOLVING COCHLEAR IMPLANT ISSUES SHOULD NEVER INCLUDE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, OR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE HEARING ALL SOUNDS. BORN BLIND INDIVIDUALS SHOULD NEVER BE INCLUDED IN "TEAMS" DISCUSSING COLOR THEORY EITHER]

and last but not least,
that there would be omission or repression of sign language and deaf
culture.

[SIGN LANGUAGE CAN BE LEARNED FLUENTLY BY PERSONS WITH NORMAL HEARING ABILITY, AND THERE IS NO "OMISSION OR REPRESSION" OF SIGN LANGUAGE -- IN
FACT IT IS BEING WIDELY TAUGHT IN REGULAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THEIR CONCERN IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FUNDING FOR THE DEAF CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS IS BEING LOST NOW THAT THERE IS A WAY TO REMEDIATE HEARING LOSS VERY EFFECTIVELY WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

The written comments were a true manifestation of the diversity of the
deaf community.

[COMMENTS FROM ONLY 9 PEOPLE IN EACH COUNTRY, AND ONLY FROM THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS, ARE A "TRUE MANIFESTATION OF THE DIVERSITY OF THE DEAF COMMUNITY"?? DEFINITELY NOT!]

They touched on various themes related to

identification,

[THE RISK TO DEAF CULTURE IF PARENTS FIND OUT THE BENEFITS OF COCHLEAR
IMPLANTS BEFORE THEY ARE INDOCRINATED BY THE DEAF CULTURE ADVOCATES]

the role of deaf people,

[THE FACT THAT DEAF PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL VOLUNTARILY DEAF WILL NOT HAVEANY POWER OR ATTENTION ANYMORE IF THE NEXT GENERATION OF "DEAF PEOPLE"
CAN HEAR AND SPEAK CLEARLY.]

cochlear implants,

[THE MAJOR INDICATOR IN TODAY'S SOCIETY OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL DEAF ARE, IN THE MAJORITY, VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING TO BE DISABLED]

ethics/deafocide,

[THEY BELIEVE THAT COCHLEAR IMPLANTS "KILL" DEAF CULTURE, AND THAT PHONETIC LANGUAGE CAUSES "GENOCIDE" OF GESTURAL COMMUNICATION. NEITHER
OF THESE ARE TRUE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ROZ ROSEN HERSELF HAS A DEGREE IN ENGLISH, AND RAISED HER OWN DEAF CHILDREN WITHPHONETIC LANGUAGE]

the primacy of language acquisition rather than speech skills,

[THIS DOESN'T APPLY ANYMORE. CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS ATTAIN BOTH NATURAL PHONETIC LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND SPEECH SKILLS]

the necessity of options for families rather than either/or choices,

[THE NECESSITY OF OPPRESSING AND HARASSING PARENTS OF DEAF CHILDREN TO AVOID GIVING THEIR CHILDREN COCHLEAR IMPLANTS UNTIL THEIR CHILDREN ARE ADULTS, WELL PAST THE AGE WHEN THOSE CHILDREN CAN DEVELOP EFFECTIVE SPEECH OR AUDITORY LISTENING SKILLS. THUS GIVING THE DEAF CULTURE
ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS MORE CLIENTS, STUDENTS AND MEMBERS, ON THE BASIS THAT THOSE PEOPLE "NEED HELP BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SPEAK CLEARLY
AND CAN'T UNDERSTAND AUDITORY/VERBAL LANGUAGE."]

and especially the medical and media hype which cast deaf people in very negative and stereotypic light.

[THESE DEAF PEOPLE ARE VOLUNTARILY REMAINING DEAF AND PROFOUNDLY DISABLED. THEY ARE ALSO CASTING THEMSELVES IN A VERY NEGATIVE LIGHT BYMAKING THESE LUDICROUS "ARGUMENTS" AGAINST COCHLEAR IMPLANTS WHEN THEY
HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND NO EXPERIENCE UPON
WHICH TO BASE THEIR "ARGUMENTS"]

Of concern was that early identification, per se, could become a
conveyer belt for mass cochlear implantations.

[YES, THIS IS THEIR MAIN CONCERN. THEY WILL LOSE THEIR FUNDING ENTIRELY,
INCLUDING THE INTERPRETERS, IF ALL DEAF PEOPLE BECOME INDEPENDENT]

Guiding Principles
Although the deaf community is diverse and of several opinions on the
whole issue of early identification and intervention, 85% of the
respondents gave strong support to early identification -- provided that
it be deaf-friendly.

[THEY MEAN, "PROVIDED THAT WE GET THE OPPORTUNITY, BY LAW, TO
PROPAGANDIZE THE PARENTS OF DEAF CHILDREN AND TO FRIGHTEN THEM AWAY FROM
MAKING THEIR DEAF CHILDREN INDEPENDENT, ABLE TO HEAR AND LISTEN, AND
ESPECIALLY TO PREVENT THE PARENTS FROM GIVING THEIR DEAF CHILDREN THE
ABILITY TO SPEAK CLEARLY. THIS 85 PERCENT COMMENT MEANS THAT 15 PERCENT
OF THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH THEM (THE OTHERS DON'T
ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEIR "ARGUMENTS" ARE ALL ABOUT, AND THEY ALSO DON'T
KNOW THAT THEY CAN POSSIBLY GET COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND THE ABILITY TO
HEAR EVERYTHING]

A few were opposed due to the lack of involvement of deaf people on
teams, the misplaced focus on "fixing deafness" and the possibility that
the deaf community along with its precious language and culture may
disappear.

[HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE OPPOSED ARE "A FEW"? FURTHER, IT IS ENTIRELY
LOGICAL AND REASONABLE TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOLUNTARILY DEAF AND
WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM TEAMS CONCERNED WITH
BETTER LIVES AND BETTER FUTURES FOR DEAF CHILDREN. A FOCUS ON
REMEDIATING A DISABILITY IS NOT A "MISPLACED FOCUS." SIGN LANGUAGE WILL
NOT "DISAPPEAR" AND WHAT IS SO "PRECIOUS" ABOUT FORCING PEOPLE INTO A
SEGREGATED, ISOLATED LIFESTYLE WHEN THEY NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENJOY
THE ENTIRE WORLD?]

Regardless of the diversity of opinions, there was strong indication
from the comments that common themes do exist within the deaf community:

[ONCE AGAIN, THESE ARE COMMENTS FROM THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS, AND EVEN
THEIR OWN SUPPORTERS HAVE A "DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS" (THE ONES WHO THINK
LOGICALLY AND WHO WANT BETTER FUTURES FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF DEAF
CHILDREN, AND BETTER LIVES THAN THEY THEMSELVES HAVE HAD, DISAGREE WITH
THESE STUPID "ARGUMENTS")]

A deaf child, implanted or not, is still deaf, visually oriented, and
needs visual access to languages and relations with deaf people.

[A DEAF CHILD IS STILL PHYSICALLY DEAF, BUT IS FUNTIONALLY
AUDITORY-BASED IN TERMS OF LANGUAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PEOPLE
IF THAT CHILD IS IMPLANTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER DEAFNESS OCCURS.
FURTHERMORE, ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE "VISUALLY ORIENTED"
AS WELL AS AUDITORILY ORIENTED, AS IS PROVED BY THE GREAT VISUAL ARTISTS
WHO HAVE NO HEARING LOSS. IN THE FUTURE, "DEAF PEOPLE" WITH COCHLEAR
IMPLANTS WILL COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE -- IN
PHONETIC LANGUAGE. DEAF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS FOR MANY YEARS
ALREADY WITH CUED SPEECH (NOTICE THAT THE "DEAF CULTURE" GROUPS NEVER
MENTION CUED SPEECH AT ALL]

Pathological and paternalistic barriers still exist and may make early
educational intervention moot.

[THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SETTING UP PATHOLOGICALLY STUPID ARGUMENTS AND
PATERNALISTIC BARRIERS (THEY BELIEVE THAT OTHER PEOPLE'S DEAF CHILDREN
BELONG TO THEM) ARE THE DEAF CULTURE FANATICS. THEY ARE ALSO AFRAID THAT
THEIR OWN "EARLY EDUCATION PROPAGANDA" MAY BECOME MOOT BECAUSE PARENTS
WILL IMPLANT THEIR CHILDREN AND GIVE THEIR CHILDREN THE ABILITY TO HEAR
AND TO SPEAK BEFORE THOSE PARENTS CAN BE IDENTIFIED, PRESSURED,
HARRASSED AND TARGETED TO AVOID COCHLEAR IMPLANTS]

Deaf people support early identification and want to be involved as
equals in identification and intervention processes.

[DEAF CULTURE ADVOCATES WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE DEAF INFANTS ARE, SO THEY
CAN PRESSURE THE PARENTS TO AVOID GIVING THEIR CHILDREN COCHLEAR
IMPLANTS]

Deaf people share a mutual goal with non-deaf people: the success and
happiness of deaf children.

[SINCE WHEN DOES HAVING A PROFOUND DISABILITY THAT CAUSES ISOLATION,
SEGREGATION, MISUNDERSTANDING AND DEPRESSION RESULT IN "SUCCESS AND
HAPPINESS"?]

Guiding principles and practices, gleaned from the research and
literature, including those published by Carol-lee Aquiline, Roger
Carver, Tom Holcomb, and Christine Yoshinaga-Itano, were helpful
references in putting together my scientific paper.

[THESE ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIC REFERENCES, NOR DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE
ANY ACTUAL TRULY PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC STANDING. WHAT HAS BEEN "GLEANED"
IS ONLY INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THEIR DEAF CULTURE POSITIONS (OF
COURSE), MOST OF WHICH ARE THE RESULTS OF "TWISTED GLEANING"]

[edited for space]

*********************************


So, do you agree with Roz Rosen or believe closer scrunity of Dr Rosen's comments are required?
 
Last edited:
Top