Why adults choose CI's for their children

[rick48]

...I prefer that children not be implanted and wait until they are of age to make the decisions for themselves cuz it is their bodies. I dont think adults should choose but again it is their business. If I had a deaf child, I would never choose to get an implant. I know the child can develop language without a CI. I and many other deaf people without CIs are proof of that.

You are right, it is the parents' business and part of our responsibilities is to make decisions on behalf of our children because they are precisely that: children.

I do not believe anyone is saying that deaf children need a ci in order to develop language for obviously it is no aid to the development of a manual language however, in this day and age there is really no longer any issue as to the effect that a ci combined with oral language therapy can have upon the development of oral language skills and especially when children recieve their cis as early as possible.

You are always mentioning the ci "failures" at your school (who comprise a small percentage of your total ci population approximately 5 out of 40) however how many profoundly deaf children at your school are there without cis and without oral speech and language therapy who have developed a fluency in speaking an oral language?
Rick

 

[shel90]

You are right, it is the parents' business and part of our responsibilities is to make decisions on behalf of our children because they are precisely that: children.

I do not believe anyone is saying that deaf children need a ci in order to develop language for obviously it is no aid to the development of a manual language however, in this day and age there is really no longer any issue as to the effect that a ci combined with oral language therapy can have upon the development of oral language skills and especially when children recieve their cis as early as possible.

You are always mentioning the ci "failures" at your school (who comprise a small percentage of your total ci population approximately 5 out of 40) however how many profoundly deaf children at your school are there without cis and without oral speech and language therapy who have developed a fluency in speaking an oral language?
Rick

Proufoundly deaf??? Hmmmm...u know what? Now that I think about it, there a quite a few of them. I never thought about it before but now that u asked me, I am surprised to know that there r few who have no CIs that have pretty decent fluency in spoken language to be able to communicate with their hearing family members at home. Many of my co-workers r profoundly deaf without CIs and went to deaf schools themselves..they can converse with hearing people using spoken language just like I can. So, what was the point of your question? I have seen it all..successful CI users, not so successful CI users, successful deaf ASL-only users, and many more. One thing I focus most on is how the attitudes of parents or specialists when it comes to CI and sign language that caused many deaf children to be delayed in language. That is something I don't see a justification for.

As for putting CIs in children...
If u r all for CIs in children..that's your view and I won't change it but I have my views and I won't change them. We have different views cuz of our experiences so that's life.

What happened to that boy was a scary experience for me cuz the ambulance was called and everything. I still don't know what prompted the need to call for emergency services. Need to find out more. All I hope for is that he came out of the surgery without any serious damage. U know what the good and bad things are? The bad thing is that he is a successful CI user and will be devastated if he no longer is able to wear a CI. The good thing is that he has ASL fluency so his education progress won't be severly impacted. Due to my way of thinking, it prompted me to use that situation as an example of the importance of ASL and seeing how it is the boy who had to go thru the trauma not the parents which further reinforced my views on letting the child decide for themselves about getting an implant. Other people may not see it that way because they have a different way of thinking than I do. I realize that and know that will always happen.

For me, surgery or putting devices in childrens' bodies involves a risk however how minimal it is. If it is not needed, I just can't take that risk. I already had that view before I became a teacher anyway. That is just my personal opinion..and yes, I think it shud apply to all children but I know in reality, others will see it differently than I do. It won't stop me from expressing my opinions anyway.

 

[dreama]

If this kind of will help children getting 2 CI's allowing them even more success with CI, I'm all for it.

Animal research has been done at all times. Many of the medical procedures have first been tried on animals and we all benefit from it.
Suddenly because you don't like the area, it's a bad thing??

Actually that isn't true. Animal research has actually hampered success because various animal models react differantly. We eventually have to test on humans anyway. Advantages have been made Despite animal testing. NOT because of. Besides people die from the drugs they are given and there is nothing people can do about it as they were tested on animals so that should make everything ok.

I'm sorry this is off topic but I am totally against ALL animal testing. It's not just about CI. Although the fact that they were is one of several reasons why I would never consider that option.

 

[rick48]

Proufoundly deaf??? Hmmmm...u know what? Now that I think about it, there a quite a few of them. I never thought about it before but now that u asked me, I am surprised to know that there r few who have no CIs that have pretty decent fluency in spoken language to be able to communicate with their hearing family members at home. Many of my co-workers r profoundly deaf without CIs and went to deaf schools themselves..they can converse with hearing people using spoken language just like I can. So, what was the point of your question? "


And none of the students you mentioned ever had oral speech and language therapy? Some program you have there! Actually in other posts you said that you have difficulty understanding spoken language and that others have difficulty understanding you. So, it may be that you and I have a different interpretation of "fluency".

"As for putting CIs in children...
If u r all for CIs in children..that's your view and I won't change it but I have my views and I won't change them. We have different views cuz of our experiences so that's life."

No, you will not change my views as I have seen far too many positive results with ci children nor do I seek to change yours, my issue is only with those Deaf militants who try to impose their views on someone else's child. As long as the ci remains an option for parents of deaf kids, that is fine with me.
Rick

 

[shel90]

Rick,

I guess we must have a different interpretation of fluency. People who know me can understand me but people who don't know me have trouble understanding me. Same thing goes for my ability to understand others..those who I know well, I understand, those who I don't know well, I have a hard time understanding. However, most of the time the messages get exchanged even if it takes several attempts forus to understand each other. My interpreattion of difficulty is more directed to the hard work I have to do to communicate via spoken language while sign language is so much easier.

As for my school, I have mentioned it before, we have a CI program so is that a bad thing to have at a deaf school? We have full time speech teachers and several hearing staff working there. Not everyone is deaf. Hoverever, deaf or hearing, speech therapists or not, everyone is fluent in ASL.

As for me being a Deaf militant...I don't believe that I am extreme. Iam the kind of person who will accept things even though I don't agree with no like it. I know that in reality, most hearing parents will implant their children and I can understand why. Don't blame them but doesn't mean I have to like it. Does that make me a deaf militant? I don't think so but if other people see it that way then so be it.
I guess I am more of ASL militant and for a very good reason.

 

[rick48]

As for me being a Deaf militant...I don't believe that I am extreme. Iam the kind of person who will accept things even though I don't agree with no like it. I know that in reality, most hearing parents will implant their children and I can understand why. Don't blame them but doesn't mean I have to like it. Does that make me a deaf militant? I don't think so but if other people see it that way then so be it.
I guess I am more of ASL militant and for a very good reason.

Shel,

Please re-read my post. I did not say you were as I was specifically referring to those who would deny the ci as an option to all children.
Rick

 

[shel90]

Shel,

Please re-read my post. I did not say you were as I was specifically referring to those who would deny the ci as an option to all children.
Rick

Ooh I know that. When u brought up Deaf militants, it reminded me of the times I have been accused of that because of my beliefs in exposing ASL and deaf culture to all deaf children. I was just making a general statement about myself. Sorry for not emphasizing that I wasn't taking your comment about it as if u were calling me a Deaf militant.

 

[deafdyke]

however how many profoundly deaf children at your school are there without cis and without oral speech and language therapy who have developed a fluency in speaking an oral language?

rick, you've obviously fallen for the oral mythology of what goes on at Deaf schools.
Very few dhh kids are totally ASL only. Deaf schools do have (and promote) speech therapy. It's just that a lot of Deaf schools aren't funded too well......the really good speech therapists tend to be attracted towards private practice or the oral schools. If the resources were consolidated, and oral therapists decided to work with Deaf schools, maybe we could see a revolution! We really need to quit debating about methodology, and work more towards equipting ALL dhh kids with full toolboxes.
There ARE kids out there who have developed speech without CIs.....there've always been a percentage of profound/severe kids who are sucessful hearing aid users! Even back in the old days (60's , 50's and 40's) there were oral sucesses with hearing aids! As a matter of fact, there are even kids who have done well being minimally aided, and STILL have really good speech.
Oh, and rick..........define fluenecy.......My speech is pretty good, but I agree with shel....most hearing people tend to have to take time to understand a dhh person's speech....it's just like the way you might be able to undy a person with a very strong accent's speech easily b/c you're used to that accent, but another person might not be able to undy that.
Hell.........most dhh folks won't be able to acheive the level of fluency that hearing people have.

 

[jillio]

rick, you've obviously fallen for the oral mythology of what goes on at Deaf schools.
Very few dhh kids are totally ASL only. Deaf schools do have (and promote) speech therapy. It's just that a lot of Deaf schools aren't funded too well......the really good speech therapists tend to be attracted towards private practice or the oral schools. If the resources were consolidated, and oral therapists decided to work with Deaf schools, maybe we could see a revolution! We really need to quit debating about methodology, and work more towards equipting ALL dhh kids with full toolboxes.
There ARE kids out there who have developed speech without CIs.....there've always been a percentage of profound/severe kids who are sucessful hearing aid users! Even back in the old days (60's , 50's and 40's) there were oral sucesses with hearing aids! As a matter of fact, there are even kids who have done well being minimally aided, and STILL have really good speech.
Oh, and rick..........define fluenecy.......My speech is pretty good, but I agree with shel....most hearing people tend to have to take time to understand a dhh person's speech....it's just like the way you might be able to undy a person with a very strong accent's speech easily b/c you're used to that accent, but another person might not be able to undy that.
Hell.........most dhh folks won't be able to acheive the level of fluency that hearing people have.

And many with CI never loose that "deaf accent" either.

 

[shel90]

And many with CI never loose that "deaf accent" either.

I agree with u and deafdyke...my mom said I had better sppech fluency than many HOH children from my oral preK class. I emailed one of my teachers from the program asking her if that was true. She said yes that I and another profoundly deaf HA user had the best speech skills in our class of 20 deaf and HOH kids.

Even now, my hearing co workers informed me that my speech skills r better than my aide who has a CI. They told me that they hear her talking to her boyfriend on the phone and that her speech skills were terrible. It was interesting. Even some of the profoundly deaf children who have no CI have speech skills and some with CIs have none. It depends on the individual.

 

[flip]

There is no reason to label folks here. I'ts about choice. If a parent decides one way or the other it's their personal choice and as long as they have viewed all angles then I would not consider them militants. The militants are the ones that don't want choice. The ones that say it's my way or the hi-way. Deaf people come into this with a deaf perspective and hearing people come into this with a hearing perspective. IMO that's natural. But remember that any person deaf or hearing that has educated themselves on all angles has the right to choose in either direction. It doesn't make them a militant just because of their choice.

Thanks rockdrummer. Now we got two slightly different definitions of "Deaf militants" in this thread. I am not going to try to make another definition of Deaf militants or make up more labels, but I find it interesting rick48 states he only have an issue with "Deaf militants".

If he does not have an issue with the other end of this scale, with those who are pro-ci/speech militants, it looks to me that rick48 is declaring himself a CI/speech militant. At least he seems to be supporting one extreme end of a spectrum with this kind of labelling, and he seems to be involved in some kind of war, too.

 

[jillio]

I agree with u and deafdyke...my mom said I had better sppech fluency than many HOH children from my oral preK class. I emailed one of my teachers from the program asking her if that was true. She said yes that I and another profoundly deaf HA user had the best speech skills in our class of 20 deaf and HOH kids.

Even now, my hearing co workers informed me that my speech skills r better than my aide who has a CI. They told me that they hear her talking to her boyfriend on the phone and that her speech skills were terrible. It was interesting. Even some of the profoundly deaf children who have no CI have speech skills and some with CIs have none. It depends on the individual.

Yeah, it has much more involved than just the information the audiogram tells you. Such as missing consonants, missing morphemes, etc. Just because the audiogram says an individual can perceive sounds within the speech range doesn't mean that an individual perceiveds all sounds withinthe speech range. Oral deaf often substitute sounds that are missing, thus the very recognizable accent.

 

[rockdrummer]

Thanks rockdrummer. Now we got two slightly different definitions of "Deaf militants" in this thread. I am not going to try to make another definition of Deaf militants or make up more labels, but I find it interesting rick48 states he only have an issue with "Deaf militants".

If he does not have an issue with the other end of this scale, with those who are pro-ci/speech militants, it looks to me that rick48 is declaring himself a CI/speech militant. At least he seems to be supporting one extreme end of a spectrum with this kind of labelling, and he seems to be involved in some kind of war, too.

LOL. agreed! I suppose one can be considered a militant on either end of the scale if thay advocate their choice is the only choice. My personal feeling is that what is important is to learn about both sides and then make a decision. Also that is not to say one decision is right over the other. The decision is going to come down to what you feel is right for you and/or your child. If a hearing parent has learned about deaf language and culture and decides they want to choose a CI and take the speech / hearing route, then that's ok just as it's ok for a parent to choose the deaf route. IMO either is ok as long as they have educated themselves on the issues from both angles.

 

[flip]

LOL. agreed! I suppose one can be considered a militant on either end of the scale if thay advocate their choice is the only choice. My personal feeling is that what is important is to learn about both sides and then make a decision. Also that is not to say one decision is right over the other. The decision is going to come down to what you feel is right for you and/or your child. If a hearing parent has learned about deaf language and culture and decides they want to choose a CI and take the speech / hearing route, then that's ok just as it's ok for a parent to choose the deaf route. IMO either is ok as long as they have educated themselves on the issues from both angles.

Just two cents more..

I have to question if it allways is up to every familiy to make a decision about how kids should develop language. We have laws about what kids should learn in school. If research increasingly shows us that one choice is better than the other, it should be no surprise to anyone if one of the choices was ruled to be obligatory.

But as long it is hard to see, either for the society or within the family, which choice is best, I agree with you!

 

[rockdrummer]

Just two cents more..

I have to question if it allways is up to every familiy to make a decision about how kids should develop language. We have laws about what kids should learn in school. If research increasingly shows us that one choice is better than the other, it should be no surprise to anyone if one of the choices was ruled to be obligatory.

But as long it is hard to see, either for the society or within the family, which choice is best, I agree with you!

Interesting. Deafness has been around for ever and all of the different approaches to educating deaf children have been around for quite some time. If it were only that easy but the reality is that its not. There is contravorsy surrounding most any approach taken. One group of people will tell you this is the best way and another group will tell you that is the best way. And you have to remember that a parent makes a choice for their child no matter what they do. If they opt for a CI they made a choice for their child just as if they didnt opt for a CI they still have made a choice for their child. It's our job as parents to educate ourselves on the issues and make a choice based on what we have learned and what we feel is in the best interest of our child. To me the whole argument about waiting and letting the child decide doesnt hold much water because even then we have chosen for our child. If we choose to wait we still have made a choice for our child. And in either case our child could be resentful for the choice we have made. It's a tough situation with many choices and issues to consider. I would never fault a parent whom has done their homework weither they went with a CI or not. The last thing anyone should do is make a parent feel bad for their decision no matter which way they decide to go. Again, as long as they have investigated all of the issues and made their decision based on what they feel is in the best interest of their child.

 

[rockdrummer]

I came across this while searching for research on another topic. It's almost exactly what happened to us. Hopefully parents faced with the decision can learn something from this.

90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents. In many cases, these hearing parents may have never met a deaf adult. It is common for parents to be introduced to a number of audiologists and speech therapists when their child is first diagnosed with a hearing loss but to never be taken to meet a deaf adult so that they may receive the other perspective. They are told that something is wrong with their child. It may never be mentioned that deafness is considered to be a cultural identity for some people and that implants are seen as unnecessary. The parents of the deaf child, wanting only what is best for their child, will want to make sure that the child has the opportunity to succeed. If all they have been told is that the child will need to speak to function and that there is a procedure that can provide this, of course they would want the implant. To the parents, it is seen as the instrument of success. They may not understand that it is possible for a deaf child to function and thrive in a hearing word without the ability to hear or speak. By only giving the parents half the information, the parents have been cheated out of the option to decide what is best for their child. Perhaps they still would have made the decision to implant their child; however, their decision will never be known if all the options are not presented. The parents may have decided not to do the surgery because the child still has an excellent opportunity to succeed and be happy in the world without the implant. As Lao Tsu stated "A great tailor cuts little"(28). He believed that things should be left in their original state as much as possible. Lao Tsu would have thought that deafness was not a mistake made by nature, it was an intended exception. Therefore, he would have believed that the implant is not needed to succeed or enjoy life.
Source: Cochlear Implant Controversy

 

[Dismal Shadow]

Parents have no right to implant CI for their child only to found out the mistake they make and live to regret it. Because it was not the child's decisions but their parents because they thought it would change the child's life. Which in fact it did, but later to found the child grew old and was angry at the world because he was not involved in the parent's decisions because he was young at that time. He hated his parents so much for having him implanted. Sometime parents would think it's the best for their child by forcing them into something they are not. Just because they don't accept their child for who they are. We should be who we are and let it be and let god do the doing. Look at me I didn't born deaf but got sick at age 3 and became deaf, I grew up fighting for survival without a HA or a CI and succeed. I can even talk with my voices perfectly clear. No one changes us. We change ourselves and you can too. Be who you are and what you are. Don't let them anybody tells you different because that's exactly what they want.

 

[rockdrummer]

Parents have no right to implement CI for their child only to found out the mistake they make and live to regret it. Because it was not the child's decisions but their parents because they thought it would change the child's life. Which in fact it did, but later to found the child grew old and was angry at the world because he was not involved in the parent's decisions because he was young at that time. He hated his parents so much for having him implemented. Sometime parents would think it's the best for their child by forcing them into something they are not. Just because they don't accept their child for who they are. We should be who we are and let it be and let god do the doing. Look at me I didn't born deaf but got sick at age 3 and became deaf, I grew up fighting for survival without a HA or a CI and succeed. I can even talk with my voices perfectly clear. No one changes us. We change ourselves and you can too. Be who you are and what you are. Don't let them anybody tells you different because that's exactly what they want.

What you say is true for some and not for others. Also if a parent decides to implant their child or not, they still have decided for their child.

 

[SkullChick]

If I have deaf child, yes I will implant them but I'd wait until they're at least 1-2 years old so they're stronger for surgery and the child will learn sign language and speech I don't agree with oral only or asl only method I want child to have best of both world.
So stop with "hearing parents will implant deaf child but deaf won't because they accept them"
I'm deaf myself but I would implant my future kids if they're deaf and even with CI they'll still be deaf. And I wouldn't deprive them from one or other I would explain that he/she is deaf and the cochlear implant help him/her to hear and there is deaf community and culture she/he can be part of and there is hearing world and that I do accept her/him and love her/him no matter what so children won't grow up to find out stuff and become angry and resent their parents. They'll understand at young age what it is and what's out there so they have choice or have both so they have nothing to "find out" in future

 

[rockdrummer]

If I have deaf child, yes I will implant them but I'd wait until they're at least 1-2 years old so they're stronger for surgery and the child will learn sign language and speech I don't agree with oral only or asl only method I want child to have best of both world.
So stop with "hearing parents will implant deaf child but deaf won't because they accept them"
I'm deaf myself but I would implant my future kids if they're deaf and even with CI they'll still be deaf. And I wouldn't deprive them from one or other I would explain that he/she is deaf and the cochlear implant help him/her to hear and there is deaf community and culture she/he can be part of and there is hearing world and that I do accept her/him and love her/him no matter what so children won't grow up to find out stuff and become angry and resent their parents. They'll understand at young age what it is and what's out there so they have choice or have both so they have nothing to "find out" in future

Good posting. I really get tired of people accusing parents of not accepting their child because they decided to get an implant for them. Nothing can be further from the truth for most decisions.