Advances in Technology and a Return to Medicalization

[jillio]

Perfect examples of what I am talking about. People, albeit well meaning, are actually producing negative consequences through nothing more than their perspective. We need to understand that the ways in which we view, and present those views, of deafness has the power to impact an entire community. Too often people believe that their actions and beliefs are isolated and affect only their immediate family. The truth of the matter is, the impact is much wider spread.

 

[A]

Not to mention, They don't want to do closed captioning anymore especially for latest technologies. Although the disability law is part of medical view of deafness which can be good thing (because they were looking at it on the positive side of medical view), but their reasons to shun people out by saying "NO CLOSED CAPTIONING" is people's negative medical view of deafness... making them believe this is a hearing world.

F_J, even I'm guilty of medical view type of deafness when I told you that CI kids can just go to mainstream.

 

[shel90]

Not to mention, They don't want to do closed captioning anymore especially for latest technologies. Although the disability law is part of medical view of deafness which can be good thing (because they were looking at it on the positive side of medical view), but their reasons to shun people out by saying "NO CLOSED CAPTIONING" is people's negative medical view of deafness... making them believe this is a hearing world.

F_J, even I'm guilty of medical view type of deafness when I told you that CI kids can just go to mainstream.

Do you think children with CIs should be mainstreamed and not go to Deaf schools or programs with ASL?

 

[A]

Do you think children with CIs should be mainstreamed and not go to Deaf schools or programs with ASL?

That's not the point. The point is, I was guilty of telling her that if children hearing enough with CI, they should be going to mainstream.
And she disagree with that, and think they should be treated as deaf children with CI. Not hearing children.

The answer is no. They should go to deaf school. But I'm not going to talk about that on this thread.

 

[jillio]

Not to mention, They don't want to do closed captioning anymore especially for latest technologies. Although the disability law is part of medical view of deafness which can be good thing (because they were looking at it on the positive side of medical view), but their reasons to shun people out by saying "NO CLOSED CAPTIONING" is people's negative medical view of deafness... making them believe this is a hearing world.

F_J, even I'm guilty of medical view type of deafness when I told you that CI kids can just go to mainstream.

Correct. The unfortunate thing is that disability laws were being interpreted, at one point, from a more social model of disability. I see that being reversed.

 

[naisho]

Well, I skipped most of the posts that had to do with confusion in the context of the purpose in this discussion.

I can't speak comfortably as I think I'm not well versed in the operations and proceedings of the deaf world in reality. But I did feel I can contribute my own experiences.

I think the sum of most of my personal experiences is very similar to melissa's short autobiography. Being unilateral makes me feel like an outsider any hearing or deaf culture. All my life I've been systemized to flow with the main valve rather than being able to try alternate routes. This image predominated much of my childhood that at some point early on I refused to acknowledge deafness, I just wanted to be OK and not treated differently from the teachers and students in the class. It wasn't until later I realized I was doing myself more harm than good, something that took maturity to reach.

The trend has always been towards remedying deafness in the medical community, this is probably an undisputed statement that doesn't need backing to prove it. The public's consistency in adhering to this trend is the main question being asked and that’s what I'm guessing makes up for the shedding of the lackluster approach. It must have been due to the lack of empirical evidence in the science department that it dropped around the 80-90’s. Now with the situation back and booming, some of the people here seem to be fixated on the prospective issue of “deafhood” being eradicated.

I'd like to think it is more of a paradigm shift. Tousi mentioned economy which could be a prevalent contribution to the current focus. Looking back, we've had an increase in scientific evidence in just the past decade or two. The DNA human genome project completed, advances in artificially engineering DNA, stem cells, symptoms and results of STI's blah blah so on. It is a part the reason to why I believe the paradigm is shifting towards medical approaches once again.

The root of the cause has to do no more, no less than with human impulse to "fix" things to their liking. The only thing that is holding this back is people have varying definitions of "fix", although this principle that seems to run rampant within the scientific community. I'm honestly not surprised though, doctors (or scientists rather) want an explanation for everything in their field.

This is how I can observe that some of the asl-only communities have gotten out of the opinionated grasps of the current world's flow, aside from the few self-centered types that want to be "unique" - reasoning for those would come from deviance theories from the sociological perspective.

However the deviance model shouldn't be limited to one side, it would mold both ends of the fence. It's just more prevalent in observing it from a pro-deaf side.

I’d also like to chuck it in that some popular role models that are also affecting the opinions and decisions of people, even if just minor to an extent. Parents trying to fit the shoes for their kids beforehand, or the kids grow up wanting to be like one of those superstars.

Marlee Matlin.
Adam Savage.
Matt Hamil. Lou Ferringo. Shoshanna Stern. Ayumi Hamasaki.

Just a few I can think of the top of my head.

 

[shel90]

That's not the point. The point is, I was guilty of telling her that if children hearing enough with CI, they should be going to mainstream.
And she disagree with that, and think they should be treated as deaf children with CI. Not hearing children.

The answer is no. They should go to deaf school. But I'm not going to talk about that on this thread.

I just wanted to make sure I was reading you correctly.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[jillio]

That's not the point. The point is, I was guilty of telling her that if children hearing enough with CI, they should be going to mainstream.
And she disagree with that, and think they should be treated as deaf children with CI. Not hearing children.

The answer is no. They should go to deaf school. But I'm not going to talk about that on this thread.

I think your response was more of a frustrated "whatever" kind of thing that what really reflects your beliefs. We all do that from time to time.

Talking about school is acceptable here in this thread. The push for mainstreaming is one of the effects of the medical model. That, and the minimal accommodations being provided in the mainstream.

 

[jillio]

Well, I skipped most of the posts that had to do with confusion in the context of the purpose in this discussion.

I can't speak comfortably as I think I'm not well versed in the operations and proceedings of the deaf world in reality. But I did feel I can contribute my own experiences.

I think the sum of most of my personal experiences is very similar to melissa's short autobiography. Being unilateral makes me feel like an outsider any hearing or deaf culture. All my life I've been systemized to flow with the main valve rather than being able to try alternate routes. This image predominated much of my childhood that at some point early on I refused to acknowledge deafness, I just wanted to be OK and not treated differently from the teachers and students in the class. It wasn't until later I realized I was doing myself more harm than good, something that took maturity to reach.

The trend has always been towards remedying deafness in the medical community, this is probably an undisputed statement that doesn't need backing to prove it. The public's consistency in adhering to this trend is the main question being asked and that’s what I'm guessing makes up for the shedding of the lackluster approach. It must have been due to the lack of empirical evidence in the science department that it dropped around the 80-90’s. Now with the situation back and booming, some of the people here seem to be fixated on the prospective issue of “deafhood” being eradicated.

I'd like to think it is more of a paradigm shift. Tousi mentioned economy which could be a prevalent contribution to the current focus. Looking back, we've had an increase in scientific evidence in just the past decade or two. The DNA human genome project completed, advances in artificially engineering DNA, stem cells, symptoms and results of STI's blah blah so on. It is a part the reason to why I believe the paradigm is shifting towards medical approaches once again.

The root of the cause has to do no more, no less than with human impulse to "fix" things to their liking. The only thing that is holding this back is people have varying definitions of "fix", although this principle that seems to run rampant within the scientific community. I'm honestly not surprised though, doctors (or scientists rather) want an explanation for everything in their field.

This is how I can observe that some of the asl-only communities have gotten out of the opinionated grasps of the current world's flow, aside from the few self-centered types that want to be "unique" - reasoning for those would come from deviance theories from the sociological perspective.

However the deviance model shouldn't be limited to one side, it would mold both ends of the fence. It's just more prevalent in observing it from a pro-deaf side.

I’d also like to chuck it in that some popular role models that are also affecting the opinions and decisions of people, even if just minor to an extent. Parents trying to fit the shoes for their kids beforehand, or the kids grow up wanting to be like one of those superstars.

Marlee Matlin.
Adam Savage.
Matt Hamil. Lou Ferringo. Shoshanna Stern. Ayumi Hamasaki.

Just a few I can think of the top of my head.

Oh, it is most definately a paradigm shift. With, to my way of seeing things, a correlation with a shift in technology. While it is true that people have an innate tendency to want to fix things to their liking, it is not innate to attempt to fix others situations to their liking. That is more of a learned behavior.

Agree with you on fitting the shoes beforehand.

 

[shel90]

I think your response was more of a frustrated "whatever" kind of thing that what really reflects your beliefs. We all do that from time to time.

Talking about school is acceptable here in this thread. The push for mainstreaming is one of the effects of the medical model. That, and the minimal accommodations being provided in the mainstream.

The laws regarding LRE really is from a medical point of view. Trying to standardize all children's way of learning and try to normalize them whichever that means.

 

[jillio]

The laws regarding LRE really is from a medical point of view. Trying to standardize all children's way of learning and try to normalize them whichever that means.

Good point. Especially the way LRE is applied, particularly to the deaf student. It is generally assumed that LRE is a mainstream, hearing environment for the deaf kid. Totally discounts the social, linguistic, and psychological factors that should be included in deciding the LRE.

 

[A]

Correct. The unfortunate thing is that disability laws were being interpreted, at one point, from a more social model of disability. I see that being reversed.

yes, The reason I say they are treating it as this is a hearing world because they have no problems spending money on sound effects and anything to do with sounds... like speakers on TV but they have huge problem with closed captioning decoder and all that. Not exactly medical view, but you were talking about shifting backward in insensitivity of the deaf and their social needs.

 

[shel90]

Good point. Especially the way LRE is applied, particularly to the deaf student. It is generally assumed that LRE is a mainstream, hearing environment for the deaf kid. Totally discounts the social, linguistic, and psychological factors that should be included in deciding the LRE.

Yea..which one is more restrictive?

The deaf child in a classroom full of hearing kids with a teacher talking. The deaf child trying to catch everything the teacher is saying but as soon as classroom discussions starts, the deaf child sits at the desk completely lost and struggling to keep up with everything that is being discussed completely missing out the objectives of the lesson. However, the child gets to catch up later in isolation with a TOD or with homework.

OR

The deaf child in a classroom full of other children like him or her with the teacher using ASL and other visual graphics. The deaf child is focusing on the lesson and learning rather than trying to keep up with what is being said. As soon as a classroom discussion starts, the deaf child is able to jump in and participate sharing his/her ideas and thoughts. During that, the deaf child develops different skills during the lesson. By the time the child starts his/her homework, he /she has a full understanding of what the homework is about.

 

[jillio]

Yea..which one is more restrictive?

The deaf child in a classroom full of hearing kids with a teacher talking. The deaf child trying to catch everything the teacher is saying but as soon as classroom discussions starts, the deaf child sits at the desk completely lost and struggling to keep up with everything that is being discussed completely missing out the objectives of the lesson. However, the child gets to catch up later in isolation with a TOD or with homework.

OR

The deaf child in a classroom full of other children like him or her with the teacher using ASL and other visual graphics. The deaf child is focusing on the lesson and learning rather than trying to keep up with what is being said. As soon as a classroom discussion starts, the deaf child is able to jump in and participate sharing his/her ideas and thoughts. During that, the deaf child develops different skills during the lesson. By the time the child starts his/her homework, he /she has a full understanding of what the homework is about.

Agreed. The way they apply LRE to deaf students is completely bass-ackwards as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dogmom]

I certainly agree that the deaf child/talking teacher scenario as described is more restrictive, especially as so much social and incidental learning takes place spontaneously and among peers too and the kid is missing out on all or much of that; also it seems very challenging and unfair from my perspective to put the burden on the kid to learn "after the fact" <after the class/day, or when it works for other people besides the child to sit down with child and discuss what happened an hour ago or that morning> and what if the child is very tired after straining to know what is happening in the classroom earlier with the hearing teacher/students? I think one must ask - least restrictive to whom?

 

[jillio]

It is another way in which technological advances and the correlated medical perspective has a negative impact on the deaf student. Negative impact in education transfers to negative impact through out life.

 

[natty_4ever]

With CIs being so popular I do see the approach that I went through coming back. I have no problem with CIs being used but they should not be relied upon as a cure for deafness.

In one of jillios post she mentions jobs not giving proper accommodations. I know this one very well. My speech is almost perfect for the hearing world because I went through so many years of speech therapy. Because of that employers treat me as I am over exaggerating my hearing loss. And they will not give me the help that I need.

My mom had the best intentions and I don't blame her for anything, but all the things that were done actually made life a little harder. Had she taken the holistic approach I don't think I would be in the situation I am in now.

I totally agree with your statement about the CIs.

Pfffttt job accomodations! I was told I didn't need them because I could hear just fine. Leave it to other people to determine how much we can hear! I told my manager I couldn't talk on the phone, but she said "But your voice sounds completely normal." Well thanks and all, but that doesn't mean I can HEAR "normal" or talk on the phone. They view everyone deaf as the same and don't really know much about anything relating to it except what the doctors want them to know, or what they want to hear.

I do see a return to the medical view of deafness as well. Whoever brought up stem cells as a even bigger influence on it is right. I've been asked when stem cells will be able to "make me better." I said deaf or not, stem cells wouldn't make me better than what I am right now. It would only make me conform to their standards as more hearing.

 

[jillio]

I totally agree with your statement about the CIs.

Pfffttt job accomodations! I was told I didn't need them because I could hear just fine. Leave it to other people to determine how much we can hear! I told my manager I couldn't talk on the phone, but she said "But your voice sounds completely normal." Well thanks and all, but that doesn't mean I can HEAR "normal" or talk on the phone. They view everyone deaf as the same and don't really know much about anything relating to it except what the doctors want them to know, or what they want to hear.

I do see a return to the medical view of deafness as well. Whoever brought up stem cells as a even bigger influence on it is right. I've been asked when stem cells will be able to "make me better." I said deaf or not, stem cells wouldn't make me better than what I am right now. It would only make me conform to their standards as more hearing.

You have a valid complaint under ADA against your employer. Unfortunately, with a return to the medical perspective, we are seeing a return to failure to comply with the ADA.

 

[faire_jour]

Yea..which one is more restrictive?

The deaf child in a classroom full of hearing kids with a teacher talking. The deaf child trying to catch everything the teacher is saying but as soon as classroom discussions starts, the deaf child sits at the desk completely lost and struggling to keep up with everything that is being discussed completely missing out the objectives of the lesson. However, the child gets to catch up later in isolation with a TOD or with homework.

OR

The deaf child in a classroom full of other children like him or her with the teacher using ASL and other visual graphics. The deaf child is focusing on the lesson and learning rather than trying to keep up with what is being said. As soon as a classroom discussion starts, the deaf child is able to jump in and participate sharing his/her ideas and thoughts. During that, the deaf child develops different skills during the lesson. By the time the child starts his/her homework, he /she has a full understanding of what the homework is about.

Andthe law reflects that. It specifically mentions that a child's language and ability to directly communicate with teachers and peers must be taken into account when deciding the least restritive enviroment for a student.

 

[shel90]

Andthe law reflects that. It specifically mentions that a child's language and ability to directly communicate with teachers and peers must be taken into account when deciding the least restritive enviroment for a student.

If so, then why did many parents had to fight to get their child enrolled at the deaf schools? The requirements were for their child to fail in the mainstreaming environment before getting permission to enroll their children. I was told that by several parents who wanted their deaf child enrolled at the deaf schools.