Aren't we wasting time with HAs...

[Liza]

The many happy and excited posts made by many CI users here made me think - aren't we wasting time settling for HAs when better and better CI is available.
Sure it requires surgery but the quality of hearing is without hesistation so much better.
So why still settle for HAs?

Fuzzy

Personal choice, my good woman, personal choice.

Isn't it the journey, not the destination.. after all?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Yupp that's why I exclude the technology of sounds in my list.

If you are not interested in hearing at all, then perhaps it won't make a difference. but for someone who wants to hear - why deny the best option in the beginning?

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

even if lets say you have a mild loss and you wear hearing aids, but you have a normal cochlear.

CIs are a lot of work, the mapping, training, listening. Its not for everyone and its only a device a tool. But if it is on your mind - discuss it with your doctor. Not all doctors are out to just do the surgery, most want what is best for the patient.

You got it, Vallee. yeah, like okay, mild loss, but then you have normal cochlear as opposed to merely okay with HAs. is it bad outcome?


It sure is a lot of work, but then again - isn't it worth it in the long run?
And that's what I am saying all along- it's just a device, just more complicated technologically - but still just a device.

Fuzzy

 

[Hwy99]

If you are not interested in hearing at all, then perhaps it won't make a difference. but for someone who wants to hear - why deny the best option in the beginning?

Fuzzy

Well before I got the CI, in my mind, I only live once, so why not give it a try. It's up to people, if they want to stay with HA then go for it, if they want to try the CI, go for it.

I am only against people who implant the newborn babies or children without having the conservation with the newborn babies or children about it.

 

[deafskeptic]

Fuzzy, not everyone wants a CI for many reasons. Other peoples' choices have to be respected. When I got a chance to get implanted the first time around, I turned down a chance to get implanted. I got implanted five years later as it was almost impossible to wear my HA due to problems with recruiment.

Also I must note here that not everyone here are good candidates for CIs.

I'm under the impression that you think everyone should get a CI because they're better than HAs. CI surgery does destroy the residential hearing so this decision should not be undertaken lightly.

 

[Liza]

Like I've said I was thinking mainly fo those who rather could be helped.

Fuzzy, to me, you are saying people are stubborn if they don't agree with your idea of help. I find that a very arrogant tone to use in a discussion board where there must be room for differing ideas and opinions.

I am happy for people who believe CI works personally for them. I accept that unconditionally. How hard it is to accept that some people choose to not opt for CI?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

T
I am both CI and HA user currently I will stand by my opinion that all other options should be exhausted before a CI is considered.

And that is why I am most interested in your experience, or others like you, because you are living it - since you know the difference of hearing thru HA and CI, in retrospect - if you had a chance to hear like you hear now with your CI much much earlier, would you have liked that?

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Isn't it the journey, not the destination.. after all?

yes and no, because both HAs and CI are basically assistive devices that matter only when they are ON, when they are working -in other words their job is to make you hear, if you take them off they are useless.

And HEARING is what is important in this case not the "yourney" although
I am not saying yourney doesn't matter - it does matter, just not as much as what the CI or HA is supposed to do.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Well before I got the CI, in my mind, I only live once, so why not give it a try. It's up to people, if they want to stay with HA then go for it, if they want to try the CI, go for it.

I am only against people who implant the newborn babies or children without having the conservation with the newborn babies or children about it.

I understand, but like I've told Cheri -I am discussing why stick to old technology when the new, better one is available?


Fuzzy

 

[Hwy99]

I understand, but like I've told Cheri -I am discussing why stick to old technology when the new, better one is available?


Fuzzy

It's up to you All to your heart. Some people just prefer to stay with HA, some people are afraid of the surgery, there is many reason why people just settled with the HA.

 

[deafdyke]

stick to old technology when the new, better one is available?

Well, this sort of attitude is exactly why I think that CIs canidacy should be restricted. New doesn't always mean better. The CI IS better for the segment of the dhh population that gets very poor response from HAs, and those with severe tintitus and recruitment. But, as if its better then HAs for the ambigious canidates, that's a matter of really big debate.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

You might be suprised Deafdyke but it was actually YOU who got me thinking about it

It's your POV you expressed somewhere earlier that made me think - but why indeed would we have to treat it as last resort...?
Just the way how CI works is making it superior to HA. the only problem - it requires surgery, but then again, the benefits are so much more...

Fuzzy

 

[Liza]

I will wait when better technology is available.

It is a big committment to get CI, so that tends to fall in the category of personal choices for everybody who is a candidate.

 

[Tousi]

You might be suprised Deafdyke but it was actually YOU who got me thinking about it

It's your POV you expressed somewhere earlier that made me think - but why indeed would we have to treat it as last resort...?
Just the way how CI works is making it superior to HA. the only problem - it requires surgery, but then again, the benefits are so much more...

Fuzzy

After 73 posts, you're still saying CIs are better than HAs. Please re-read isimi's and soar's contributions; those two struck me as the most balanced and honest. Many others were also great.

I'm staying outta this one.

 

[Maria]

The many happy and excited posts made by many CI users here made me think - aren't we wasting time settling for HAs when better and better CI is available.Sure it requires surgery but the quality of hearing is without hesistation so much better.
So why still settle for HAs?

Fuzzy

Huh ? Haven't you thought about how much the CI would cost that some people couldn't afford ? Some of them prefer HAs which is more cheaper for them, if they only could afford.

I don't see any different between CI and HAs ... and, yet both of CI and HAs don't make deaf people to HEAR better. Nada.

There's only ONE way that they CAN hear better when they are in heaven.... that's when their souls leave their bodies - that bodies made them deaf, but not souls.

 

[highlands]

After 73 posts, you're still saying CIs are better than HAs. Please re-read isimi's and soar's contributions; those two struck me as the most balanced and honest. Many others were also great.

I'm staying outta this one.

CIs are for those who don't get enough benefit from hearing aids.. of course, 'enough' is different for each individual.. there are many factors that may affect to decide 'enough' ..while some may consider their hearing aids are enough some others may not be satisfied with hearing aids .. depends on individuals's life conditions ,wishes,expectations from life

 

[jag]

The many happy and excited posts made by many CI users here made me think - aren't we wasting time settling for HAs when better and better CI is available.
Sure it requires surgery but the quality of hearing is without hesistation so much better.
So why still settle for HAs?

Fuzzy

Well because the HA can do enough for a person with a mild loss. Or even a moderate loss so they should and will still be the first option.

Having said that when one gets into the severe/profound range many don't do that great with the HA. I think they really should change the criteria required to qualify to emphasize more realistic hearing situations. Because I did not meet the criteria in quite enviroments. only when noise was added did I meet it. And noisy does describe the world around us it certainly isn't sound proof.

I know many are happy with what they get from their HA's. And they should be allowed to continue if they really like what they hear. But others like myself (and you to I believe) should have the option to go forward and recieve the implant if they are not really getting the benefit that they want from HA's and are willing to except the risks associated with the surgery.

IT will be interesting to see how well the implantable HA;s do in trials, the use of the ears natual system to bring sound past the ear drum and only amplyfy in the middle ear may be a better option then blasting loud sounds onto the eardrum the way the HA does. If I turned my HA up loud enough to get all the sounds my ear actually hurt. That may have been eliminated with a middle ear hearing aid. New things may improve options for everyone. Only time will tell.

 

[vallee]

You got it, Vallee. yeah, like okay, mild loss, but then you have normal cochlear as opposed to merely okay with HAs. is it bad outcome?


It sure is a lot of work, but then again - isn't it worth it in the long run?
And that's what I am saying all along- it's just a device, just more complicated technologically - but still just a device.

Fuzzy

Yes it is worth it!

 

[jag]

,

What if the signals to the hearing nerve, doesn't work how is the user allow to hear? Is it worth to go though all that for nothing? Is it worth for a re-implanted?

.

Just to clarify the point about failure. It isn't that the signal doesn't get to the cochlea. The internal part of the device rarely fails. It's checked before you even leave the surgical room to see if the electrodes are working.

The 'failure' is mostly problems with the human wearing the device not being able to tolerate the noise (like I had that problem with HA's, not with CI's) Programming in the newer devices has helped alot.

New options like auto sensitvity and adro help dampen that excess noise. (not sure what the other two use but I'm sure they have somthing) there are also other things that can be done in programming the external device to make it tolerable for the person wearing it.

 

[jag]

The difference between a hearing aid and a cochlear implant is that a hearing aid amplifies the sounds. A cochlear implant sends the information through the cochlea to your brain.

The problem with a cochlear implant is that it will destroy the remaining hair cells inside your ear. So if a person with a hearing aid is able to carry on a conversation, talk on the phone and do anything they want to. Then they don't need a cochlear implant. Why destroy the remaining hair cells for something that isn't guaranteed to work when you're already doing well with the hearing aid?

Once you get implanted, you won't understand everything instantly. It takes time and you will have to go for re-mappings and all sorts of adjustments once in a while. It's not logical to make a risk when your hearing aid is fulfilling the purposes it was designed for.

Not everybody is a good candidate.

Doing well is so 'subjective'. In quiet testing conditions I did 'well'. In real life it sucked rocks big time. (oh and I still have some hearing in the implanted ear, hs to be really loud sound but it is there)

Also the amount one hears immediately seems to depend on many factors to. I was one of those who could actually carry on converstations immedicately (I did use HA in other ear) Tho it did take some concentration at first to clarify the imput, the CI actually sent alot of 'white' noise swirling through the brain with every noise at first while acclimating to the stimulation from the implant. At least that's how I would refer to all that excess noise.