Search results

It's fine with me that you posted your thoughts, it's just that those particular thoughts don't answer averyc's question - which asked for deaf persons without a CI to explain "if you decided against the implants, how do you feel about people who did get the surgery"?

It was nice of her to post the link, but the link doesn't say anything about hearing "coming back".

The question asked about how people with CI's were being treated by deaf persons without CI's, or how people who chose not to get CI's feel about those with them... and people responded in kind. averyc didn't ask "what is the history of hearing people treating deaf people poorly".

Don't forget about how you can get electrocuted in the shower! Anyone remember this ridiculous thread?

Interesting question! I'd like to see a presidential candidate simply pop off their CI's during a debate when the opponent is saying something they find ridiculous (just for the sake of humor).

I'm willing to bet that if this child receives a CI it will have nothing to do with the desire to get a trendy gadget for everyone to stare at, and everything to do with a desire to help the child hear all of the speech frequencies clearly.

I don't understand. It doesn't say anything about his hearing coming back, it just discusses how his aids are allowing him to hear things softer than a lawnmower right beside his ear.

Nice post, I respect your opinion. However, I don't understand one thing. Where is this world where children make decisions for themselves? I've seen it in Lord of the Flies, but that's about it. In my world, parents are responsible for every action a child takes, including having to...

Unless I'm mistaken, the liked post has nothing to do with "recovering hearing". The mother is simply pointing out that hearing aids are allowing the child to hear much better than without aids, and that since there is no indication that they can amplify to get within the "speech banana", that...

It's very confusing when you use quotation marks around a statement that was not actually made, especially when now you admit you're just guessing that he "probably" said something bad about sign as well. I'm not sure what you suppose the doctor may have said is especially related to what he...

My opinion is that it would never pass. Only eight states in your example passed even a portion of the suggested legislation, and it may not have even been the parts that the article is written about. Individual or small groups of legislators advance all kinds of suggested laws each year...

Seriously, though - did this doctor really say "you're a bad mom for not having him implanted and stuff"?

That's why I don't think either will ever happen.

I don't see even a slim possibility of either of those things actually becoming law, ever.

She would have been fully justified (imo) to slap him, tell him that he is extremely unprofessional for judging her decision - as well as for actually using the words "and stuff" to describe something.

.

The fact that some guy named X died "from a result of receiving CI" (I assume that means from meningitis after receiving a CI) might be new news, but the fact that there is a higher risk of meningitis in CI patients is old news. Because the risks associated with CI surgery are old news, the...

The point is simply that those conditions or situations (or use one of many others) do not call for "life saving" surgery. They may relieve pain, prevent possible complications, or repair something that has been broken during life, but they are not "life saving" procedures. The point did not...

All of these things can happen "naturally", and the surgery required to "fix" all of those conditions is almost always not necessary to save a life. I don't see the fallacy in the comparison, even though the situations are certainly not identical.

That's the whole point. It's the same as avoiding the risk of driving. And yes, the risks are old news. They've been documented in the past - they're not new. It is therefore "old news".