Advances in Technology and a Return to Medicalization

[faire_jour]

I don't doubt that you posted it. Articles like that are numerous, especially in the ENT journals. And it follows course that the doctor who subscribes to the medical perspective communicates that perspective to the parents in the recommendations he makes for intervention.

I would agree that a doctor would probably give advice from a medical perspective, but just because someone chooses the intervention the doctor reccomends, does not mean that the person is operating from the same perspective.

 

[melissa]

I agree, A, that's why I greatly preferred it before I was mainstreamed- it was a much smaller class size (10 or so versus 30+) in a small, quiet room with individual attention from the teachers. It was so much easier to understand what was going on. If I had a severe/profound loss I think I would eventually have been offered the option to learn BSL (a profoundly deaf girl from my class went to a specialist school about age 11-12) but as I'm HoH there was a lot of 'trying to fit in'.

 

[jillio]

I would agree that a doctor would probably give advice from a medical perspective, but just because someone chooses the intervention the doctor reccomends, does not mean that the person is operating from the same perspective.

Not trying to offend, here, FJ, but I don't think you understand the topic as intended. Not all doctors subscribe to the medical model of deafness, or disability in general.

 

[jillio]

I agree, A, that's why I greatly preferred it before I was mainstreamed- it was a much smaller class size (10 or so versus 30+) in a small, quiet room with individual attention from the teachers. It was so much easier to understand what was going on. If I had a severe/profound loss I think I would eventually have been offered the option to learn BSL (a profoundly deaf girl from my class went to a specialist school about age 11-12) but as I'm HoH there was a lot of 'trying to fit in'.

Exactly. That is one of the consequences experienced by the deaf/HOH when the decisions are made from the medical model.

 

[faire_jour]

Not trying to offend, here, FJ, but I don't think you understand the topic as intended. Not all doctors subscribe to the medical model of deafness, or disability in general.

And that's why I did not say all.

 

[jillio]

yes, Melissa I've grew up with people viewing me as the medical view of deafness. In class, you don't realize your deafness is affecting your learning But teachers do because of their medical point of view which how they handle it can make you feel stupid. Then you compare your work to another student, and you just start to feel even more stupid.

There you go. Decisions made by others have the propensity to affect the individual on several domains based on the model subscribed to.

 

[jillio]

And that's why I did not say all.

Please stick to the topic.

 

[faire_jour]

Please stick to the topic.

My comment was on topic. I said that while many doctors may subscribe to the medical model, just because a person chooses to use an intervention recommended by said doctor, that does not mean that they themselves adhere to the medical perspective.

 

[Reba]

I think, from the hearing community's viewpoint, that deafness has always been a medical issue in America. Only now, there are more technologies available for "curing" deafness. I think that if CI's had been available 100 years ago, hearing parents would have jumped on that opportunity as quickly as they do now. It just wasn't available in previous times.

So, the viewpoint hasn't changed, but the available technology has. Also, the sources of paying for the technology have increased. There are more ways to pay for CI surgery than in previous generations, so more parents take advantage of it.

There is more awareness of and support for ASL and Deaf culture since the 1960's but most of that is still within the Deaf community and its periphery.

I don't think the medical model ever went away in the hearing community.

 

[A]

yes, it always been medical view. Which is why 100 years ago, they say deaf should not marry deaf or they will have deaf babies, and today, my mil told my husband don't get me pregnant, I could have deaf babies. the view of deafness never changed. Why my mil said it? because of DNA teaching at her college (she is RN). They didn't have enough research back then to support their theory, but they do now.

 

[Tousi]

Wow, that feels like a huge discounting of this person's perspective

Let me see, from just off the top of my head, if I can, in a nutshell, try to show you what the topic is about: In our dictionaries, the first presentation of the word, "deaf" is a very medical one. The social, cultural, etc offer of the word is down below in the definition.

Over time, it seemed that society was warming up to that further down-the-definition of deafness and inroads to enlightenment of the deaf culture were being made.

Jillio is now putting forth what seems like/ feels like a retreat back to the pure medical view and she wants to know if we, too, sense this trend.

 

[jillio]

I think, from the hearing community's viewpoint, that deafness has always been a medical issue in America. Only now, there are more technologies available for "curing" deafness. I think that if CI's had been available 100 years ago, hearing parents would have jumped on that opportunity as quickly as they do now. It just wasn't available in previous times.

So, the viewpoint hasn't changed, but the available technology has. Also, the sources of paying for the technology have increased. There are more ways to pay for CI surgery than in previous generations, so more parents take advantage of it.

There is more awareness of and support for ASL and Deaf culture since the 1960's but most of that is still within the Deaf community and its periphery.

I don't think the medical model ever went away in the hearing community.

The medical perspective has certainly always been there, especially in the hearing community, or in any instance in which the non-disabled are making decisions for the disabled. However, I have seen a switch from the perpsective still remaining, to a return to decisions being made more from that perspective. There was a time that the prevalent perspective being used was the social model and that affected the recommendations being made by professionals. Not just medical professionals, but all professionals concerned, from audiologists to SLPs to educational experts, to voc rehab professionals. If we compare deafness to blindness, and the ways in which accommodations and interventions are recommended and utilizied, you will see that blindness is still viewed from the social model more often, and interventions are more holistic. But then, there is really no CI equivalent in blindness. That is why I question the influence of technological advances impacting the model from which deafness is viewed.

 

[jillio]

Let me see, from just off the top of my head, if I can, in a nutshell, try to show you what the topic is about: In our dictionaries, the first presentation of the word, "deaf" is a very medical one. The social, cultural, etc offer of the word is down below in the definition.

Over time, it seemed that society was warming up to that further down-the-definition of deafness and inroads to enlightenment of the deaf culture were being made.

Jillio is now putting forth what seems like/ feels like a retreat back to the pure medical view and she wants to know if we, too, sense this trend.

Thank you, Tousi. Since you, the deaf, deal with the periphreal professionals, as well as family members, I want to know if you see the same shift, or if you think there are other variables responsible for the shift. Not to offend, but you are of the age and worked in a profession where you would have seen the shifts.

 

[A]

The sad thing is that because of latest technologies and researches, it make professionals think they can say anything they want because they have medical proof for it and not show a single care how a deaf person feel about deafness.

 

[jillio]

The sad thing is that because of latest technologies and researches, it make professionals think they can say anything they want because they have medical proof for it and not show a single care how a deaf person feel about deafness.

Bingo. That is why the shift backwards concerns me. There was a time when the professionals were much more sensitive to the holistic nature of deafness. I see that sensitivity starting to slide with the shift back toward the medical perpsective.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I strongly believe in supporting parental decisions.

I strongly believe we, as a community, are better off supporting individual and parental decisions than nitpicking over other people's children. If I may point it out, parental decision are meant to be supported and reinforced by communal support rather than criticized.

As an adult, I have grown up watching the Deaf community criticize my parents for their decisions to mainstream my sisters and I. It is the very same Deaf community, who criticized my parents, that are our co-workers and friends.

Some people here seriously need to keep their biased (and very harsh!) opinions to themselves about Deaf children who come from hearing parents.

Hearing parents of Deaf children have come here to share perspective only to receive judgment as if CI implantation is the death of ASL and Deaf Culture. It is not so.

It is the attitudes that will continue to be the death of you and yourselves.

Medical decisions are always a necessary evil of society.

To compare a societal shift in Deaf children, medically and environmentally, isn't fair, IMHO. There's surrounding issues that applies to this besides the CI itself.

Deaf children experience this just as much as the Deaf-CI implanted children do; it's called life experiences.

I'm hardly on this forum anymore because of the constant nit picking I see regarding parental choices. I am hearing and I admit to knowing very little about deaf culture, but what I have learned, I learned from HERE. I learned from all of you throughout the years. I also learned from the deaf people I have befriended over the years. I firmly believe in the teaching and utilization of ASL from the moment a child is ID'ed deaf or HoH. What I have seen, though, is that even when a parent has tought their child ASL, they are demonized as soon as an oral approach is investigated as if that will be the death of that child or that child will be harmed in some way, shape, or form.

I really wish people would stop being SO stinking defensive and SO stinking adamant about their POV. We CAN all learn from one another IF we open our minds and just listen to eacb other, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I find this sad.

I'm SO tired

 

[jillio]

I'm hardly on this forum anymore because of the constant nit picking I see regarding parental choices. I am hearing and I admit to knowing very little about deaf culture, but what I have learned, I learned from HERE. I learned from all of you throughout the years. I also learned from the deaf people I have befriended over the years. I firmly believe in the teaching and utilization of ASL from the moment a child is ID'ed deaf or HoH. What I have seen, though, is that even when a parent has tought their child ASL, they are demonized as soon as an oral approach is investigated as if that will be the death of that child or that child will be harmed in some way, shape, or form.

I really wish people would stop being SO stinking defensive and SO stinking adamant about their POV. We CAN all learn from one another IF we open our minds and just listen to eacb other, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I find this sad.

I'm SO tired

I'm sorry that you find this sad, but this is not what the topic is about. It really has nothing to do with parental choice, but is about the model of disability currently being used primarily in the health care and periphreal professions.

No offense to anyone, but it is becoming clear through some of the posts that misunderstood the topic of my thread, as well as a couple of others this morning, that many of these arguments and nitpicking are the result of misunderstanding or assuming one is saying something they are not based on a previous bias.

Please, let's stick to the topic.

 

[faire_jour]

I'm sorry that you find this sad, but this is not what the topic is about. It really has nothing to do with parental choice, but is about the model of disability currently being used primarily in the health care and periphreal professions.

No offense to anyone, but it is becoming clear through some of the posts that misunderstood the topic of my thread, as well as a couple of others this morning, that many of these arguments and nitpicking are the result of misunderstanding or assuming one is saying something they are not based on a previous bias.

Please, let's stick to the topic.

I think they understand the topic perfectly but yet, they have chosen to respond with the posts that they wrote. It is not lack of understanding on their part, but you misunderstand their posts, they are taking a stand.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Maybe it would be helpful to give a few examples in your OP to prevent from misunderstanding more. Due to the past we ve been agruing about the parental choices between with the doctor professional views.


:|

 

[jillio]

I think they understand the topic perfectly but yet, they have chosen to respond with the posts that they wrote. It is not lack of understanding on their part, but you misunderstand their posts, they are taking a stand.

Since the posts have nothing to do with the topic, I could only assume that they were misunderstanding rather than making a deliberate attempt to derail. It was the lesser of 2 evils.