"Fixing" the child or not?

faire_jour said:
I didn't feel those things at all. I realized that it made perfect sense. It explained all the things we had been seeing. We increased our learning of ASL, sought out the Deaf community and looked for support for ASL using kids (signing playgroups, Deaf church, babysitters, etc)

Yes, my daughter can do anything she wants. (including hear)
Click to expand...

Rhetoric.
 
faire_jour said:
Are you saying that kids with CI's aren't deaf?
Click to expand...

No, FJ, that is not what I am saying, and it is not what I have ever said at any point in time.:roll:

But that is the perfect illustration of you taking posts and trying to make them fit what you want them to say. That is the entire problem here. No progress can be made because you refuse to accept another perspective, and instead try to manipulate it into something you want it to be.
 
It seems that some on this board think that a CI is a fix for deafness and that surgery "fixes" a child -- a concept I strongly disagree with for the reasons I've put forward much earlier in this conversation. This makes me think that you (those who think Li-Li is "fixed") consider her a broken object to begin with and now a 'working model'.

Aren't you very much disrespecting my deaf child by framing the discussion as if he or she is a broken object?

People tend to value things that are "fixed" over things that are broken -- I wonder if you ascribe the same value to a child with or without a CI, which would be a natural step given the common association.

That's an attitude I might expect to find among some small number of uneducated people unfamiliar with deafness, something we'd have to combat (a misbegotten idea that my deaf child is broken, incomplete, not capable). I'm surprised to see people here -- enlightened to the equality of all people, deaf or otherwise -- would want to promote the idea that some children are fixed, and support any associated value that might have.

I still just find it very hard to get behind a view in which people can be "fixed" in any way -- with surgery, therapy, handtools, environments, whatever the tool you use. If you say my child is fixed, you are saying that a deaf child without a CI is broken. I find that offensive.
 
GrendelQ said:
It seems that some on this board think that a CI is a fix for deafness and that surgery "fixes" a child -- a concept I strongly disagree with for the reasons I've put forward much earlier in this conversation. This makes me think that you (those who think Li-Li is "fixed") consider her a broken object to begin with and now a 'working model'.

Aren't you very much disrespecting my deaf child by framing the discussion as if he or she is a broken object?

People tend to value things that are "fixed" over things that are broken -- I wonder if you ascribe the same value to a child with or without a CI, which would be a natural step given the common association.

That's an attitude I might expect to find among some small number of uneducated people unfamiliar with deafness, something we'd have to combat (a misbegotten idea that my deaf child is broken, incomplete, not capable). I'm surprised to see people here -- enlightened to the equality of all people, deaf or otherwise -- would want to promote the idea that some children are fixed, and support any associated value that might have.

I still just find it very hard to get behind a view in which people can be "fixed" in any way -- with surgery, therapy, handtools, environments, whatever the tool you use. If you say my child is fixed, you are saying that a deaf child without a CI is broken. I find that offensive.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel.
 
GrendelQ said:
It seems that some on this board think that a CI is a fix for deafness and that surgery "fixes" a child -- a concept I strongly disagree with for the reasons I've put forward much earlier in this conversation. This makes me think that you (those who think Li-Li is "fixed") consider her a broken object to begin with and now a 'working model'.

Aren't you very much disrespecting my deaf child by framing the discussion as if he or she is a broken object?

People tend to value things that are "fixed" over things that are broken -- I wonder if you ascribe the same value to a child with or without a CI, which would be a natural step given the common association.

That's an attitude I might expect to find among some small number of uneducated people unfamiliar with deafness, something we'd have to combat (a misbegotten idea that my deaf child is broken, incomplete, not capable). I'm surprised to see people here -- enlightened to the equality of all people, deaf or otherwise -- would want to promote the idea that some children are fixed, and support any associated value that might have.

I still just find it very hard to get behind a view in which people can be "fixed" in any way -- with surgery, therapy, handtools, environments, whatever the tool you use. If you say my child is fixed, you are saying that a deaf child without a CI is broken. I find that offensive.
Click to expand...

Then, please explain why it is one chooses a CI for their child if it is not to minimize the physiological effects of deafness.

And saying that the intent of a CI is to fix the physiological effects of deafness is saying neither that the child is fixed, nor that the child with out a CI is broken. That is circular logic and a gross misrepresentation of a statement of intent.

Deaf individuals who say "Stop trying to fix us" are very simply saying that they do not see their deafness as something that needs surgical intervention to live with. They are saying that they do not see the lack of auditory input as a problem that cannot be naturally adapted to. They are saying that they are perfectly comfortable with the lack of sound and they do not subscribe to the philosophy of "some sound is better than no sound."

However, the hearing world continues to do that which enforces the perspective of "some sound is better than no sound" which in turn gives the message that those who hear a little are better off than those who hear nothing, and on down the continuum. It gives the very real message that to be even a little closer to a facsimile of a hearing person is a better situation in life that being less close.

That attitude has been demonstrated over and over in this thread. The plain fact of the matter is that the hearing need to stop trying to justify the fact that they feel that a little hearing is better than no hearing and simply look at things from the deaf person's perspective. The deaf are already aware that the hearing place a high value on the ability to perceive sound. They are simply saying that they, as deaf individuals, do not place that high a value. And they have every right to have that perspective and that value. After all, it is the deaf that live with their deafness on a daily basis. They, above all, have the perspective to determine what is of value to a deaf individual. To presume that the hearing culture can impose on them what they believe to be of value is what creates the divide we see.
 
faire_jour said:
Does someone choose hearing aids for the same reason or is it just an implant?
Click to expand...

Of course they do, FJ.:roll: The difference being is that it is not a surgical intervention.

Again, you are refusing to even consider the perspective of the deaf.
 
jillio said:
Of course they do, FJ.:roll: The difference being is that it is not a surgical intervention.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you believe that all parents who provide amplification (including Deaf parents) are attempting to fix their children.
 
GrendelQ said:
It seems that some on this board think that a CI is a fix for deafness and that surgery "fixes" a child -- a concept I strongly disagree with for the reasons I've put forward much earlier in this conversation. This makes me think that you (those who think Li-Li is "fixed") consider her a broken object to begin with and now a 'working model'.

Aren't you very much disrespecting my deaf child by framing the discussion as if he or she is a broken object?

People tend to value things that are "fixed" over things that are broken -- I wonder if you ascribe the same value to a child with or without a CI, which would be a natural step given the common association.

That's an attitude I might expect to find among some small number of uneducated people unfamiliar with deafness, something we'd have to combat (a misbegotten idea that my deaf child is broken, incomplete, not capable). I'm surprised to see people here -- enlightened to the equality of all people, deaf or otherwise -- would want to promote the idea that some children are fixed, and support any associated value that might have.

I still just find it very hard to get behind a view in which people can be "fixed" in any way -- with surgery, therapy, handtools, environments, whatever the tool you use. If you say my child is fixed, you are saying that a deaf child without a CI is broken. I find that offensive.
Click to expand...

Most Deaf people don't see deaf children as broken and needing to be fixed. We see the surgery as a procedure to "fix" something so by getting a CI surgery, it sends the message that those who chose it see something wrong with deafness and need to correct it hence the outcry of "stop fixing us!".
 
faire_jour said:
Are you saying that kids with CI's aren't deaf?
Click to expand...

It's your opinions. As a parent, that I dislike giving an example to other parents. It was not my intent to offend any parents of ci users, but it is totally up to ci users to tell us whatever they agree with us or not about the term of a "fix".
 
shel90 said:
Most Deaf people don't see deaf children as broken and needing to be fixed. We see the surgery as a procedure to "fix" something so by getting a CI surgery, it sends the message that those who chose it see something wrong with deafness and need to correct it hence the outcry of "stop fixing us!".
Click to expand...

But Shel, do you see that parents are saying over and over that we are not trying to fix our kids? That was never our intention.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. I have never seen a better illustration of the hearing refusing to give credibility to the deaf/Deaf perspective, refusal to even attempt to see things from a perspective other than their own hearing perspective, and so much defensiveness at the root of it than this thread. And all based on semantics. And then the hearing wonder why the deaf get annoyed.:roll:

Talk about a breakdown in communication! And English is being used across the board!
Click to expand...

You totally nailed it, jillio.
 
jillio said:
Then, please explain why it is one chooses a CI for their child ...
Click to expand...

I've done so: I chose a CI for the same reason I chose ASL immersion: to provide my child with access to language, something she would not have had without intervention.

Both of these approaches, what you want to call "fixes" require disruption in her life, and I would very much argue that the choice to integrate ASL into her life for the duration is far more disruptive to the child than the one-time surgery.

CI surgery does nothing to repair or "fix" the damaged cochlea. My child remains deaf. She now has access to sound in a different way, and only when she pops that processor on her head, but has no access to sound if she sets it down on a table.
 
GrendelQ said:
My child does not have access to ASL. I saw that as a problem. By your logic I fixed her by sending her to a school for the deaf.
Click to expand...

Giving her ASL isn't putting a magnet to her head. There's a reason the CI is so much more controversial than hearing aids or ASL. It's medically invasive. HA's and ASL aren't.
 
It seems like people are fixated (har har) on only two categories "fixed" and "not fixed/broken". Is the world really that simple?

Is a person with a prosthetic limb "fixed"?

Is a person with arthritis taking medicine "fixed"?

Is a person with an eating disorder seeing a therapist "fixed"?

Is a person with wisdom teeth removed "fixed"?
 
faire_jour said:
Ok, so you believe that all parents who provide amplification (including Deaf parents) are attempting to fix their children.
Click to expand...

They are fixing what they see as a negative consequence of deafness, yes. Please stop changing my words to suit your purpose.
 
Wirelessly posted

If you really want to debate about the word "fixed," the suffixes make a big difference.

"-ed" implies it's over and done with.

I would say my glasses fixes my vision, but I wouldn't say it's fixed.
 
jillio said:
They are fixing what they see as a negative consequence of deafness, yes. Please stop changing my words to suit your purpose.
Click to expand...

And again, an HA is non-invasive. One of those variables you don't seem to think is worthy of consideration.
 
Back
Top