I'm Getting a CI!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cloggy said:
No.. just guiding you to a thread with more information on the same subject....... But forgot to create a link to it...
Click to expand...

I was talking about the deaf teenager who decided to stop wearing her CI. Her post elicited 84 pages of comments from readers. It was very interesting to read all those different perspectives and opinions.
 
deafbajagal said:
In that case, that's the basis of why some folks believe the CI should be left up to the individual, not the parents.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone else could post a link to some research or info that would demonstrate this... But a child getting implanted at the age of 1 is in a better position than a child getting implanted at the age of 7 for example. That's why in the movie, "Sound and Fury" the CI Audi/ surgeon told the mother that it wouldn't be as effective for her as it would be for her daughter.

I'm not taking a position either way, I'm just stating that as parents we have to make choices on behalf of our children. If the child doesn't get any auditory benefit from HA's, and the parent wants to provide the child with access to sound then the CI is the way to do it.

If the parents want to provide the child with the opportunity to develop intelligible speech, time is of the essence. The child would be in a better position being implanted at the age of one rather than five. I'm not in any way saying they should implant infants, but the responsibility lies on the parents to act in their Childs best interest.
 
The way I see it, some parents are going to implant their kids no matter what so ideally, I would love to see Canada and the US adopt the same models as Sweden and Norway. In Norway, it's mandatory for a deaf child AND their parents to learn sign, including CI kids (by the way, 40 weeks of sign classes are offered for free to the parents) - and the law (after the Reform of 1997 when oralism was switched to TC) is that the deaf child has the right to full access to education so the government pay for all accommodations and services to ensure each deaf kid gets the best education and resources possible whether it's at a deaf school or at a public school.

It's a beautiful collaboration of the medical community, the deaf community, the education system and the families all working together to give each deaf kid the best possible opportunities.

Really hope North America wakes up and start adopting the same models as Norway and Sweden.
 
Last edited:
DeafCaroline said:
Where is Heather Artinian Today?

"Do you have any memories of why you wanted to get a cochlear implant?

At five, I dont really remember it, but in the movie I said it was because I wanted to hear a car crash happen in Florida, but at 9, to be honest, it was because my brother said he wanted it and I couldn’t let him get it before me."
Click to expand...

Exactly why I believe that the deaf child should wait until he/she is 18+ before applying for CI. I don't like it when the child want CI for wrong reasons.
 
Wow, some comments!!

"The world is not "centered" around the deaf, it is the hearing."

Nice audist comment.:roll:
 
DeafCaroline said:
The way I see it, some parents are going to implant their kids no matter what so ideally, I would love to see Canada and the US adopt the same models as Sweden and Norway. In Norway, it's mandatory for a deaf child AND their parents to learn sign, including CI kids (by the way, 40 weeks of sign classes are offered for free to the parents) - and the law (after the Reform of 1997 when oralism was switched to TC) is that the deaf child has the right to full access to education so the government pay for all accommodations and services to ensure each deaf kid gets the best education and resources possible whether it's at a deaf school or at a public school.

It's a beautiful collaboration of the medical community, the deaf community, the education system and the families all working together to give each deaf kid the best possible opportunities.

Really hope North America wakes up and start adopting the same models as Norway and Sweden.
Click to expand...
Not mandatory, but when you choose "sign" there are more resources/support available. When you choose to raise the child without sign, a lot of support is not available any more..
But I agree with you that other parts of the world catch up.. The best way is to have CI and associated costs fully covered by the state.
 
Buffalo said:
Exactly why I believe that the deaf child should wait until he/she is 18+ before applying for CI. I don't like it when the child want CI for wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I believe that the parents of deaf child should make the decision and not wait until he/she is 18+ before applying for CI. I don't like it when the child want CI for wrong reasons.
 
Cloggy said:
Not mandatory, but when you choose "sign" there are more resources/support available. When you choose to raise the child without sign, a lot of support is not available any more..
But I agree with you that other parts of the world catch up.. The best way is to have CI and associated costs fully covered by the state.
Click to expand...

How is that the best way?
 
CSign said:
I'm sure someone else could post a link to some research or info that would demonstrate this... But a child getting implanted at the age of 1 is in a better position than a child getting implanted at the age of 7 for example. That's why in the movie, "Sound and Fury" the CI Audi/ surgeon told the mother that it wouldn't be as effective for her as it would be for her daughter.

I'm not taking a position either way, I'm just stating that as parents we have to make choices on behalf of our children. If the child doesn't get any auditory benefit from HA's, and the parent wants to provide the child with access to sound then the CI is the way to do it.

If the parents want to provide the child with the opportunity to develop intelligible speech, time is of the essence. The child would be in a better position being implanted at the age of one rather than five. I'm not in any way saying they should implant infants, but the responsibility lies on the parents to act in their Childs best interest.
Click to expand...

your last sentence contradicts with rest of the post. very confusing :dizzy:

it's just as bad as medical tv commercial with a tiny disclaimer notice "These are not real doctors"
 
Cloggy said:
So that people do not have to base a choice on finances.
I is sad when a decision not to give a child CI is based on lack of money instead of based on thorough thinking.
Click to expand...

Suppose there was no issues of money and the child did not receive CI's how do you feel about that?
 
posts from hell said:
Suppose there was no issues of money and the child did not receive CI's how do you feel about that?
Click to expand...
Now .. how did I know you were going to ask that... :lol:

I hope that they looked at all the information available, and have a plan for the future of their child. Just like any parent that does choose a CI should have such a plan...
I hope that it is their decision for their child. Not a way to prevent making a decision by postponing it soo long that the child will have to make the decision...

So, like any parent, I hope they go through some checkpoints....
What was their motivation not to implant? What is their decision based on?
Where do the parents live? Is there a Deaf community around (close by)?
Are they hearing? Are they deaf? Are they Deaf? Can they be d/Deaf role-models?
Do they know ASL? Will they learn ASL?
Are there schools for the deaf around? Will they move?
How do they see their child in 20 years

How would you answer to those questions if your child was born deaf right now..??
 
CSign said:
..................
If the parents want to provide the child with the opportunity to develop intelligible speech, time is of the essence. The child would be in a better position being implanted at the age of one rather than five. I'm not in any way saying they should implant infants, but the responsibility lies on the parents to act in their Childs best interest.

Jiro said:
your last sentence contradicts with rest of the post. very confusing :dizzy:

it's just as bad as medical tv commercial with a tiny disclaimer notice "These are not real doctors"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense to me...
Basically.. If you think it's in your child's best interest to grow up deaf in life. Fine. If you think it's in your child's best interest to hear & speak later in life, give it a CI as soon as possible.

btw.. your last sentence .... very confusing :dizzy:
 
DeafCaroline said:
The way I see it, some parents are going to implant their kids no matter what so ideally, I would love to see Canada and the US adopt the same models as Sweden and Norway. In Norway, it's mandatory for a deaf child AND their parents to learn sign, including CI kids (by the way, 40 weeks of sign classes are offered for free to the parents) - and the law (after the Reform of 1997 when oralism was switched to TC) is that the deaf child has the right to full access to education so the government pay for all accommodations and services to ensure each deaf kid gets the best education and resources possible whether it's at a deaf school or at a public school.

It's a beautiful collaboration of the medical community, the deaf community, the education system and the families all working together to give each deaf kid the best possible opportunities.

Really hope North America wakes up and start adopting the same models as Norway and Sweden.
Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree. That way no deaf child is left with language delays or deficits. It is not a fantasty world out there.
 
Cloggy said:
Not mandatory, but when you choose "sign" there are more resources/support available. When you choose to raise the child without sign, a lot of support is not available any more..
But I agree with you that other parts of the world catch up.. The best way is to have CI and associated costs fully covered by the state.
Click to expand...

The best way is to ensure the deaf child has access to all resources.

Not all deaf kids qualify for an implant.
 
DeafCaroline said:
The way I see it, some parents are going to implant their kids no matter what so ideally, I would love to see Canada and the US adopt the same models as Sweden and Norway. In Norway, it's mandatory for a deaf child AND their parents to learn sign, including CI kids (by the way, 40 weeks of sign classes are offered for free to the parents) - and the law (after the Reform of 1997 when oralism was switched to TC) is that the deaf child has the right to full access to education so the government pay for all accommodations and services to ensure each deaf kid gets the best education and resources possible whether it's at a deaf school or at a public school.

It's a beautiful collaboration of the medical community, the deaf community, the education system and the families all working together to give each deaf kid the best possible opportunities.

Really hope North America wakes up and start adopting the same models as
Norway and Sweden.
Click to expand...

I think that's a great idea.
 
cloggy said:
makes perfect sense to me...
Basically.. If you think it's in your child's best interest to grow up deaf in life. Fine. If you think it's in your child's best interest to hear & speak later in life, give it a ci as soon as possible.

Btw.. Your last sentence .... Very confusing :dizzy:
Click to expand...

lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top