Whoa!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a question, did the audie schedule more testing - CAT scan, blood work, and doctor's visit?

I went through the process and it is a long process. It took a year and half start to finish for me. I might not be the norm, but it does take a while to get approved first. Then after approval, if you are a candidate you have to have insurance approval. That takes around 90 days, some less. Then follow up appointment and pre-surgery appointments. Scheduling surgery takes between weeks and months to get. It took 6 weeks for me. I have a friend who has waited 2 months for her surgery.

If the parents do not want cochlear implants, they can stop at anytime. It is not a quick turn around from appointment to surgery.
 
back on topic...

Had the audi simply scheduled an appointment with the dr/surgeon that does the CI to discuss the procedure, that would have been ok in my book. With knowledge comes power. Plus, if the discovery of the little girls deafness is new, she really does need to see a specialist to find out if there are other life altering factors that caused her deafness (ie: tumors, illnesses, etc.). An MRI and or CT scan plus bloodwork and full exam would help do that. All of that has to be arranged by a dr, not an audi. But to schedule that actual surgery? I sense ID10T error on the part of the audi.
 
etalton said:
Had the audi simply scheduled an appointment with the dr/surgeon that does the CI to discuss the procedure, that would have been ok in my book. With knowledge comes power. Plus, if the discovery of the little girls deafness is new, she really does need to see a specialist to find out if there are other life altering factors that caused her deafness (ie: tumors, illnesses, etc.). An MRI and or CT scan plus bloodwork and full exam would help do that. All of that has to be arranged by a dr, not an audi. But to schedule that actual surgery? I sense ID10T error on the part of the audi.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but an audi cannot refer without the client's permission, and making an appointment with the surgeon the audi has chosen, rather than allowing the parent the choice to decide which surgeon she would want is a referral. Likewise, the parent did not agree to a referral. As she has other health problems, I'm sure her physician is keeping up with any tests necessary to insure that her other health concerns are being dealt with. And that brings up another point. The audi should not have referred to a surgeon without consultation with this child's general physician. If a referral to an ENT is needed, the general physician should be the one to do it, so that he can co-ordinate care in light of her other health problems.
 
john57 said:
So the audiologist scheduled the initial part not the surgery part of long process of getting the child approved for CI as you were saying.
Click to expand...

Oh okay this makes a bit more sense now. Not everyone who ends up going to see the surgeon for an intial appointment to get more information and to get testing goes ahead with the surgery. My surgeon asked me several times in the initial stages if it was what I wanted to do, so getting an initial appointment is not an intention to go ahead with surgery.

Still, I think that the others do have a point in that she should have waited for the mother's explicit consent to get the appointment. Perhaps there were some misunderstandings and she misread the mother's need for more time to explore things as something else. It is a very overwhelming time for many parents.

I hope the meeting is successful Deafbajagal and that the stepping over boundaries by the audiologist is communicated to her.
 
shel90 said:
Hey, u are entitled to your feelings. Some people just dont give a damn...being "hearinng' is all what matters to them.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm NOT anti-CI. I also think oral skills are useful, but to completely overlook this child's medical issues and solely focus on the need for speech simply because this child is two, and the so-called window of opportunity may be closing, is wrong!
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Right. I'm NOT anti-CI. I also think oral skills are useful, but to completely overlook this child's medical issues and solely focus on the need for speech simply because this child is two, and the so-called window of opportunity may be closing, is wrong!
Click to expand...

I agree there, Ocean. The more delays, the worse off.
 
shel90 said:
Wait Wait... the more delays to what is worse off?
Click to expand...

The longer it goes unattended with the girl's welfare in getting help with sign-language or whatever educational help she needs.
 
Matilda said:
The longer it goes unattended with the girl's welfare in getting help with sign-language or whatever educational help she needs.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh true...thanks for clarifying. :)
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I made an error in what I posted, but I still think the audi overstepped herself. This child appears to have a lot of extrordinary medical issues, which needs to be taken into consideration. It sounds like this audi is putting more importance on this child's speech instead of the other medical concerns.

That's alarming! I'm NOT anti CI, but I have a shunt. I know what's involved. Giving that a meningitis risk already exists with implantation, I would proceed VERY cautiously in implanting this child!
Click to expand...

Perhaps the audi did overstep her bounds or perhaps she was scheduling the next appointment so those very medical questions and concerns could be addressed. Bottomline is that the parent is the one who controls the process and if she does not want to continue then all she has to do is say no thanks.
Rick
 
shel90 said:
Wait Wait... the more delays to what is worse off?
Click to expand...

She obviously read what I said wrong. I feel the audi is jumping the gun simply because this child is two. Whatever happened to informed consent? Seems to be missing here, doesn't it?
 
Matilda said:
I agree there, Ocean. The more delays, the worse off.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I also don't believe that. This mother does NOT have to go ahead with the surgery if she doesn't want it for her child, and the child will be just fine. They are pushing the CI, so they can try and get a jump on oral skills, but it doesn't have to be that way. They could just as easily forgo the CI process and start teaching the child to sign. By doing so, they gaurantee the child will have access to a language and will eliminate any chance of delays. In my mind, by going the CI/oral only route, they are gambling with the child's access to language.
 
I dropped by to check this thread, and I can see smoke coming out of some of your ears. Uh, oh! Peace, folks.

The objective of the thread is not to discuss who is pro-CI or anti-CI (because I would not waste my time with yet another thread on this subject). The point is - an audiologist had the gall to ignore the parent's answer (which was she needed more time to think things through before making any decisions) and scheduled an appointment with the surgeon. She called this parent and said, "I made an appointment for you to meet with this doctor." The meeting is scheduled for Friday. The parent has asked me to accompany her as a friend (not as a professional in deaf education) to this meeting. You can bet I will be doing a lot of questioning.
as coming.

I am upset because the audiologist is not being ethical - and being pushy towards this child getting a CI. There are valid concerns because this child has a long list of medical problems - some of which may make her an unlikely candidate for a CI. I've been making a lot of inquiries - and several parents of childen with CIs were open to discuss their experiences with this audiologist. It is becoming apparent to me that this audiologist has a history of doing this kind of thing. I cannot wait to meet with her. I can't promise it will be a nice tea party.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
That's not what I meant. I also don't believe that. This mother does NOT have to go ahead with the surgery if she doesn't want it for her child, and the child will be just fine. They are pushing the CI, so they can try and get a jump on oral skills, but it doesn't have to be that way. They could just as easily forgo the CI process and start teaching the child to sign. By doing so, they gaurantee the child will have access to a language and will eliminate any chance of delays. In my mind, by going the CI/oral only route, they are gambling with the child's access to language.
Click to expand...

Hey, I am on your side ... see my #99 post to Shel. :)
 
Also - the mother told me again tonight that the audiologist used the word "surgery" when she told her about the appointment.

That's a strong word - and a point we should remember. Even if the appointment is just to get information...the audiologist specifically used the word "surgery" when she talked with the mother. The mother said to me, "That was all I could hear after that point. Surgery!"
 
rick48 said:
Perhaps the audi did overstep her bounds or perhaps she was scheduling the next appointment so those very medical questions and concerns could be addressed. Bottomline is that the parent is the one who controls the process and if she does not want to continue then all she has to do is say no thanks.
Rick
Click to expand...

Those other medical concerns would be addressed with the physician who is treating those concerns, not with an ENT specializing in cochlear implantation. And, the mother did not request a consultation. So, the audi was not "perhaps" out of line, she was way out of line.
 
deafbajagal said:
I dropped by to check this thread, and I can see smoke coming out of some of your ears. Uh, oh! Peace, folks.

The objective of the thread is not to discuss who is pro-CI or anti-CI (because I would not waste my time with yet another thread on this subject). The point is - an audiologist had the gall to ignore the parent's answer (which was she needed more time to think things through before making any decisions) and scheduled an appointment with the surgeon. She called this parent and said, "I made an appointment for you to meet with this doctor." The meeting is scheduled for Friday. The parent has asked me to accompany her as a friend (not as a professional in deaf education) to this meeting. You can bet I will be doing a lot of questioning.
as coming.

I am upset because the audiologist is not being ethical - and being pushy towards this child getting a CI. There are valid concerns because this child has a long list of medical problems - some of which may make her an unlikely candidate for a CI. I've been making a lot of inquiries - and several parents of childen with CIs were open to discuss their experiences with this audiologist. It is becoming apparent to me that this audiologist has a history of doing this kind of thing. I cannot wait to meet with her. I can't promise it will be a nice tea party.
Click to expand...

I believe I suggested it earlier, but it sounds suspiciously as if this audi is receiving some form of compensation for referrals to this surgeon. If so, both are in violation of the ethical standards of their professions, and can be brought up on charges.
 
rick48 said:
Yep, that's what appears to have happened but that is not stopping people from continuing to post that that audiologist went ahead and scheduled the surgery.
Click to expand...

FYI: I'm not an anti-CI.

I see nothing wrong when the thread creator share their expression over negative experience with audiologist? It's them who have experience, not us. We are here to support them and give them our feedback.

Simple is: If you don't like what you read then don't post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top