Why CI is bad for kids under 6 yrs.

[TechBill]

Your English is fine, TechBill. I would not consider hip replacement surgery to be strictly elective, because it is used to correct disease such as damage from rhuematoid arthritis or to correct an injury. I am takling about elective surgeries such as liposuction, stomach stapling, rhinoplasty to change the shape or your nose so you look more like the majority, etc.

I don't know about the surgery to restore eyesight. I happen to have as friends...one of them a professor that I am in contact with on a daily basis...who would not choose to have the surgery and have no desire to become sighted. They have many valid reasons for their position.

Feel free to continue asking me questions. I don't have a problem with explaining at all.

Then I don't understand what your trying to say?

Surgery that can change a person look? or make them thinner? or to hide their uglness? what does it have to do with assistance devices or CI? You think we deaf people thinking deaf is ugly and we have to hide it by having CI?

You said hip surgery is a surgery to fix hip joint reason damaged by disease and I still don't understand what the difference between surgery for childern that have their hearing damage from sickness disease when they were young?

I still don't get your point at all sorry.


That is your professor choice because he/her is an adult but if he/she was a child and he/she became blind by reason of disease took his/her eyesight away and this new sight implant thing become common practice like CI which can restore partial sight to where it can assist him/her around the real world without using a cane then do you think his/her parents will elect to have this surgery on him/her knowing there a risk attached to it?


.

 

[rick48]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read the link that a 47 or so guy died from a result of receiving CI? This happened Jan 28th and he died 3 days later, this year!

That's old news???

Maybe its you who ought to re-read the article as you have the basic facts wrong.

BTW how about answering the questions Jackie and I have posed to you?

 

[rick48]

Then I don't understand what your trying to say?

Surgery that can change a person look? or make them thinner? or to hide their uglness? what does it have to do with assistance devices or CI? You think we deaf people thinking deaf is ugly and we have to hide it by having CI?

You said hip surgery is a surgery to fix hip joint reason damaged by disease and I still don't understand what the difference between surgery for childern that have their hearing damage from sickness disease when they were young?

I still don't get your point at all sorry.


That is your professor choice because he/her is an adult but if he/she was a child and he/she became blind by reason of disease took his/her eyesight away and this new sight implant thing become common practice like CI which can restore partial sight to where it can assist him/her around the real world without using a cane then do you think his/her parents will elect to have this surgery on him/her knowing there a risk attached to it?


.

Tech Bill,

Good points but as you can see these arguments just go round and round and round. If parents make a well informed decision on behalf of their children to either give them an implant or to deny them an implant, that is thier right to do so and the rest of both the hearing and deaf communities should just back off, shut up and leave them be.
Rick

 

[Drew's Dad]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read the link that a 47 or so guy died from a result of receiving CI? This happened Jan 28th and he died 3 days later, this year!

That's old news???

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 new news of some guy named X dying from meningitis is not really new news - because the fact that it can happen is old news.

Get what I mean?

 

[jillio]

Then I don't understand what your trying to say?

Surgery that can change a person look? or make them thinner? or to hide their uglness? what does it have to do with assistance devices or CI? You think we deaf people thinking deaf is ugly and we have to hide it by having CI?

You said hip surgery is a surgery to fix hip joint reason damaged by disease and I still don't understand what the difference between surgery for childern that have their hearing damage from sickness disease when they were young?

I still don't get your point at all sorry.


That is your professor choice because he/her is an adult but if he/she was a child and he/she became blind by reason of disease took his/her eyesight away and this new sight implant thing become common practice like CI which can restore partial sight to where it can assist him/her around the real world without using a cane then do you think his/her parents will elect to have this surgery on him/her knowing there a risk attached to it?


.

The point is that there are alternatives that allow for complete functioning without the resort of invasive surgery. Someone who has their hip damaged by disease or injury may not be able to remain mobile without the surgery. Surgery is necessary for mobility.

If you think I am saying that deaf people are ugly, perhaps you should go back and reread my posts. No where have I said, or even implied that. What I did was compare one elective surgery to another elective surgery.

And yes, it is that professor's choice. That is the whole point. As a blind person, he has the right to choose how to live with his blindness. A sighted person cannot tell him the best way to do that. He is not sighted, but he in no way considers himself to be disabled by that fact. The same holds true for deafness.

 

[rick48]

The point is that there are alternatives that allow for complete functioning without the resort of invasive surgery. Someone who has their hip damaged by disease or injury may not be able to remain mobile without the surgery. Surgery is necessary for mobility.

If you think I am saying that deaf people are ugly, perhaps you should go back and reread my posts. No where have I said, or even implied that. What I did was compare one elective surgery to another elective surgery.

However, the alternatives for those children who are profoundly deaf and do not benefit from HAs are to either not be given any oral speech and language therapy at all or to spend their entire childhood struggling through speech and language therapy with the very real probability of not developing those skills.

Yes, we were aware of the risks and considered them in our decision. Likewise, we were aware of the probability of a child who did not benefit from either HAs or FM auditory trainers developing functional speech and oral language skills and factored that into our decision. Also, we factored into our decision the difficulty that our child would face to develop speech and oral language skills. When we weighed those factors plus others against the risks, we, as her parents, made the well informed and reasoned decision to give her the cochlear implant.

That you or others may not have come to the same decision is irrelevent as is the fact that a few, and very few indeed, deaf children similarly situated may have developed functional speech and oral language skills also irrelevent.

The unalterable fact remains that parents have the right to make these decisions on behalf of their children free from the interference of third parties, i.e., those in the Deaf community who oppose children receiving cochlear implants.

 

[rick48]

I know I have asked this question before but I will ask it again. For those profoundly deaf children who do not benefit from from HAs what has proven more effective in their development of oral speech and language skills then a cochlear implant?

 

[shel90]

However, the alternatives for those children who are profoundly deaf and do not benefit from HAs are to either not be given any oral speech and language therapy at all or to spend their entire childhood struggling through speech and language therapy with the very real probability of not developing those skills.

Yes, we were aware of the risks and considered them in our decision. Likewise, we were aware of the probability of a child who did not benefit from either HAs or FM auditory trainers developing functional speech and oral language skills and factored that into our decision. Also, we factored into our decision the difficulty that our child would face to develop speech and oral language skills. When we weighed those factors plus others against the risks, we, as her parents, made the well informed and reasoned decision to give her the cochlear implant.

That you or others may not have come to the same decision is irrelevent as is the fact that a few, and very few indeed, deaf children similarly situated may have developed functional speech and oral language skills also irrelevent.

The unalterable fact remains that parents have the right to make these decisions on behalf of their children free from the interference of third parties, i.e., those in the Deaf community who oppose children receiving cochlear implants.

Again...speech and oral skills take prededence over anything.

 

[rick48]

And yes, it is that professor's choice. That is the whole point. As a blind person, he has the right to choose how to live with his blindness. A sighted person cannot tell him the best way to do that. He is not sighted, but he in no way considers himself to be disabled by that fact. The same holds true for deafness.

As a blind adult, yes that is his right but as a blind child it is his parents' right to make that decision and that is the difference.

 

[rick48]

Again...speech and oral skills take prededence over anything.

No, that is your subjective and biased interpretation. It is also not a fair interpretation of what I wrote. For example, there are a growing number of deaf parents choosing the cochlear implant for thier children, thus are you saying that decision is based upon speech and oral skills taking precedence over anything else? Also, since the decision to give your child a cochlear implant has nothing to do with raising your child to be culturally deaf, your comments are narrow and limited in scope.

Is it your position that oral speech and language skills are of absolutely no value whatsoever?

 

[jillio]

However, the alternatives for those children who are profoundly deaf and do not benefit from HAs are to either not be given any oral speech and language therapy at all or to spend their entire childhood struggling through speech and language therapy with the very real probability of not developing those skills.

Yes, we were aware of the risks and considered them in our decision. Likewise, we were aware of the probability of a child who did not benefit from either HAs or FM auditory trainers developing functional speech and oral language skills and factored that into our decision. Also, we factored into our decision the difficulty that our child would face to develop speech and oral language skills. When we weighed those factors plus others against the risks, we, as her parents, made the well informed and reasoned decision to give her the cochlear implant.

That you or others may not have come to the same decision is irrelevent as is the fact that a few, and very few indeed, deaf children similarly situated may have developed functional speech and oral language skills also irrelevent.

The unalterable fact remains that parents have the right to make these decisions on behalf of their children free from the interference of third parties, i.e., those in the Deaf community who oppose children receiving cochlear implants.

I agree. It is a parent's right to decide. But unless the parents have been given all relevent inforamtion, and are understanding of the fact that speech skills are not in any way equal to literacy skills, then they need to be provided that information.

 

[jillio]

I know I have asked this question before but I will ask it again. For those profoundly deaf children who do not benefit from from HAs what has proven more effective in their development of oral speech and language skills then a cochlear implant?

ASL has proven to be most effective in developing language skills.

 

[jillio]

As a blind adult, yes that is his right but as a blind child it is his parents' right to make that decision and that is the difference.

And the sighted parents need to understand the blind child's perspective fromt those that have gone before him. Likewise with deaf children.

 

[shel90]

No, that is your subjective and biased interpretation. It is also not a fair interpretation of what I wrote. For example, there are a growing number of deaf parents choosing the cochlear implant for thier children, thus are you saying that decision is based upon speech and oral skills taking precedence over anything else? Also, since the decision to give your child a cochlear implant has nothing to do with raising your child to be culturally deaf, your comments are narrow and limited in scope.

Is it your position that oral speech and language skills are of absolutely no value whatsoever?

Many deaf children who learned ASL first were able to develop speech skills. I have many deaf friends who were educated in the Deaf schools who can switch from ASL and spoken language easily. One of them is dating a hearing guy who knows no sign language.

 

[jillio]

Many deaf children who learned ASL first were able to develop speech skills. I have many deaf friends who were educated in the Deaf schools who can switch from ASL and spoken language easily. One of them is dating a hearing guy who knows no sign language.

Likewise, we have both stated on numerous occasions that oral skills are a valuable asset. But oral skills do not mediate the negative impact of language deprivation.

 

[shel90]

Likewise, we have both stated on numerous occasions that oral skills are a valuable asset. But oral skills do not mediate the negative impact of language deprivation.

Once a child is deprived of a language, they will face extreme difficulties for the rest of their lives unless for some reason, they manage to overcome their language delays. It has happened but unfortunately the numbers are too small.

 

[jillio]

Once a child is deprived of a language, they will face extreme difficulties for the rest of their lives unless for some reason, they manage to overcome their language delays. It has happened but unfortunately the numbers are too small.

True. Prevention is always easier than remediation.

 

[rick48]

ASL has proven to be most effective in developing language skills.

Factual basis.

 

[rick48]

Many deaf children who learned ASL first were able to develop speech skills. I have many deaf friends who were educated in the Deaf schools who can switch from ASL and spoken language easily. One of them is dating a hearing guy who knows no sign language.

Is it your position that oral speech and language skills are of absolutely no value whatsoever?

 

[shel90]

Is it your position that oral speech and language skills are of absolutely no value whatsoever?

What do u mean? I need to make sure I am reading u right so can u clarify your question?