You cannot hear with CI .. ??

rick48 said:
Rockdrummer,

The short answer we usually give is that our daughter is deaf but she uses a ci to help her hear. To those who are interested, we will usually attempt to describe how it works and its limitations.
Click to expand...
Thanks Rick and I do understand that. I'ts that there are some folks that I can only assume hold the cultural view on deafness that get caught into a battle of semantics on what the definition of hearing is with those holding the pathalogical view. We are all smart enough to understand there are varying levels of deafness or hearing depending on your perspective. I don't believe anyone has ever said that a CI cures deafness or that it mimics natural hearing. I also have not seen anyone post statements that claim that I/my child is no longer deaf with a CI. Yet that is what much of the hoo ha seems to be about. People twisting the words of others to meet an agenda. It's quite transparant to me when someone is doing that and they really loose credibility with me because of it.

So when someone says my daughter/son is deaf but can hear, we all understand what that really means. The expectations of a CI should be well known long before one gets a CI. The screening process and the interviews with the surgeon should set realistic expectations. We were never told that our son would no longer be deaf with a CI. Only that it may help him hear. The CI is meerly a tool to aid in the ability to communicate with the hearing world.

I fully understand that there are those rooted deep in the cultural view that believe nothing should be done to assimilate with the hearing world and that deafness is not something that needs fixing. Nothing should be done to aid in the ability to hear and its the hearing world (the majority) that should accomidate the deaf world (the minority). And then there are those on the other side of the spectrum that feel assimilation is the key to achievement. There are also views everywhere in between.

I just think that some of these discussions could be more productive if we didn't go of on tangents that really don't add value to the topic. Imagine if you were a parent lookiing for information and had to wade through all of the nonsense you see in some threads that have nothing to do with the topic or subject matter. In my view the argument over the comparison between a pacemaker and a CI are just opinions and will not add any value to the information on CI's. Again.. just my opinion.... Or maybe I am just being to anal today.. :dunno: Thank God it's Friday!!
 
So, assimilation, from a sociological, psychological, and educational perspective is a good thing because it bests serves the interests of the individual how?
 
Ok that's fine..what about those deaf children who didnt benefit from their CIs? My concerns for them is not a cultural or medical model..it is a fact of life and I am trying to ensure that this trend doesnt keep on continuing by pointing out some issues. Since this is about Cloggy's daughter, I guess bringing up other children with CIs is irrevelant?
 
shel90 said:
Ok that's fine..what about those deaf children who didnt benefit from their CIs? My concerns for them is not a cultural or medical model..it is a fact of life and I am trying to ensure that this trend doesnt keep on continuing by pointing out some issues. Since this is about Cloggy's daughter, I guess bringing up other children with CIs is irrevelant?
Click to expand...

Irrevelant only to some, shel. :cool:
 
rockdrummer said:
Thanks Rick and I do understand that. I'ts that there are some folks that I can only assume hold the cultural view on deafness that get caught into a battle of semantics on what the definition of hearing is with those holding the pathalogical view. We are all smart enough to understand there are varying levels of deafness or hearing depending on your perspective. I don't believe anyone has ever said that a CI cures deafness or that it mimics natural hearing. I also have not seen anyone post statements that claim that I/my child is no longer deaf with a CI. Yet that is what much of the hoo ha seems to be about. People twisting the words of others to meet an agenda. It's quite transparant to me when someone is doing that and they really loose credibility with me because of it.

So when someone says my daughter/son is deaf but can hear, we all understand what that really means. The expectations of a CI should be well known long before one gets a CI. The screening process and the interviews with the surgeon should set realistic expectations. We were never told that our son would no longer be deaf with a CI. Only that it may help him hear. The CI is meerly a tool to aid in the ability to communicate with the hearing world.

I fully understand that there are those rooted deep in the cultural view that believe nothing should be done to assimilate with the hearing world and that deafness is not something that needs fixing. Nothing should be done to aid in the ability to hear and its the hearing world (the majority) that should accomidate the deaf world (the minority). And then there are those on the other side of the spectrum that feel assimilation is the key to achievement. There are also views everywhere in between.

I just think that some of these discussions could be more productive if we didn't go of on tangents that really don't add value to the topic. Imagine if you were a parent lookiing for information and had to wade through all of the nonsense you see in some threads that have nothing to do with the topic or subject matter. In my view the argument over the comparison between a pacemaker and a CI are just opinions and will not add any value to the information on CI's. Again.. just my opinion.... Or maybe I am just being to anal today.. :dunno: Thank God it's Friday!!
Click to expand...


Rockdrummer,

Good points. Your experiences during the ci screening process were similar to ours. I think a lot of parents choose a path initially based on a lot of factors and variables unique to their situation. I also think that the decision is not one that should be set in concrete but rather a fluid one as you have to constantly evaluate and re-assess how your child is doing and be willing to utilize other methods if the one you chose is not working for your child. Its not about right or wrong, its about acting in the best interests of your child.
Rick
 
shel90 said:
Ok that's fine..what about those deaf children who didnt benefit from their CIs? My concerns for them is not a cultural or medical model..it is a fact of life and I am trying to ensure that this trend doesnt keep on continuing by pointing out some issues. Since this is about Cloggy's daughter, I guess bringing up other children with CIs is irrevelant?
Click to expand...

OK Shel, what about them? Also what about the children who could benefit from either HAs or CIs but do not have them due to their parents' decisions? What do you propose to do for those kids?

As long as parents raise their kids, there will be times when, in retrospect, they may not make the best decision for their child.
 
rick48 said:
OK Shel, what about them? Also what about the children who could benefit from either HAs or CIs but do not have them due to their parents' decisions? What do you propose to do for those kids?
Click to expand...

The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family. Most deaf families provide their children with HAs anyway..some are starting to get CIs for their chidlren..it is RARE to see hearing families refusing to provide hearing devices. I dont think I have met hearing families refusing to provide their children HAs or CIs..deaf families yes..but I see them in the same category as hearing children from hearing families. Know what I mean? Maybe u see it differently.

I am only concerned if the child gets full access to language...90% of children are born to hearing parents who dont know sign language so it makes sense that they would get CIs or HAs...my concern is I am seeing too many children unable to pick up on spoken language but still arent being exposed to sign language due to the parents or specialist out there (not here as u all proven that) that shy away from sign language. They figure the child will pick up on spoken language..something about it taking time but by the time they reach elementary school years, they start falling behind. Why is that still happening?
 
rick48 said:
OK Shel, what about them? Also what about the children who could benefit from either HAs or CIs but do not have them due to their parents' decisions? What do you propose to do for those kids?
Click to expand...
Very good point. That will be a future topic....

shel90 said:
Ok that's fine..what about those deaf children who didnt benefit from their CIs?
Click to expand...
That's another discussion. And a very important one.!!
But it's not part of this discussion....

When I say that my daughter is deaf and she can hear, I do not imply that CI is automatically the answer for all. I know results vary....
In fact, parents are warned not to expect too much since results do vary... (although I do believe that this is left from a couple of years back....)

And to clarify the pacemaker.... it's never intended to be a 1 to 1 anology. The two cannot be compared to such a degree but I must say that "Franz K" (Kafka?) had a good post there...

Enjoying this thread............ thanks all.
 
Cloggy said:
That's another discussion. And a very important one.!!
But it's not part of this discussion....

When I say that my daughter is deaf and she can hear, I do not imply that CI is automatically the answer for all. I know results vary....
In fact, parents are warned not to expect too much since results do vary... (although I do believe that this is left from a couple of years back....)

And to clarify the pacemaker.... it's never intended to be a 1 to 1 anology. The two cannot be compared to such a degree but I must say that "Franz K" (Kafka?) had a good post there...

Enjoying this thread............ thanks all.
Click to expand...

I dont know if that is going off topic or what but up to u if u want to answer or not. I understand that the parents are told not to expect too much but I am sure deep inside, they kinda do in a way? I probably would if I was a hearing parent who had no knowledge of deafness or deaf culture if my children were recommended for CIs. I am sure I would high hopes inside and keep in there. Did u all have that? Just wondering..

My mom told me that she had high hopes that my brother and I would become "hearing" overnight and that is from HAs..then it was afterwards she realized how hard she had to work with us in developing speech and lipreading skills. She did say the doctors warned her of that but she couldnt help it deep inside.

Sorrryyyy goiinggg offff topic!!! :giggle:
 
shel90 said:
I dont know if that is going off topic or what but up to u if u want to answer or not. I understand that the parents are told not to expect too much but I am sure deep inside, they kinda do in a way? I probably would if I was a hearing parent who had no knowledge of deafness or deaf culture if my children were recommended for CIs. I am sure I would high hopes inside and keep in there. Did u all have that? Just wondering..

My mom told me that she had high hopes that my brother and I would become "hearing" overnight and that is from HAs..then it was afterwards she realized how hard she had to work with us in developing speech and lipreading skills. She did say the doctors warned her of that but she couldnt help it deep inside.

Sorrryyyy goiinggg offff topic!!! :giggle:
Click to expand...

Shel,

Good question. Let me clarify something. When our daughter contracted meninngitis at 10 months and lost her hearing, we had very little knowledge of deafness and none about either the ci or the oral deaf. By the time she was implanted we had done a lot of research, meeting people, observing kids and adults, and asking lots of questions. We made a reasoned decision after a lot of deliberation and soul searching. My point from a previous post is that we are not unique-most parents we have met along the way do exactly the same.

What were my hopes? Of course that my daughter would do very well with her ci that with it she would be able to get access to spoken language. However, never did we ever think it would retore her hearing or that she would no longer be deaf. No one ever told us that and nothing we had ever seen or read led us to believe that was possible. We had high hopes but reasonable expectations.
Rick
 
"The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family"

Yes but you are only talking about sign language when they could possibly also acquire spoken language as well. What about that? Why is the concern limited to the sole acquisition of spoken language and not also the sole acquisition of sign language. After all, I am addressing kids who could benefit from HAs or CIs and their parents are not providing them to these kids.
 
rick48 said:
"The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family"

Yes but you are only talking about sign language when they could possibly also acquire spoken language as well. What about that? Why is the concern limited to the sole acquisition of spoken language and not also the sole acquisition of sign language. After all, I am addressing kids who could benefit from HAs or CIs and their parents are not providing them to these kids.
Click to expand...

To respect Cloggy's thread, I will start a new thread about this. Dont want to go more off topic. :)
 
Cloggy said:
I have said many times.. "My daughter is deaf. She can hear." since for me "to hear" means "to perceive sound"... and she does that....

One of the arguments in the CI debate is the "With a CI you are still deaf since whatever you hear is not the same as normal hearing." It's artificial...

Artificial....

...
Click to expand...

Getting this thread back on track with Cloggy's original assertion...after being derailed by all kinds of tangents which more or less had nothing to do with the price of eggs.

As a former HA wearer and now a Cyborg with a CI, I have been on both sides of that fence. The only thing I cannot claim is to ever have is what we call "normal" hearing. However within the scope of a HA and the adjustments thereof, my hearing was as normal it was ever going to get. So, at least I can use that part of my life to compare between the two things that this whole discussion was supposed to be all about.

Let me make this disclaimer again as it seems to always show up somewhere in these kinds of discussions...I'm deaf as a doorknob (pardon the expression) nowadays and just because I have a CI I cannot consider my a hearing person as such. With the CI, it is a tool that allows me to interact and communicate pretty much like any hearing person given general circumstances. If it is very noisy in the environment or other odd situations, then I have the disadvantage that while bothersome to hearing individuals they are capable of adjusting to that much better than I.

From my experience, this whole debate about what is real and what is artificial in terms of hearing is rather meaningless in the scheme of things. Unless one is able to compare the two in actual experience, one has no business trying to state any kind of opinion on the matter other than to repeat what others have said and experienced before.

Let me say this one thing that most people seem to forget about hearing. Ultimately, hearing is about nerve impulses that travel to the brain and the brain interprets that information in meaningful ways. For both normal hearing or aided with a HA and one wearing a CI, the information comes into the brain the same exact way. There is no difference! Of course, quantitatively the amount of the information is greater for a normal hearing person and there is no getting around it compared to what a CI can provide. Thus, the whole issue about real and artificial where a CI is concern is plain nonsense. It is rather an issue of how much information can a CI feed the brain. As techology progresses for CIs, it will get better and better as time goes along.

The reason in general that it isn't really important is because what is does most importantly is pickup speech and it doesn't need the whole gamut of info for the CI to do a superb job. This is what it was created for and to allow people such as myself to hear and speak very well communication wise. But I have found that in all the other things (aka.,environmental sounds) it does a great job at that as well. For sure, there are some things that it has some difficulty in handling like an orchestra that is going full blast with a wide range of instruments and a wide range of sounds. That would take a more powerful "processor" to handle that smoothly. So, it tends to finesse the best it can and it comes across tolerably well. Since, I love music and my taste tends to run more along simpler lines in terms of music, my CI handles that well and I get real enjoyment out of it.

Bottomline...overall my experience with my CI hasn't been too different than what I had experienced in my HA days. Yes, I had to adjust to the differences in a CI but my brain adapted quickly. So, without my CI, I'm deaf and no two ways about it. But therein lies the rub, with my CI, I do pretty well interacting in the hearing world and they take me as one of their own. That is all I could ever ask for and expect. All the other stuff is irrelevant...
 
There are deaf families who refuse to get hearing aids for their children even though they would benefit from them? I thought the whole problem with CIs from a child's perspective was that it involved surgery, which would be done without their permission, whereas hearing aids didn't have that ethical dilemma.

I think it shows that there are shades and layers of opinion even within both camps. e.g. those who are okay with CIs for children may differ on whether to incorporate sign into their communication strategy. Those who are against CI implantation for children do so for different reasons e.g, ethical dilemma or the belief that sign should be the only language of all deaf people because it is their natural language.

It just goes to show that there can be no one size fits all approach to this area. We need to all adopt mutual respect. We need to respect the private choices and decisions that people make, provided that they have made a real effort to educate themselves of the range of viewpoints and that they ensure that their children have access to other deaf (with CI or not) friends and peers as they grow up.
 
shel90 said:
......... I understand that the parents are told not to expect too much but I am sure deep inside, they kinda do in a way? I probably would if I was a hearing parent who had no knowledge of deafness or deaf culture if my children were recommended for CIs. I am sure I would high hopes inside and keep in there. Did u all have that? Just wondering..
......................
Click to expand...
Yes, of course there are hopes. Rick described it very well. I recall that my wife told me that there was a thing called "cochlea implant" but not that it would make my daughter hearing.
As you study the subject, the limitations and possibilities become clear.
Only someone who would not look deeper would assume that a deaf child would become hearing..

Come to think of it,
I have a feeling that this is true with some deaf people that are "automatically" against a CI for a child because it "doesn't work"..
Due to the lack of understanding of how CI works, what the possibilities are, they seem to "hear" .... "deaf child hears" and reject that possibility face value. No research on the subject is done... it is just rejected...
(note... I haven't met these people here recently..)

But to get back to the off-topic question.... of course hopes are high...
Not that she would hear.... but that she would do well with her CI....


LOL.... "Breakfast" shouts Lotte!!!!:cool:
 
shel90 said:
The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family. Most deaf families provide their children with HAs anyway..some are starting to get CIs for their chidlren..it is RARE to see hearing families refusing to provide hearing devices. I dont think I have met hearing families refusing to provide their children HAs or CIs..deaf families yes..but I see them in the same category as hearing children from hearing families. Know what I mean? Maybe u see it differently.

I am only concerned if the child gets full access to language...90% of children are born to hearing parents who dont know sign language so it makes sense that they would get CIs or HAs...my concern is I am seeing too many children unable to pick up on spoken language but still arent being exposed to sign language due to the parents or specialist out there (not here as u all proven that) that shy away from sign language. They figure the child will pick up on spoken language..something about it taking time but by the time they reach elementary school years, they start falling behind. Why is that still happening?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that there are many more deaf children born to HEARING families than deaf families, so you can't automatically assume they have full access to sign language. Even though I advocate teaching sign language to all deaf children, many hearing families are not completely fluent, and with everybody else in the immediate and extended family being hearing, even if the immediate family uses sign language, the child is cut off from everybody else.
 
I'm curious about something - the argument that hearing with a CI is "artificial hearing" is brought up quite often - just WHY is "artificial hearing" considered a bad thing? If it enables an individual to comprehend language, is the fact its artificial or not really important?

If an operation allowed a blind man to see, but instead of seeing blue, he saw green, where he should see red, he saw blue, etc - would that be considered a failure because he's not seeing what everybody else sees, even though he can understand/interpret what he sees? People who are color blind see things differently - but they STILL SEE.

People with CI's might be hearing "artificially" but they STILL HEAR. I think its apples and oranges - take it from somebody who could hear for the first 9 years of her life - what I hear with my CI is 100% clearer, more concise and more REAL than anything I heard with my hearing aids! I have those memories to draw from - and while there are "shades" (for lack of a better term) of sound depending on the map one uses in their CI, being able TO HEAR, and understand what one hears is so marvelous that I don't know of *anyone* who goes around thinking "What I'm hearing is not real....what I'm hearing is not real..."

Its HEARING, and besides the point - everybody is different.
 
neecy said:
I was under the impression that there are many more deaf children born to HEARING families than deaf families, so you can't automatically assume they have full access to sign language. Even though I advocate teaching sign language to all deaf children, many hearing families are not completely fluent, and with everybody else in the immediate and extended family being hearing, even if the immediate family uses sign language, the child is cut off from everybody else.
Click to expand...

Yes and that is why I am not too keen on the idea of oral only programs at school. I am just concerned that while the teacher is teaching a complex lesson or when the class is engaged in a discussion, the deaf child could miss out on important information. That's why I dont get it about oral only programs that tell parents it is ok to sign with their children after school but no signing is allowed in school because the parents are not fluent in signing yet so to me, it doesnt make sense. I feel it should be the other way around and not put the burden of being an ASL model on the parents. Oh well, I am sure many of the parents here will make sure their children dont miss out on what is being taught at school.
 
jillio said:
So, assimilation, from a sociological, psychological, and educational perspective is a good thing because it bests serves the interests of the individual how?
Click to expand...
I'm no expert but as I see it the ability to communicate with the hearing world (the majority) and all of the benefits that come with that would be in the interest of the individual. If you don't assimilate with the majority you are only isolating yourself which can actually lead to problems in the areas you mentioned. IMHO.
 
Back
Top