Monday, June 18, 2007
Is CI Surgery Immortal And Non-Consensual?
How fascinating. In an article in today's CNN news, it says routine infant circumcision is on the decline because it is "immortal and non-consensual" as well as being deemed medically unnecessary. Yet, many parents don't think twice about cochlear implanting their infants when CI surgery is far more dangerous than a routine circumcision??!! Is CI "medically necessary?"
from CNN news:
Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Good commentary and you might want to correct "Immortal" in the headline and once more within the text below that.
I enjoy your vlogs...so, ummm,....commonsensical!
DT
Unforunately the medical doctors do consider C.I. an important medical procedure. Their values are very different from ours. They are trained to fix and restore the 'defects' to normal. : /
Cy, that's a profound comparison. Wow! Never thought about that. The key word is "consensual." Some children and babies don't have a choice and are too young to think through the pros and cons of how a CI would help or hurt their living and learning. Decisions are made for them. Yet this is what parents do for children in many other areas, not just CI's. Parents do have to make decisions for their children like who will care for them while they work, what school they will put their child in, whose house they can play at, what their boundaries and curfews are, etc. Parents try to guide their children as best as they can. The issue is that parents need more information from both sides before they make the decision for their children to be implanted. That's the missing piece. Yet, even after some parents get information from both sides, they will still sometimes choose to implant their children. It's a hard position to be in. Parents want the best for their kids, but the definition of what "the best" means is different for deaf and hearing cultures.
I really liked your comparison and findings though.
~ LaRonda
Great analogy, Cy! We both know CI is a far off more invasive surgery than circumcision yet they say it is immortal and non-consensual. Why couldn't it be the same case for CI? Why not track down this birth class instructor and ask for his or her opinion on CI? If there are collaborative birth classes thinking that circumcision is immortal, we could also have them send the message that it goes the same for CI. Something to think about!
Leave it to ME to stick my neck out, right?? Here I am, as big as life and twice as ugly!
Personally I do not have good vibes about parents who decide to have an infant fitted with a CI. I feel that the parents are taking rights away from their child. 'Like having your ears pierced, I always waited until my girls ASKED me before I had it done. It gave them a feeling of power that they could chose the right to have it done. And it gave them something to look forward to.
Circumcision was kind of a trendy thing way back then. 'Fifty, sixty years ago?? We were programmed at the time; when you had a baby boy, circumcisn was in order. NOW my grandchildren are having children and THEY choose NOT to circumcise their baby boys unless it is NECESSARY. I am so relieved that today's young parents understand such things better than we did!
Circumcision & Cochlear Implants: Both TRENDY and both should be avoided for infants.
Thanks for listening, Lantana
LaRonda,
Yes, parents do make those deicisons for children because by law children cannot make decisions until they are 18...however, my point was is CI a MEDICALLY necessary procedure? Hearing aids works just as good - why not have them wear hearing aids until they're 18! Let them, as adults, decide if they want the invasive surgery - let them make an informed and educated decision whether to have the surgery.
I condone parents making major surgery when it is LIFE SAVING procedure. CI is clearly not life saving procedure - it is an elective procedure.
MZ,
Circumision is an elective procedure - the same is true for CI surgery. Circumcision is a procedure to fix a defect in the penile foreskin that is prone to infections and dysfunctions....by removing the foreskin, these infections and dysfunctions are eliminated. This is not what is normal...make babies are born with these foreskins. It is a MEDICAL view that it is better to remove the foreskin. Now American Pedriatics are no longer condoning these procedures - declaring them medically unnecessary.
I see the parallel in CI - hearing aids works just as good as CI in terms of aural and speech therapy...medical professionals are in it for the MONEY. They make more money doing the CI surgery. They don't make any money when they recommend hearing aids - it is the hearing aid manufacturers who reap the profits of selling the hearing aids. Of course doctors would much rather the children receive the CI surgery so THEY could reap in the profits rather than the hearing aid industry. Thus why it is coined as "immortal and non-consensual." Everyone benefits but the not children. Everyone benefits at expense of the children.
Barb,
Yes - find those birthing instructors and have them expose to parents to the "medically unnecessary procedures" to include CI surgeries! Hearing aids would suffice until the children are grown to make their own informed and educated decisions whether they want CI or not!
Lantana,
Well, I did have both my boys circumcised - I thought they looked better. I didn't think about personal choices - circumcision is relatively non invasive and painless - I watched my younger son being circumcised - he outcried briefly and resumed to suckling his pacifier after just a few seconds. Very little bleeding.
They do this procedure when babies were newly born because their nerve system are still underdeveloped so they are not as sensitive to pain as they would have been if the procedure is done when they are older. Remember the first shot? At 3 months, my sons both went in for their first immunization shots. They both got jabbed and their reactions were very slow - at first they were startled, the puzzled, then came the loud and long waaaiiilllll - after about maybe a minute or two! At 3 months, their nerve system are still underdeveloped - they are more so at birth which is why circumicions are done at that time.
But, still, it remains "immortal and non-consensual" nonetheless.
MZ
Oops - another typo - "male babies are born with these foreskins..."
As it stand, parents tend to make decisions for their child,in their mind, which is "the best interests of the child." And every parents view are different.
What bothers me a lot is that many parents tend to be approached by a medical doctor first and they lean to CI without looking at all possible choices that are out there. If parents listen and absorb all available resources out there and still come to CI choice, then, they have avail themselves to all that is out there. Most parents don't and that is where it is a big issue.
My doctor (20 years ago) told me that circumcision wasn't medically necessary but that it is easy to keep it clean than leaving foreskin. I chose to have it done for my boys and besides I agree, it does look better. I bet if we ask our circumcized boys and husbands if they rather have uncircumcized penis, many will say no?!? Maybe we should do a poll? :)
Cy, I do understand your POV very well. You are not telling me anything new :)
I am just explaining to you how the doctors really view deafness, hearing aids, and C.I.s. They will vehemently disagree with you about the C.I being as efficient as hearing aids. They really believe that C.I. are superior to hearing aids, thanks to the C.I.'s intensive marketing. Therefore they are telling the parents the younger their child is to get C.I., the better it will be. I am just telling you their POV. It doesn't mean I agree with them ;)
That's where they need education. In medical schools, they have representatives from cochlear implant industry giving presentation on C.I.s. Deaf people need to give presentations at these medical schools, too.
MZ,
Yes, I understand where you're coming from. Like I said, everyone benefits from CI except the children themselves! Probably also for some parents as well as I see so many disappointed parents of CI children who failed to achieve what they expected them to.
I truly wish there is something similiar to what Sweden has for deaf children for here in the U.S. but U.S. being a strong democratic country, I doubt we would be able to strong-arm ourselves into the medical and hearing aid industry and be part of the "team." They would not want us there. OUr government is all about captialism, MZ.
The critic,
Good idea! Let's do the poll! I personally DO think circumcised look is better - My apologies to those who are not. That was the reason I had both of my boys circumcised, I have to admit. Being a female, I know most American-born females don't find uncircumcised ones too attractive and are even replused by them...I did not want my boys to be exposed to that...being ridiculed or experience replusion by the opposite sex. Remember, this is a cultural thing - many cultures don't cirmcuise their male infants, including many European countries...me being an American-born, I guess I am biased on this...however, my husband, the male, agreed that appearance is important for self esteem and that he is aware most American females are replused by the uncircumcised...and he opted for the elective procedure as well. Guess, we American females are quite vain, aren't we??
I have to disagree with you about CI being medically unnecessary because I was implanted at age of two more than 20 years ago. I do see it as medically necessary for children to be implanted if it is parents' wishes. And many profound deaf children won't and can't benefit from hearing aids because of degree of their hearing loss. It's ridiculous how you would say that hearing aids is good enough for the children while they will not benefit from the hearing aids at all. I'm sorry to say but you all are fighting the dying battle about cochlear implants and young children. So get over it and move on.
Cy,
Just FYI, Sweden is NOT less democratic than the U.S. :) When it comes to personal choice, including what parents are and are not allowed to do to their childen, there are some differences. Sometimes our laws allow more personal freedom than the laws in the U.S. and sometimes the reverse is true.
Parental choice with regards to deaf children in Sweden is limited (from the parents' perspective), since the law protects the rights of deaf children to be educated using sign language. One could see this as an instance of the government trying to interfere in people's lives in a way that would not be acceptable in the U.S. On the other hand, one could also see it as protecting the rights of the child.
Anyway, I just had to butt in. :) Interesting post.
Refer you to my post "Genetic 'Fix' for Deafness???"
Genetic changing to make a person hearie instead of deaf is most invasive procedure that I can think of because of its true permanentness. It simply state implicitly, "Hello, Deaf people, your culture, your lives, your language, your etc etc are nothing beside the blinding bright goodness of hearing." What arrogance! What cruelness! What oppressing!
Though stem cell research is still in its infancy, it is the potential that is fearsome because it is at this moment of history when all future POV and philosophy related to stem cell surgery (if it does prove to be superior to modern medicine, that I do think will be so) is being nurtured one way or other. Not only deafnes but also other random features of human body will be subject to genetic engineering as time moves on and human ingenuity grows! What a fearsome future OR what a wonderful future! Which will it be?
When I was a little boy I kicked my little sister in between the legs because she betrayed me and joined my older brother's I HATE FRED CLUB and began to tease me. She had to have a CI and I allways felt it was my fault.
There is more than one way to skin a cock. Sometime they cut the frenulum off, sometimes they cut around it. The prepucial frenular delta nerve, aka the masculine “Gee Stirng” and the feminine “G Spot”, trigger sexual arousal and erections when stroked or pulled. Causing sexual dysfunction by severing these nerves is an ancient form of eugenics on infants. Sure this will decrease the HIV rates but people won’t do it if they know what’s going on so they have to twist data around to convince people that the prepuce is the cause of HIV.
HIV enters our blood through micro rips in the male and female prepuce from rough (dry) sex, and anal tissue, too.
The largest organ, our epidurmis has natural anti viral defence Langerhans’ cell that produce langerin proteins that kill HIV and other viruses as they enter. These cells are all over our skin and consentrated in the male and female prepuce.
Schizophrenia is a neuro-chemical brain malfunction mostly associated with sexual TRAUMA before the brain developes language skills. Circumcision induced schizophrenia is often delussional and paranoidal, and sometimes coupled with audio and visual hallucinations due from milk allergies cause from a disruption in first mothers milk nursing caused from trauma. I had to look into this because my dad and two of my brothers, and two of my mother’s sisters sons have developed schizo-dissorders. Two of my other brothers committed suicide from sexual dysfunctions in their twenties.
dont be naive. im a deaf mom to a deaf son. both of us use ASL fluently and depend on our ci to better communicate in the hearing world. son had didgitals for 3 years and had intensive speech therapy. didnt meet his speech goals. went to ci, and boy, his listening and speaking skills skyrocketed.
with digitals, his hl was at 45 db and dropping drastically in the higher freqs. now with his ci, he hears at 25 all across freqs.
he is uncircumcised, lovs his ci, signs ASL fluently as hes the third deaf generation, and plays basketball in his hearing middle school and has deaf and hearign friends.
uncircumcised penises... no lube needed. remember.
peace to all of us deafies with differing views. I AM PRO CI, PRO ASL AND am for UNCIRCUMCISED FORESKINS. ha ha.
Jarom,
You feel ok with your CI therefore yhou are not against children being implanted younger than 18. I am a teacher and I've encountered many students who are upset with their parents' choices to implant them and many of them elected to stop using them. That is the point - whether children won't "mind"...it may be best to let them decide for themselves when they are told the pluses and negatives involving the surgery themselves rather than the parents.
Swede,
I have a Swedish friend - born in Sweden and grew up there until he was around 22. He married an American moved here. His family still lives in Swede. He was the one who told me about Swede's system for the Deaf.
It is like you said - America is more interested in protecting the choices of the parents - I believe more in protecting the RIGHTS of the child - as it should be, as it is in Sweden. I know America is quite captialistic which is partially why it would be an uphill battle to adopt the Swedish system here in the US.
And Sweden is not any less democractic? Sweden is a socialist country. DOn't get me wrong...I think in many ways Socialism is better than democracy. Socialism focuses upon the people, not the money.
Fred,
Too much information, LOL. HOwever, I failed to see the connection between schizophrenia and circumcision. As far as I know, circumcision does not cause penile dysfunction - only desensitizes it in rare cases. Research seems to show that the uncircumcised "finish their business" much faster due to heightened sensations because there are nerves in that foreskin that was remmoved in the circumcision surgery. Well, what they never had, they don't know what they misssed??
However, the point remains - should the infants be given the right to keep their foreskins and elect whether to have circumcision when they reach adulthood? Some uncircumcised men did and it was said to be very painful and experienced significant loss of sensatations - something the circumcised are not aware of...however that does not necessary lead to sexual dysfunction - they are able to complete the sexual act - just less enjoyable. that's all.
anonymous,
the pointeing it should be your son's choice to have the surgery, not yours. It is quite an invasive surgery.
These inner-ear digital hearing aids works the same way the cochlear implants does - it is made of the same chip that the CIs are made of. The only difference is CI chips are implanted and a direct connection to the brain is established. It's been said these inner-ear digital hearing aids works almost as good as CI and in my opinion, that would be a better option for children until they reach adulthood when they are given all the pluses and minuses themselves, not the parents.
CI is not really medically necessary procedure - it is not life-saving. If I had a deaf son, I would have had him wear the inner-ear digial ones until he is old enough to understand the surgical procedure, the potential side effects and reasonable results he should achieve post-surgery and the post surgical therapy.
I am a teacher - I teach classes with half of kids who were CIed as infants and no longer use them...and funny thing about that is the CI kids are even more delayed than those who are NOT CIed.
Your son's case is different - he was exposed to ASL early having a deaf mom. He was exposed to natural language early. These students of mine prove the case in point...CIed infants born to hearing families do not perform as well as expected....
It is too bad and possibly intentional that they don't track the CI children and their performance....I am quite curious to know just how many success stories are out there. Remember CI children are expected NOT to sign...they are expected to hear, talk, and function just like a hearing person. WOnder how many of CI children successfully achieved that?
Okay, this is completely off topic (and for that I apologize), but I can't let this one slide.
1) Sweden is most definitely a democracy. According to well-renowned Bloomberg.com, it is ranked as THE most democratic country in the world. LINK
2) Sweden is NOT a socialist country, although many Americans seem to think so. On average, Sweden is farther to the left on the political scale compared to the U.S., but Sweden is still more capitalist than socialist (which I think is a good thing).
Again, sorry for going off-topic, and I'm not trying to say that Sweden is in any way better than the U.S. I don't think it is at all, and I've lived in both places. I just wanted to set the record straight. Thanks.
Swede,
HEre is what I copied and pasted from Wikipedia...
The government of Sweden is a constitutional monarchy based on parliamentary democracy. The affairs of the government of Sweden are directed by a cabinet of ministers, which is led by a Prime Minister.
And I read some stuff from your offical Swedish government website...while it is a different type of democracy from here in the U.S., there are shadows of socialism there...the health care, social services, etc...similiar to Canada's health care system which is socialist-based...we had the debate months ago about that. Scroll down to the archives if you wish.
It does appear the OPERATING governing body in Sweden is "paralimentary democracy" which I interpret to be something similiar to UK and Canada with exception that your monarchy has constitutional powers while UK does not and Canada has none.
It seems nothing is black and white in this world anymore - little of that, little of that...
Anyway, I DO wish U.S. would adopt Sweden's social services, especially for the deaf.
Thanks Cy! I appreciate your sorting this out. Wikipedia seems to get it right, and your interpretation is correct (except that the Swedish monarchy has no political influence whatsoever).
I'm sorry for steering this off-topic, it's just that for someone to say that Sweden is not a democracy, I get the same feeling as you would if someone were to tell you that ASL is not a real language. You just get this unstoppable urge to set the record straught.
As for your actual post, I do think it's a tricky area. I'm hearing, and my feeling is still to let the child decide for themselves whether or not they want to undergo major surgery for something that's not life-threatening in any way.
When it comes to circumcision, I prefer my men au natural. But then again, I am European. :)
Have a great day!
Swede,
So, the "constitutional monarchy" is not accurate in the wikipedia? Or is it something else?
Yes, I can relate to jumping in when I feel the need to clear up something so I understand where you're coming from!
Thanks for jumping in! :)
from deaf CI mom of deaf CI son-
there is no such inner ear digital hearing aids that i know of. i emailed my audiologist and she replied that she have never heard of such.
my son had high powered digital hearing aids that cost 5 thousand dollars each. He wore them since 6 months old to age 3. He could ONLY respond to his name, and environmental sounds. NO LANGUAGE responding. Zilch!
Then he got implanted, he is able of having a verbal conversation with his best friend without looking at him in a quiet room. In the classroom he understands the teacher 60 percent of the time as per his SLP's guess. He uses an interpreter as a back up.
There are stories of success of kids with CIs out there. I recommend that you visit the places I mention below with an interpreter or a hearing friend who could sign. They would tell you wha the kids are saying.
Cochlear Camp (annual thing at Estes Park, Colorado. Went there thrice. Great crowd of CI teens, CI kids, CI deaf adults, signing and oral)
Oral schools such as JWPOSD, St Josephs, CID, and Clarke.
I cannot speak for CI kids in public schools nationwide. The facots vary too much due to several reasons:
1. lower the SES, the lower the success rate.
2. public school, less support CI kid gets. public school staff are not always trained in how to work with CI kids.
There are more, but the two above are the biggest factors.
CI kids end up at signing shools are considered not benefitting as oral kids and THAT IS WHY THEY END UP IN YOUR PROGRAM AND OTHER SIGNING PROGRAMS.
Better if you went to see with your own eyes over several days or several sessions, with osmeone who will tell you word for wod what the kids are saying to each other. Their language surpass deaf ASL kids at residential schools.
Again, remember its SES and parental involvement. Sigh.
CI does work! But with s u p p o r t.
Namaste!
*snicker*
Au natural. I love that about Europeans!
As for a country not being a democracy if it has a socialist economy, I would be more cautious because generally speaking the theory would say that socialism only really works very well in democratic country. Why? Socialism is economy for and by the people and democracy is government for and by the people. Thus the reason this country fails miserably the majority of times when it comes to meeting needs of diverse people. This country is wealthiest country but you can say the same thing for Rome at its height of empire glory.
Sweden is absolutely a democracy. It is not a socialist country (any more than WE are for having a welfare program!). The U.S. is so far to the right that there's quite a bit of room on the political left before you get into socialism and other forms of "far left" stuff. A constitutional monarchy means that while there is a monarchy in place, it is not in political control of the country, the parliament (in the case of Sweden) is.
In any case back to your original comparison of circumcision and CI -- a very interesting one, and I think a good one. In both cases, you have something that's been deemed medically necessary and thus medicalized. We're further along in realizing the circumcision is optional (although, there are some very long standing intractible arguments for trying to stop circumcision vs keeping it going that are really quite impressive for the vehemence involved.
Given the permanence of CI and the fact that it really closes off other options, it really seems like they need to back off doing it to younger and younger children at the very least. I'm disturbed especially by reports that there are a certain set of deaf children that actually simply need 18 months or so to finish development -- something that won't happen if you've already scraped everything out for the CI. Yikes. You'd think that would make hearies drop it like a hot potato, for very young children at least...
BEG,
Swede and I worked out the socialism and democracy thing. :) Out welfare system only has shadows of socialist principle as not everyone is accessible or eligible to the program. Socialism means services accessible to every citizen of the country. That is the difference. Welfare has income eligiblity limits as well as other requirements such as proof of lack of income such as no job, last employer's name and last day of work, addresses to verify, etc...to make sure the applicant is eligible for welfare. That negates the program as being socialist - the welfare program is more a supplemental social program for those who otherwise cannot support their families having lost jobs or whatever. Socialism provide services that are for all citizens, regardless of income, demographics, employment, etc. This debate ran its steam in the previous posts about the Canadian protests that I vlogged. If you care to go into the archives on my blog and read...I had long debate on this with a deaf Canandian named Chip.
Thanks for clarifying just what "constitutional monarchy" means - seems pretty much what UK has - what Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and the royal family is all about - all show without any power. But their income is from the tax paid by the British taxpayers - eh?? They are okay with it?? How interesting. The Kennedys are often coined as the American royals - but I would never pay a cent in tax towards them.
Oscar
Heheh - "Au naturel." Most Europeans are uncircumcised. No wonder they hate Americans - we are far too vain! Au naturel is not in our vocabulary.
Namaste
I think you missed the point - giving rights to the children to decide if THEY want the highly invasive surgery.
Yes, there ARE inner-ear digital hearing aids. I took audiology class and the teacher brought me many different models including the inner ear model - very small and extremely expensive. She showed us picture of how the inner ear model would be placed inside the canal.
I dont know how your audiologist could not know about it??
Not too long ago, my friend wanted new hearing aids and her insurance turned down the hearing aids and told her she only can opt for CI surgery...my friend went to her audiologist and told her she didnt want the CI and asked what was wrong with hearing aids? The audiologist decided to play the system - offered insurance to opt for the inner ear digital hearing aid which is basically the same as the implant - guess what? The insurance accepted. My friend how wears the inner ear digital hearing aid - She says the downside is whenever she needs to adjust, she has to go to her audiologist to pull it out and make the adjustments which has happened twice.
I suggest you to search the internet about this. I think I've come across these on internet once or twice.
I am NOT denying CI works - I know it does and for many, it is benefitical. I am talking about NON-CENSENSUAL - taking away the child's choices.
As a teacher, I know CI does not work for everyone - therefore how does anyone know this specific child would benefit from CI surgery? Risk the child's health and take the gamble? That's the point - not whether CI works. That is NOT the point.
Namaste,
Here is the url for the site that shows the inner ear digital hearing aid - it's proper name is CIC - Completely In The Canal.
Perhaps your audiologist did not recognize it by "inner ear digital hearing aid." She might acknowledge it by its proper name which is a canal digital hearing aid. Inner ear, to an audiologist, may imply it is ON the inner ear which is not the case, but is the closest to the inner ear where sounds are transmitted.
Visit the site at: http://aplushearingaid.com/products.asp
It is similiar to the one the audiologist from my graduate school showed the class. Except she presented an illustration to show where the CIC is placed inside the canal demostrating how close it is to the inner ear.
From what I understand, CIC has similiar components that are used in CIs. This one is what my friend has and is the one *I* would elect for my deaf child if I had one.
Cy,
Talking about me?? Yes, I have the CIC model. It is an excellent product, and, yes, almost as good as a CI. I was terrified of any kind of surgery. I would only opt for surgery if it saves my life. CI definitely will not save my life, so I was not willing to have the surgery. CIC is the closest thing to having the CI. I am very happy with it. I've made an appointment for my son to get the same CIC for himself. His BTE model is weak and worthles. He hasn't worn his BTE in ages - but I believe if he wears the CIC, he will be more euthiastic about wearing it more consistently because he will be able to hear so much more than his old BTE. I know my son will never achieve the ability for speaking but I would like him to hear things. He is still a deaf person, no matter what.
After my son's ABR results at his infant check up, my pedriatrican did recommend CI for my son but I declined. As I said, CI is not life-saving, therefore, no good reason to put him through the surgery.
He is now in middle school and is at top of his class. He did a trial in a public school setting but he was not happy about learning through the interpreter so he went back to the school for the deaf. ASL is his natural language despite having a lot of hearing, even without the hearing aid.
Anyway, thought I'd let you know he is getting his CIC next! My son also is not circumcised! Heheheheheh?? Obviously I cringe at any kind of unnecessary medical procedures!
Thank you for responding to my comment. I talked ot my audiologist about the CIC, the inner cancal type of hearign aid. She says it is not suitable for me nor my son since we both have severe to profound hearing loisses.
CI is the only best option for us to access so8und at the 20db level.
The earlier the deaf child gets CI the igher the success rate. My profoundly deaf son is functioning like a hard of hearing kid who swims nicely between both worlds. sure I do wish all of CI kids as early as posible are exposed to ASL.
To sum this up, CIC is for those with moderate losses. To be more specific, for those who do not qualify for CIs because they have residual hearing that can be modified with digital technology.
Namaste!
Namaste,
That's interesting. I think my friend has profound hearing loss and yet wears the CIC? I'll see if she comes back and posts another comment in reply to your post??
Anonymous,
Yep. Am talking behind your back.....LOL. Namaste says CIC is for those with moderate or better hearing loss?? Don't you have severe or profound hearing loss? Your son, too??
Cy,
My son has moderate hearing loss, but I have severe-profound hearing loss. I don't know how Namaste's audiologist can say CIC is not suitable for someone like me. It works very well for me. There are many different models, and perhaps there are certain models that are not suitable for those with more severe hearing losses. I don't know.
All I know the model I wear has many same components that are also found in the CI except for some components that are intended for implants itself that connects or establish a pathway to the brain which does not apply to a CIC device. That is why I always say that CIC is the closest thing to havig the CIC. I question why many medical professionals and audiologists don't recommend CIC first as an option because surgery is such a drastic step or measure to achieve in the ability to hear.
I only can speculate that CI profits people involved in the surgery, in making them, in marketing them. I've been told many professional people recommend CI because they don't need replacing - that is a misconception. CI patients are expected to undergo future surgeries to make adjustments, to replace, to repair, or to remove for medical reasons. CI is not a one-time thing. And quite expensive if you go to the bottom line...CIC is cheaper in the long run.
I don't understand the motive behind pushing for CI over anything else. It is not a life saving device. Surgery is very risky and has so many possible side effects and patients have to undergo future surgeries at one point or another....I also don't understand why parents would put their children through that.
I understand adults making those kind of decisions for themselves - they went into it knowing all information and accepted possible side effects. Children cannot. I would never put my son through that needlessly. CIC is nearly as good as CI so why not elect for it???
Well, that's me...
Anyway, good analogy between CI and circumcision.
Anonymous,
I recall you having profound hearing loss...thought your son was the same. Me wrong. Never saw him wear hearing aids so I made an assumption!
I, too, would opt for CIC rather than undergoing CI surgery - like you, I think CI is on the extreme side and not life saving or even life alternating. I had adult friends who got implanted and most of them stopped using them after a year or two. Only one I know of still uses it. So, I figure it is not all that life alternating - they all still identify themselves as deaf despite their CIs. So, why bother? I have to admit I, too, am terrified of surgery and wouldn't opt for any kind unless I must.
Anyway, I've always said I savor my silence and had always loathed hearing aids - was always confused and distracted when I wore them in elementary and jr high school. That's me. I guess I am an oddity, eh?? LOL.
Hearing aids do not function in ANY way like a cochlear implant, including those that are in the canal. You are mistaken. They don't even begin to compare. One externally amplifies sound for the hair cells which are left (and often times, there are few) whereas a CI brings a full range of frequencies along the length of the cochlea by internally firing electrical impulses, something that human hair cells normally do.
Profoundly deaf individuals will never receive the same benefit from hearing aids that they would get with cochlear implants. Moderate hearing loss can benefit, but the profoundly deaf will never access enough frequencies to have it be anything like the hearing from a cochlear implant, which is very much like ordinary hearing.
The comparison of circumcision with cochlear implantation makes absolutely no sense, because there is very little reason for circumcision (and the reason that there is has usually been cultural until the recent news regarding HIV spread) whereas there is every reason to enable a child to make the choice to utilize speech like the majority of society around them. Without an implant (which places an electrode in lieu of the missing or damaged cochlear hair cells) there is no way the child can "choose" to be implanted later with the same success.
I know this because my boys heard absolutely nothing during their hearing aid trials. We implanted them in infancy and they now hear down to a whisper. They speak clearly and understand without the need to read lips or sign. They can, however, choose to speak or sign in adulthood because we enabled them to access sound in infancy, when the brain is able to utilize it as it ordinarily would.
By the way, all the parents I know (and I know a lot of them) researched methods of communication, details about cochlear implants and chose them because they wanted them, not because of the surgeon or the manufacturers. It is highly offensive for you to assume that we all just follow along the primrose path of some "professional" without any ideas of our own. I think you would be surprised to know that the CI is not a big money making venture for many people... it is a "low incidence" issue and so it does not rake in the big bucks for anyone, particularly not the surgeons and hospitals involved.
Lastly, I would like to point out that my boys will not have to worry about the concerns which seem to captivate so much time and attention these days on blogs which I have lately read. They do not require captioning, interpreting services, special phones, etc. Yes, they really can hear with their CIs and they do quite well, thank you very much. Thank God we protected their rights to access all language and did not listen to the people who seem to be opposed simply because it's something they do not have.
So rather than criticize with YOUR technology-- computers, TTYs, blackberrys, hearing aids, etc., etc., why don't you think about the fact that this is one more great way for kids to communicate with their families and friends? How hypocrytical to deny them this when you are happily typing away to yours.
I often wonder when you say something out of that issues and I am not able to follow up your msg on vlog, I need to understand clarification of your question! Tell me what is the relation between the ear and the p....as an immortal?
Circumcision is the medicine procudure to alleviate the infections and cohlear implant is bionic technology. How do you compare them. An immortal and you aware most religions always rebuff the sciences! Surgery can do the job in another word "fix the problem or repair the problem in the body" Surgery must follow the medicine ethnics. Cohlear implant is not heath issues but bionic technology and circumision is the matter of health, and Depending the cultures as Jews, Moslems and some tribes in Africa do practically and Catholic or Mormon do not believe in circumsion. Cohlerar implant is matter of personal choices as cosmetic in another words.
Deaf Socrates,
Sorry you don't see the connection. The point being the children were not given choice in whether they want the cochlear, just as male babies not given choice whether they want the circumcision. Both are elective surgeries, both are not life saving surgeries. Both are cultural related. Some cultures deems circumicison necessary and other do not. Deaf culture deems it as not the magical bullet but a supplement to improving hearing. Deaf culture does not perceive it as a health or medical issue. Circumcision is orginially not a health or medical issue - it was more a cultural issue. Because those cultures that dictate circumcision that the medical community notice that circumcised males have less health-related issues that they begun routinely perform the surgeries. I foresee the same happneing with CI - someday they will routinely perform CI on deaf infants.
All comes down to CHOICE - educated and informed choice should be given to adults for any non-life-saving surgeries. CI is such a high risk surgery that comes with several potential life alternating side effects therefore CI on infants is indeed a gamble - something I deem a unnecessary gamble.
With this logic we would never provide dental care for our children because they don't get to choose. Good parents make choices, medical and otherwise, all the time.
Parents who implant are not doing so for cultural reasons. They are doing it to provide the communication with all cultures of humanity. Humans normally have 5 senses. Without one, people make do and deal with it by communicating in alternate ways, understandably. However, if we can restore the sense (which humans are intended to have) we can provide them with a lot of things-- the ability to have higher educational level, reading level, and occupational opportunities. Gallaudet itself reports that many of their graduates have difficulty finding jobs, and that deaf individuals reach a 3rd or 4th grade reading level on average. While there are exceptions, this kind of statistic means that parents who implant are providing opportunities. To NOT implant when there is the opportunity, now there is the burden to society and the lack of compassion to a child who has their whole life ahead of them.
Anonymous,
you can't compare dental to CI.
THe whole point is CI is not life saving surgery and there ARE sophisicated digital hearing aids that do almost good job as CI that would serve the deaf children just fine until they grow up, and make an informed and educated decision whether to have CI.
CI has many potential side effects that can affect the rest of their lives and is very invasive. It is also a identity acknowledgement that you can't determine when they are infants. Also, you can't determine if the infant would be more aural or more visual learner. There have been many CI children who simply stop using CI because they are more visual learners - CI failed to successfully establish the pathway to brain for language.
So, basically, CI is a gamble and quite risky for infants.
Please don't compare CI to trivial things like dental, doctor visits, skinned knees, broken bones, etc. This makes a really bad analogy.
The CI is VERY important, not trivial. So is good dental care. There are not hearing aids which are almost as good as cochlear implants for the profoundly deaf. They simply do not work that way. Cochlear implants give my children real hearing. They can detect a whisper, hear at 98% in a soundbooth test. There is not currently any hearing aid anywhere which could do that for a baby who had no measurable hearing at 120 db. You have to have a good amount of residual hearing for hearing aid benefit.
It makes no sense for someone to say that some humans are more visual and therefore ought to be left deaf when there is such a great alternative. Humans are meant to use audition and visual information.
I do not know where those people are that do not like their CI, but I suspect that those few individuals where implanted with unrealistic expectations at a later age. Prelingually deaf individuals must have the implant in early childhood to develop normal speech and audition, and if they were told they would be able to utilize it in this way, they would have been disappointed. There is undoubtedly a large segment of deaf people who cannot get enough benefit to hear on the phone, hear in a crowded room, or watch TV without captions. My boys do all of this, easily.
By the way, the cochlear implant is not the invasive, dangerous device it is made out to be. The meningitis risk, often touted, is extremely small (.01 percent) and is nearly eradicated when parents are aware of the symptoms AND get the newer vaccines which prevent many of the causes of meningitis. Also, the CI never goes into the brain, a common misconception. It never goes below the dura. The device sits in a small bone well, and the electrode is inserted in the cochlea. It is outpatient in many adults. Children bounce back incredibly fast, and resume normal activities by the next day, usually.
Interestingly, if a small implant would prevent blindness in babies, I'd bet most of you naysayers would jump at the benefits of that. If you were suddenly losing your sight, would you think you would be just fine without it? Would you imagine that your educational and employment opportunities would be just the same? I highly doubt it. These ARE very crucial reasons to give a baby the chance. How cruel indeed to deny them the chance to use this sense before it is too late. Fortunately most parents of deaf infants are hearing, and they seek out kids like mine and other parents who know how well the CI works, and they choose to implant. Deaf adults can gnash their teeth and argue amongst themselves, but the choice remains with the parents and, thankfully, the vast majority are giving their children the opportunity to hear.
Anonymous,
I think you missed the point - I don't disagree CI is good and beneficial...as long as you are an ADULT. CI IS invasive - just watch Karen's vlog on the surgery. It DOES have many potential life alternating side effects and you would gamble that on a child? On an infant? I have TWO students in middle school who have side effects from the CI surgery - one has bad eye tics and another facial paralysis. And know what? Neither use CI anymore - did not work for them.
That is the whole point - you really don't know if it works for them...what's wrong with the powerful digital hearing aids? Especially the Completely In The Canal model - it has many same components that are found in the CI...until the children grow up and make their OWN decision for such a risky surgery.
That is the whole point and the title of this post says it all.
The title does say it all. Immortal? I believe that you meant "immoral."
Waiting until adulthood negates the benefit of cochlear implantation. The brain won't work in the same way. Spoken language and English will be too difficult.
Cochlear implants should not cause facial tics. If this is the case the audiologist didn't know how to map the device. It is quite easy to turn off a particular electrode in order to remedy this. I know 1200 parents of kids with CIs and I have never, ever heard of one case of facial paralysis caused by a CI. It is extremely rare. Facial nerve monitors, used by the surgeons, prevent any damage to the nerve as they are installing the device.
If you looked at a movie of removing a wisdom tooth or replacing a joint it would look invasive, too. However, that doesn't mean that it's not worth it. In reality most of us would not want to see the stuff that is run of the mill for surgeons. The gross out factor does absolutely nothing to change the fact that BABIES are the best candidates for cochlear implants, right along with those who lose their hearing in adulthood.
The final verdict for me, and for parents of deaf infants, is that it is immoral NOT to implant babies who can use a CI. It is an unnecessary burden to them and society to force them to live without hearing and then take away that chance (which is what you do when you wait-- their brain will never learn to use sound enough to process it well).
Well, my son just asked "Can I have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on a bun, mommy?" Gotta go.
I know this is late, but I was just reading through some of the comments, and this part is just plain INACCURATE:
Hearing aids do not function in ANY way like a cochlear implant, including those that are in the canal. You are mistaken. They don't even begin to compare. One externally amplifies sound for the hair cells which are left (and often times, there are few) whereas a CI brings a full range of frequencies along the length of the cochlea by internally firing electrical impulses, something that human hair cells normally do.
First of all, the underlying assumption here is that a hearing loss necessarily involves nonfunctional cochlea (that has the "hair cells" mentioned). And in these cases, when the cochlea is not functioning, it may be the case that CI will work where hearing aids do not.
However, I am profoundly deaf (90-100dB down) AND HEARING AIDS WORK VERY WELL. Because there is nothing wrong with my inner ear. It's all sensorineural -- after the cochlea and all that. In my case, a CI would destroy the cochlea and I would have far fewer perceived sounds. In my case, amplification is all that is needed.
In addition, a CI does NOT bring the "full range" of sounds. It comes nowhere near matching the number of hair cells normally present in the cochlea. It has a much smaller set. The CI is a long way off from providing all those frequencies and shadings and variations.
That said, if you have a cochlea that is, or is close to being, nonfunctional, yes a CI will help. No, it is nowhere identical to hearing. And no, it is not superior to amplification when the cochlea is intact. It's very important to be aware of the exact reason the hearing is not present before deciding on the options available.
There are many different types of deaf, so one needs to be quite careful with generalizations of the sort that I quoted above.
I forgot to add that there is absolutely no digital hearing aid which even comes close to a CI. There is a hybrid cochlear implant which utilizes HA tech for some of the frequencies, but it still is a CI for the high frequency portion of the cochlea, with the same surgery.
The digital aids, even the best ones, will never bring in enough information for speech frequencies (we did hearing aid trials with both our boys with high powered aids). It will always be a struggle. With their CIs, my boys have found speech easy. They developed normal speech without even a trace of difficulty. Typically hearing impaired kids with aids struggle with high frequencies so that they never really understand "s." This means that they will never really get plurals or possessives which their peers and parents are speaking. They require a lot of assistance, TODs, interpreters, etc. My boys need none of that. I've seen borderline kids struggle, unfairly, when implanted kids pick up language like a sponge, no lip reading required.
Yes, I would "gamble" for my boys, and I did. They were both implanted in infancy, and, thank God, are meeting or exceeding their hearing peers expressively and receptively.
Also, don't be confused about the report of hearing "growing" in some kids. It was specifically auditory neuropathy cases, and it is pretty easy to distinguish from regular hearing loss (nerve related). No surgeon is implanting any babies who are simply "growing" and will get their hearing back, miraculously, if we wait. There are always several tests performed, including the hearing aid trial. Perhaps even more importantly, they want to know that the family is committed to using it so that there are not stories of wasted technology sitting on the shelf and the family wasting all of our insurance money on surgery when they don't really plan to do the initial therapy work and go to regular mapping appointments.
I am a teacher and you are obviously a hearing mom of a deaf child...I teach kids with CI that failed. They can hear but cannot pick up language through their CI. JUst hearing does not guarantee them language acquisition. Some children are just more visual learners - possibly born that way.
I was born profoundly deaf, hated hearing aids, so I never wore them, and I command a pretty good English. I did NOT need sounds to acquire English. I did NOT need hearing aids to acquire English. I grew up in a residential school for the deaf - the type of school most hearing parents are loath to send their kids. There are so much misconception about deafness among hearing parents.
You may be thrilled that your child can say "I want peanut butter," because she/he has CI, I am hardly impressed. This alone does not mean anything to me. Acquiring language is far more important to me than acquiring hearing. Having language helps you SURVIVE out in the world - not hearing.
Where I work, there are half of the student population there that have CI and perhaps only 5 percent of them still use them, and the rest of them had long since turned them off, and are fully ASL users. And funny thing about that is CI students are further delayed than those who wear hearing aids. I find that validating and ironic.
I cannot comment about your child because I don't know her/him. I assume she/he doesn't sign and is a fully speaking CI child. That is what most hearing parents want and they are usually content as long as their children can SPEAK - often nothing much else matters to them as long as they can hear and speak. Parents want their deaf children to assimiliate...that's all what counts...hence why they elect for their children to have CI. Pretty weak reason in my book since *I* and many others grew up without CI and acquired language just fine without them. Ability to hear and speak is just a bonus to most of us.
The majority of deaf individuals ARE deaf because of missing or damaged hair cells in the cochlea... over 90%. The electrode does bring the full speech frequencies. A hearing aid cannot do that. Sensorineural hearing loss IS what I describe... hair cell loss. A cochlear implant functions better than a hearing aid for severely to profoundly deaf individuals. If you can hear a whisper, or down to 20 db. with a hearing aid and your loss is 100 db., I'd be greatly surprised. Can you hear in the entire speech frequency?
We certainly would not be content to hear speech without understanding. The problem is that your abilities, whatever they may be, are not matched by the general deaf community. See Gallaudet stats for that. ASL does not work as a precurser to English language in the same way that teaching an infant English will do.
While a CI does not yet match the number of hair cells, those without enough hair cells will never have enough information to really hear like a person does with a CI or hearing. The CI mimics hearing in manner that produces speech which sounds completely normal. Contrast that with the deaf individuals who over the years have learned to speak with or without hearing aids. One will often cause great difficulty for hearing people to understand... and one will not. It's not nice, it's not pretty, but it's true. Unfortunately, this is the way it is.
Anonymous,
By just reading your comment, I know you are misinformed. ANY audiologist, a honest one, would tell you CI does NOT come even close to a natural hearing. The decibels lowers, yes, and the child HEARS more, yes, but LANGUAGE??? Widely varies.
YOu seem to ignore that in favor of ability to hear. There are many deaf children out there that CAN hear pretty well with CI but their language remains DELAYED. That is the whole point. It is because CI does not replace hearing - it remains a device to ASSIST a person to hear. When CI is turned off, the person is deaf, period. CI is just a device, just like an ordinary hearing aid. Far too many parents focus on the ability to HEAR, to SPEAK, and not on language acquisition which you are doing - focusing upon mechanics of the CI, how much a person can hear with it, how it helps your child speak, etc...nothing about language. THAT is a typical CI parent I encounter often.
CI industry cleverly avoid tracking success rate of their CI patients. We have no idea just how many CI patients successfully ACQUIRE language after the implant. There is no debate that CI does improve hearing signficantly...however, it does NOT guarantee speaking skills or language acquisition which is critical to a deaf child's survival in the world - language, not ability to hear or ability to speak. A seriously language delayed child is guraranteed to be forever dependent on someone to survive which I foresee MOST of my students to be once they've left school. I don't see them as potentially independent adults due to their delayed language, including the ones with CI.
To me, language acquisition is far more critical than ability to hear to speak.
This language acquisition is exactly why we chose to implant. I know hundreds of kids with cochlear implants and they are, without a doubt, doing well with language acquisition. Not only that, but it's the language used in their community, with their neighbors, and at their schools.
The dismal stats from ASL users and reading skills show that the language we chose for our boys has undoubtedly been the best choice.
Yes, the CI mimics real hearing in a very real way, as manifested by their excellent speech and lack of accent. My kindergarten aged son learned to read easily in a few months, and loves to have books read to him.
The proof is in the pudding, and fortunately hearing parents who give birth to 95% of deaf babies are meeting and hearing kids like mine and making the best choices for their kids!
Post a Comment