abcohende

In behalf for TJo,

"This is an eye opening for many. Nowadays soccer moms sign up to sign to babies before they get to speak. It is misrepresentation of the truth that deaf children who are aided with cochlear implants are able to decipher the "speech" spectrum. Many were led to believe it would enable deaf children to become hearing children. Take the time to check http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/08/05/the-greatest-irony-audiologists-response/ and follow through (do check the original post of "The Greatest Irony")

Even with AG Bell's philosophy, this organization Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf just disencouraged the idea of signing to deaf babies. It makes no sense to use American Sign Language (ASL) to enrich the cognitive development of hearing babies at the same time it is not allowed for Deaf babies to learn ASL! This has bee, and still is the main concern we need to resolve!"

Whoa, WHO says that the Deaf Community wants to remove that choice completely? That is not true, it is a fallacy.

On my comment, I am emphasizing adding American Sign Language to the Auditory-Verbal approach.

What is the harm of having both language input (auditory and verbal) to the child? Hearing babies has a dual language input when they are provided sign language, and it comes with benefits yielded by research.

Now, you are talking about the choice? I cannot fathom this anymore.

You are talking about the 'selected' few - who are successful (your measure of success as described) and why are you consistently overlooking other children who were exposed to ASL and received Auditory Verbal approach are SUCCESSFUL too?

Where is the middle ground here? You are at the far right of the spectrum that shunning ASL, and emphasizing a child who is deaf with cochlear implant to listen and talk ONLY all of the times. Other people are at the far left of the spectrum who shuns cochlear implants and raising children as true bilinguals.

There are many, many of us in the middle of the spectrum who wanted BOTH ends of the spectrum.

Gosh, the erroneous belief that this "Education of the Deaf" is all about black and white, and an obvious and blatant refusal to see that there are always exceptions with huge grey area.

Right now, what I am seeing in many blogs, vlogs, and comments out there about this issue... there are always parents who are persistent with the idea of CHOICE what is BEST of THEIR CHILD, without any consideration of the MAJORITY of the DEAF ADULTS who are trying to say something by sharing their experiences as a CHILD!

Choice versus Informed Choice is one big, big difference here.

Let's talk about the 'choice'....

Would you define that it is a parental choice for a parent to spank a child? Yes.

Would that be a choice for a parent to spank a child hard enough to injure a child?

N O.

This rigid ideology that you are harping is morally harmful for the majority of deaf children.

Would you advise a parent of 3 year old deaf child with cochlear implant at age of 6 months, receiving auditory verbal therapy comes with no benefits for whatever reason, to keep continue with this approach? I doubt it.

But adding ASL after their brains are not most plastic? That is very, very harmful and morally wrong for this child.

Then,

"Because by choosing to emphasize listening and talking only, you remove that choice from a deaf child forever."

I wholeheartedly support ASL Advocate's suggestion that we use American Sign Language for deaf babies and toddlers WITH cochlear implants along with their AVT sessions.

I strongly believe in ADDING sign language in this process.

The majority of people who are involved in 'rehabilitation' for 'deafness' are dead-set for not including ASL as a part of the intervention, which is bothersome to me, and to the Deaf community.

On my blog, one commenter wrote which really touched my heart big time...

_____________________________________________

Lisa, the commenter said:

My daughter has a profound loss in both ears, she was identified at 2 months. We began learning sign at 3 months.

She received CI at 15 months. Her doctor told me, "ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNING".

They even went so far to tell me "I could sign, but I would have to go some where else for the surgery."

Unbelievable!

I'm not proud that I was not completely honest, but I know it is my choice as a mother to decide what is best for my child.

Kennedy is 2 now and I know we made the right decision. Her speech is beautiful as well as her signing.

Her speech therapist say "she is a poster child for CI" -just not at her doctor's office.
_______________________________________________

There is no harm of ADDING sign language in this intervention process! Adding American Sign Language is a natural way to present the visual language to a Deaf child with CI, without any barriers, and it will complement to the AVT process!