Cochlear Implants Help Deaf Children Learn Speech
HHIssues
NEW YORK, Mar 14 (Reuters Health) -- The earlier a deaf child receives a
cochlear implant, the better the child's speech development, report researchers
at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis.
A cochlear implant is an electronic device that is implanted in the inner
ear of a profoundly deaf person. It stimulates the auditory nerve and allows
the individual to be aware of sounds.
Although the device does not allow hearing-impaired people to hear speech
clearly, being aware of sounds appears to help language development, the
researchers explain. And this can help narrow the gap in language skills
hearing-impaired children experience compared with their hearing peers, the
authors suggest.
While hearing-impaired youngsters typically show delays in the
acquisition of language skills, cochlear implants can improve their
developmental abilities, according to the report in the March issue of
Psychological Science.
"We have found that when a child receives a cochlear implant, the child
begins to develop language skills at about the same rate as a child with normal
hearing," lead researcher Dr. Mario A. Svirsky, said in a statement released by
the University.
The gap between a hearing-impaired child's age and the typical age level
of their language abilities often grows over time, according to the authors,
meaning that these children fall further and further behind. But the study
results show that the implants can halt that progressive disparity.
"In other words, the gap stops growing," Svirsky said.
Although previous studies have indicated that cochlear implants aid the
development of speech perception and production in children who were deaf since
birth or prior to language acquisition, cochlear implantation remains
controversial in some circles.
Svirsky and his colleagues write that the organization Deaf World --
which advocates the use of sign language as the primary language for deaf
people and the view that deafness is not a handicap -- and its allies continue
to criticize pediatric cochlear implantation and question the practice's
success at boosting language development and acquisition.
"If it could be shown that cochlear implants enhance language
development, in addition to just speech perception, this would be compelling
evidence for the effectiveness of cochlear implants in the pediatric
population," the investigators write in the article to explain their research
motivations.
"Although we agree that the parents of children seeking cochlear implants
should seriously consider the perspective of the Deaf community... we also
think that parents have a right to make decisions on behalf of their children,"
Svirsky's team adds.
The researchers compared over time the English language abilities of
children who received cochlear implants with the capabilities of profoundly
prelingually deaf children who used conventional hearing aids and were examined
in a previous study.
Although the language development of children with cochlear implants
studied was less advanced than hearing children, their developmental rate
exceeded predicted rates for unimplanted deaf children, the study findings
indicate. The children's language skills were assessed at about 4 months prior
to implantation and at 6-month intervals afterward up to 30 months.
After 2-1/2 years, the cumulative language acquisition gains of the
implanted children were close to rates anticipated for children with normal
hearing, the team found.
Svirsky and colleagues conclude "that cochlear implants have a
significant beneficial effect on the development of English language in
profoundly deaf children" and that "the best performers" among children with
implants "not only achieved very high levels of speech perception, but also
seemed to be developing an oral linguistic system based largely on auditory
input from a cochlear implant."
Raymond Lee
if you were an ear surgeon, look how you can line your pockets by mass
operating deaf kids at £28,000 a time. Of course, the £28,000 includes pre
and post surgery rehabilitation and training but no doubt the surgeons see
this as a lucrative business and they get an enormous share.
Another issue ... whilst there are undoubtedly CI successes, there are CI
failures. However, the CI successes are publicised and over-hyped whereas
the CI failures are swept under the carpet. Such is the hypocrisy of life,
but there goes ...
Raymond Lee.
HHIssues <hhis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000330144913...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
HHIssues
>From: "Raymond Lee" ray...@globalnet.co.uk
>Date: 3/30/00 4:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8c0hvv$1e1$1...@gxsn.com>
>
>It is all propaganda promoting Cochlear Implants, isn't it? Look at it ...
>if you were an ear surgeon, look how you can line your pockets by mass
>operating deaf kids at £28,000 a time. Of course, the £28,000 includes pre
>and post surgery rehabilitation and training but no doubt the surgeons see
Hmm and let me take a guess, my gut feeling is that you're a member of the
"D"eaf culture, right ?
ar...@my-deja.com
This is interesting, but have they compared the language acquesition of
a child that has had a cochlear implant with one that was exposed to
BSL from birth? This shows that CI improves speech better than a child
wearing a hearing aid, but not that it is better than staying
profoundly deaf and using BSL.
It all depends on whether the parents want their child to be Oral and
be able to mix with hearing people, or whether they value language as
more important.
David
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
HHIssues
>From: ar...@my-deja.com
>Date: 3/31/00 4:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8c1pn3$5dn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>This is interesting, but have they compared the language acquesition of
>a child that has had a cochlear implant with one that was exposed to
>BSL from birth? This shows that CI improves speech better than a child
>wearing a hearing aid, but not that it is better than staying
>profoundly deaf and using BSL.
I read the article again and had difficulty tracking down that information ?
Would you care to please point out the source in the article on how you came to
the conclusion you've written shown above ?
Stuart Baldwin
He is saying what the article doesn't say rather than what it does say.
He is suggesting that the fact that it doesn't say that a child would
acquire better language skills with a CI than they would if exposed to
sign language from infancy means that that possibility cannot be ruled
out.
--
Stuart Baldwin
uk.people.deaf FAQ etc.: http://www.boxatrix.demon.co.uk/upd/
"We apologise for the lack of subtitles for this program"
Raymond Lee
I simply object to the fat cat docs linning their pockets ...
R. L.
HHIssues <hhis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000330191503...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Cochlear Implants Help Deaf Children Learn Speech
Stuart
"Raymond Lee" <ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8c0hvv$1e1$1...@gxsn.com...
> It is all propaganda promoting Cochlear Implants, isn't it? Look at it ...
> if you were an ear surgeon, look how you can line your pockets by mass
> operating deaf kids at £28,000 a time. Of course, the £28,000 includes
pre
> and post surgery rehabilitation and training but no doubt the surgeons see
> this as a lucrative business and they get an enormous share.
I don't follow your arguement...as the majority of the spend is indeed on
equipment, audiologists, technicians and rehab teams - why would the surgeon
have have a special interest?
Our wonderful NHS bureaucracy ensures most of the dosh goes nowhere near
them.....and as the NHS budgets are cash limited they could make far more
money avoiding doing Ops like CI - and doing procedures that require little
support - so the surgeons get all the benefit. Grommets and tonsils might
not be exciting but they are the ones to keep the surgeons busy and rich.
Or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say?
Stuart
Stuart Baldwin
<ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Another issue ... whilst there are undoubtedly CI successes, there are CI
>failures. However, the CI successes are publicised and over-hyped whereas
>the CI failures are swept under the carpet. Such is the hypocrisy of life,
>but there goes ...
This is a very valid point. When I was being assessed for an implant it
came to the stage where I had to decide whether to go through with it.
I did a lot of research on the matter and found it easy to find hyped up
press articles of CI successes or ludicrous scare stories from the other
side of the fence, but no one was able or willing to tell me about the
ones that just didn't do very well.
Stuart Baldwin
>>Subject: Re: Cochlear Implants Help Deaf Children Learn Speech
>>From: "Raymond Lee" ray...@globalnet.co.uk
>>Date: 3/30/00 4:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8c0hvv$1e1$1...@gxsn.com>
>>
>>It is all propaganda promoting Cochlear Implants, isn't it? Look at it ...
>>if you were an ear surgeon, look how you can line your pockets by mass
>>operating deaf kids at £28,000 a time. Of course, the £28,000 includes pre
>>and post surgery rehabilitation and training but no doubt the surgeons see
>>this as a lucrative business and they get an enormous share........
>
>Hmm and let me take a guess, my gut feeling is that you're a member of the
>"D"eaf culture, right ?
Oh dear! That doesn't look like a very open-minded response...
And Raymond's point of view, although probably not particularly
justified with respect to the NHS-funded teams that carry out implants
in Britain, may well be more applicable to the more mercenary medical
arrangements that apply in some other countries.
I've seen even stronger criticisms of the CI manufacturers!
Marc Le Roy
> Another issue ... whilst there are undoubtedly CI successes, there are CI
> failures. However, the CI successes are publicised and over-hyped whereas
> the CI failures are swept under the carpet. Such is the hypocrisy of life,
> but there goes ...
I would like to find description and explanation of failures, especially
with CI implanted to an adult who became deaf after language acquisition.
Can you provide links or article reference ?
Regards,
Marc.
Heidi Walsh
Try reading 'Cochlear Implants in Deafened Adults: A collection of accounts
written by deafened people describing their experiences of cochlear implants'
It was produced by the LINK Centre for Deafened People, cost £3.00 (when I
bought it!).
You should be able to get a copy via the Forest Bookshop:
http://www.forestbk.demon.co.uk
The articles are a mixture of very positive, semi-positive ... but they are an
accurate reflection of a group of peoples' experiences - including the ups,
downs, disappointments, and pleasures of cochlear implants.
Any problems getting the book, let me know.
Yours
Heidi Walsh
Teacher of Lipreading to Adults
Raymond Lee
Marc Le Roy <mle...@free.fr> wrote in message > I would like to find
description and explanation of failures, especially
> with CI implanted to an adult who became deaf after language acquisition.
> Can you provide links or article reference ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc.
>
Links and article references are extremely rare - can you not understand
what I mean when I say that the failures have been hidden away and swept
under the carpet? It means no one is publicising them. However, I personally
know of at least 42 CI failures, of which 37 were post-lingually deaf (i.e.
went deaf after 4 years old and before 9 years old). It is not incumbent on
me to publicise their names without their agreement and surely someone will
write about them in the not too distant future.
Whilst it is a good thing that deaf people who are able to benefit from CI
are actually benefitting from it, a mention of full truth of the advantages
and disadvantages, as well as the successess and failures, should be
mentioned to distribute fairness. It is not so at present because a mention
of failure would put people off. This should not be so, but here goes.
Raymond Lee.
Raymond Lee
know and spoke to. They did not want publicity for various reasons - many of
them were bitter they could not benefit from the operation and felt they
were mislead.
R. L.
Heidi Walsh <he...@walsh100.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38E5A644...@walsh100.force9.co.uk...
Raymond Lee
Stuart <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:8c2qsb$5rs7o$1...@fu-berlin.de...
...
> > if you were an ear surgeon, look how you can line your pockets by mass
> > operating deaf kids at £28,000 a time. Of course, the £28,000 includes
> pre
> > and post surgery rehabilitation and training but no doubt the surgeons
see
>
> I don't follow your arguement...as the majority of the spend is indeed on
> equipment, audiologists, technicians and rehab teams - why would the
surgeon
> have have a special interest?
>
> Our wonderful NHS bureaucracy ensures most of the dosh goes nowhere near
> them.....and as the NHS budgets are cash limited they could make far more
> money avoiding doing Ops like CI - and doing procedures that require
little
> support - so the surgeons get all the benefit. Grommets and tonsils might
> not be exciting but they are the ones to keep the surgeons busy and rich.
>
> Or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say?
>
> Stuart
>
charity director about the House Institute and its financial dealings. A
doctor earns $4,750 for performing an implant. In UK money, that is about
£3000. Multiply that by the number of people they are to implant ... it is
quite a lot of money.
If you think the UK NHS does not pay it like that, then I'd like to be
assured that it is the case. But the massive over-hyped campaign points to
the idea that the NHS wants to round up people after people ... surely it is
the case of the more people you have, the more money you get, whilst at the
same time they still check the suitability of the applicants.
R. L.
HHIssues
>From: "Raymond Lee" ray...@globalnet.co.uk
>Message-id: <8c4afc$9v7$1...@gxsn.com>
>
>Links and article references are extremely rare - can you not understand
>what I mean when I say that the failures have been hidden away and swept
>under the carpet? It means no one is publicising them. However, I personally
>know of at least 42 CI failures, of which 37 were post-lingually deaf (i.e.
>went deaf after 4 years old and before 9 years old). It is not incumbent on
>me to publicise their names without their agreement and surely someone will
>write about them in the not too distant future.
>
And let us know when anyone does write about them, ok ?
Stuart
Raymond,
I think that is precisely the problem with your point - the difference in
health systems between the countries. The US model based largely on
insurance/business models requires that both insurance companies and
healthcare institutions and individuals will in true marketing style seek to
maximise their bottom line with its implication of maximising medical care
and creating as much 'added value' as possible. I agree you statement may be
valid in the US.
Most international commentators (and quite a few US ones too) conclude that
this is causing the US to spend too much of its GDP on healthcare. The fact
that this 'overspending' doesn't benefit groups of people too poor to be of
interest to the private system is another discussion point.
But back in dear old blighty, and you were posting in a uk group about
'doctors' so the implication is UK doctors - the situation is rather the
opposite.
The CI programme is run by the NHS (National Health Service). Their funding
from tax is fixed in advance and is very low (compared to our european
counterparts) at around 6% of GDP. The demands on the NHS far exceed their
finance to deliver so all programmes are effectively rationed.
Priority, of course, goes to life threatening conditions. If you are old or
expensive drugs/surgery are involved you may still 'be left to die' as the
NHS spends on treatments that give better 'payback' in life quality/length.
Elective surgery/treatments like CI have a very difficult time getting
budget. I'm sure you might imagine the attractiveness of 'bids' put in by,
say a cancer team and a CI team.
It took a great deal of haggling to get a research programme initiated. The
onward justification for doing CI is based largely on projected savings to
the government by reducing 'special' education costs and future social
security payments to 'disabled' people and the greater potential tax revenue
from improving deaf people's earning potential.
This has two problems for CI - first the potential payback benefits other
government departments whereas the knock is taken by the NHS. Second is that
the payback calculations are a bit 'finger in the sky' as objective evidence
is only just starting to appear. So the NHS arguably has erred on the low
side to date.
In other words the US may have done too many CI and the UK too few - for
those who accept the procedure should be available to those who may benefit.
Indeed it has other implications - the 'code of practice' is that parents of
UK CI candidates are required to be exposed to the feelings of the deaf
community before consenting to an operation. Every person who 'buys' the
'natural deaf' arguement potentially relieves the NHS of around 40k pds of
direct expense!
I've simplified the arguement and, of course, there are individual and the
CI companies doing their best to maximise the number of CI operations - but
overall I think you might agree the situation is quite different - although
the pressure is just the same - money - just pushing the other way.
Whereas the real decision on whether to implant or not should be very
different. On that I'm sure we can agree.....
Stuart
Stuart
>......... However, I personally
> know of at least 42 CI failures, of which 37 were post-lingually deaf
(i.e.
> went deaf after 4 years old and before 9 years old
Are we talking UK or US?
And failure = device failure or implantee not using device?
Stuart
Roving Reporter
an electronic fuchsia crayon to uk.people.deaf and scribbled:
Rather both, I would think. The device failed to provide satisfaction,
therefore the implantee stopped using it.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
Stuart
"Roving Reporter" <tls...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38e7f470...@news.concentric.net...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 22:37:50 +0100, "Stuart" <in...@brainsys.com> took
> an electronic fuchsia crayon to uk.people.deaf and scribbled:
> >"Raymond Lee" <ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8c4afc$9v7$1...@gxsn.com...
> >
> >>......... However, I personally
> >> know of at least 42 CI failures, of which 37 were post-lingually deaf
> >(i.e.
> >> went deaf after 4 years old and before 9 years old
> >
> >Are we talking UK or US?
> >And failure = device failure or implantee not using device?
>
> Rather both, I would think. The device failed to provide satisfaction,
> therefore the implantee stopped using it.
We have to be careful here. Device failure may be a function of when, where
and what device is used. Also the surgical policy on implantation when some
accretion is present. High rates may indicate either incompetence - or
'heroic' surgery - so one needs to be clear what you are talking about.
As to not using a working device. Differences may again be a function of the
amount of rehab done, the environment, the attitude of parents etc.
For reasons quoted elsewhere one would expect failure rates to be much
higher in the US. This is not necessarily a good or bad indicator - more an
indicator of different policies.
I do find this bandying around of unqualified numbers irritating since they
tend to confuse rather than enlighten. And I put both apologists for oralism
and deaf culture in the same pot :-(
Stuart (a one time statistician)
Raymond Lee
All I know is that nothing worked for these people and they are extremely
bitter. Their bitterness is all the more sad because to make CI work, their
residual hearing had to be destroyed and when the CI does not work, they
have no residual hearing to make good use of in the operated ear.
Raymond.
Stuart <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:8c8irj$5uhh7$1...@fu-berlin.de...
>
> "Raymond Lee" <ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8c4afc$9v7$1...@gxsn.com...
>
> >......... However, I personally
> > know of at least 42 CI failures, of which 37 were post-lingually deaf
> (i.e.
> > went deaf after 4 years old and before 9 years old
>
> Are we talking UK or US?
> And failure = device failure or implantee not using device?
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
Carina
little hearing in one ear with the use of a hearing aid and I will not take
the risk of losing that altogether. Plus I think I would be 80 before I
had the implant done anywayLOL I was told at Southampton that there was a
massive waiting list they only did 3 a year on adults and there was more
than 80 people on the waiting list 3 years ago!! If I was under 16 they
would have done it without hesitation but being an adult I would have to
wait !! So even if I wanted the chance I might not ever get it with the
hospitals policy.
--
Carina
ICQ # 12970788
If you don't think every day
is a, good day,
Just try missing one.
Raymond Lee <ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8caltc$ain$1...@gxsn.com...
Stuart
"Raymond Lee" <ray...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8caltc$ain$1...@gxsn.com...
> I am talking about UK. I do not understand the reasons for failures as
yet.
> All I know is that nothing worked for these people and they are extremely
> bitter. Their bitterness is all the more sad because to make CI work,
their
> residual hearing had to be destroyed and when the CI does not work, they
> have no residual hearing to make good use of in the operated ear.
I find it alarming that parents (or surgeons) would go ahead with CI if the
child had usable residual hearing. This was certainly against the original
DoH guidelines. Maybe some CI programmes have relaxed this too far.
Do you know which programmes were involved? (or what part of the country?)
Stuart
Raymond Lee
connection witht he deaf. I am a construction supervisor! If you wish to
glean further details, I suggest you try and get in touch with organisations
for the deaf - as those I spoke to and met do not want to reveal themselves
at present asa their bitterness runs deep, bordering on shame.
Raymond.
Stuart <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:8cd7s9$5oq0n$1...@fu-berlin.de...
HHIssues
>From: "Raymond Lee" ray...@globalnet.co.uk
>Message-id: <8cd8mc$ph7$1...@gxsn.com>
>
>as those I spoke to and met do not want to reveal themselves
>at present asa their bitterness runs deep, bordering on shame.
Perhaps, they were concerned with what other members of the Deaf community
would think that they even tried the cochlear implant or even tried anything
that has to do with trying to hear better to begin with ?
InsureCI
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
lickri...@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
I am Krishna, Sr.Direct Sales Executive from visakhapatnam LIC Unit that you are a member of NHS( National Health Scheme ) while working in U.K. We wish to bring to your notice that you can bring the amounts lying in your NHS account in U.K to India. Since funds are idle at UK and will not accrue interest,there is a provision in NHS that the amount can be transferred to purchase annuity policy elsewhere.
We are happy to inform that JEEVAN AKSHAY-VI policy of LIC of India is recognized by HMRC UK to transfer the amounts lying in NHS account. The amount will be converted to INR as per the exchange rates prevailing on the date of transfer and the converted amount can be utilized to purchase Jeevan Akshay- VI policy from LIC of India.
For your kind information we may bring to your notice that “LIC OF INDIA”is the only public Sector life insurer in India, with Sovereign Guarantee..Jeevan Akshay-VI is an immediate Annuity policy(pension) which offers life long pension.(many annuity options available).
We sincerely want that you invest your fund which is idle at present in our JEEVAN AKSHA-VI plan and enjoy the benefits from now. If you are interested in this scheme,we shall be glad to inform you the required and other procedures to be followed for transfer of this fund.
We are sending this mail to you on behalf of LIC of India, Visakhapatnam Division. Please feel free to contact us for more details.
Assuring you of good services at all times.
Ramakreshnaa,
Sr. Dricet Sales Executive,
9948222279, lickri...@gmail.com
Visakhapatnam.