Tag-Archive for » communication option «

06
Mar

Parental Choice: Truth or Illusion?

Interesting.  I just viewed the three-part blog series “The Right to Be…Deaf” at Patti Durr’s People of the Eye.  This series reminded me of the v/blog posts I created last May on the subject of neutrality. The question raised in my two posts was whether the information being given to parents of newly-diagnosed Deaf babies and children was neutral or not.  Here are the titles which you can click to view (Neutrality: Does It Exist? and Got Neutrality? )

In Patti’s blog series, she raises the question on whether parents were given choices without undue pressure to go for a specific option.   Part II of Durr’s series describes what ensues at hospitals soon after babies are born (with infant hearing screenings).  That particular post brought a flashback of  my experience at an audiology clinic with my second eldest infant son.

Before I go into details about that experience, I must let you know that I am a Deaf mother of 5 Hearing boys.  Despite the fact that my babies were found to be hearing, I still encountered audism during one of my boys’ testings.  My eldest was born in a hospital.  Two weeks later, I brought him to an audiology clinic to find out if he was hearing or deaf.  My suspicion that he was Hearing was confirmed.

My third son, who was born at home rather than at a hospital, never took an official hearing screen test.   My husband and I decided to skip the infant hearing screen because it was so obvious that the baby was Hearing.  Our home-made hearing test came in the form of our two older sons, aged 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 or 3 years old.  The noise they produced kept startling the baby.  That cheap home-made hearing test sure saved the government oodles of dollars that time!

My youngest, the twins, were born in the hospital rather than in the home due to the fact that twin pregnancies are automatically considered high risk.   The morning after the boys were born, they each received an on-site hearing screening test.  The results were that they were hearing.  Technology have clearly improved to the point that there was no need for drugs to sedate them (unlike the situations described in the comments section of Patti’s Part III blog).

My experience with my second eldest son was different from that of my other boys.  He was born at home, so that meant I had to take him to the audiology clinic a couple or so weeks later.  It was eleven and a half years ago, but the memory is still fresh in my mind.  I had to nurse him to sleep so the ABR test could be performed.  Halfway through the test, I had to switch him to the other breast so his other ear could be tested.  While nursing him to sleep, I inadvertently fell asleep as well.  I must have been tired that day!

After a few minutes, I woke up just as the test was completed.  The audiologist was looking at her computer and machines when suddenly she seemed disturbed. I could perceive a look of alarm on her face. That caused me to think that something was up.  She looked back at us then at the screen and back with anxiety in her body language and on her face.   I looked down at my sleeping infant and noticed that one of the wires fell off his scalp.  I brought the audiologist’s attention to that fact.  She administered the test on that ear once more.  Once the results were in, there was an obvious look of relief on her face.

“He is hearing.”

Supposing the results were like this: One ear was Hearing, but the other ear was deaf.  She would likely still have that look of alarm on her face and tension in her body.  That would give me a clear message right there.  Supposing my boy were hard of hearing, what kind of message would her body and words impart?  I don’t know, but her alarm and body language were indelibly marked in my memory.  I will never forget that.

Patti Durr’s description of the type of pressures American parents face in hospitals, regardless of whether these parents were Deaf or Hearing.  When babies are diagnosed Deaf, audism run rampant in hospitals.  Buzz phrases like ” your baby failed the hearing test” are used and impart negative messages to the parents.   Pamphlets on cochlear implants are given out to parents soon after the Deaf babies are diagnosed.   Deaf parents of Deaf babies experience and react to audism in the approaches used by medical professionals in dealing with them. (See comments section here.)

The combination of  infant hearing screening tests, cochlear implant pamphlets and “neutral” websites cause me to question whether parents were given true choices.

Are parents given TRUE choices?

Remember: I am a Deaf parent.  I have witnessed the negative facial and body language of that audiologist.  I cannot help but conclude that if my child were diagnosed to hard of hearing, I would have received a negative message.   Of that, I have no doubt.

Supposing that I were a Hearing mother with a newly diagnosed Deaf baby, and saw that alarmed facial expression and body language, what would my reaction be?  I would have been taken aback, confused and upset .  To make matters worse, I would be regretfully told, “Your child has failed the hearing test.”  Shock, dismay and grief would follow that statement, especially when combined with the negative message given with that type of body language.

The audiologist would follow up with a reassuring “Don’t worry.  There are cochlear implants and speech therapy available to help your child become more like us.  The Infant Hearing Program will help you with this. “  Pamphlets are given to the beleaguered mother who is overwhelmed with what has to be done to rehabilitate her child.

Supposing that parent is told: “Don’t worry. I have a Deaf mentor available to support you.  Your Deaf child is fortunate to be able to develop two languages–English and ASL–and grow up in two cultures. This will be a wonderful experience for you”?  That would be great, but that has not happened.  To date, I have not heard of any audiologists or other medical professional say that, ever.  It’s usually ”Sorry, your baby failed the hearing screening test.”

Now, that’s BIAS for you! Usually, information about ASL is not shared (or at least mentioned briefly).  Pamphlets on CIs are available to be given out, with alacrity. ”

“and we get the news – it is delivered to us with concerned looks, wringing of hands, and glossy pamphlets, DVDs, and display models of what CAN be DONE to overcome what IS

yes, instead of another basket of goodies and words of congratulations on your wee things Deafhood, we are whacked on the head with ….. the A word folks.  And no it is not spelled with a “v” (ask the NAD they know how to spell it correctly)

we see the news and we sigh – just what we wanted “A healthy baby and we knew s/he was healthy all along” – healthy for us means Deaf or Hearing -  y nada mas importa

but wait despite our joy and relief – they “the specialists” are still frowning – they is VERY worried now

they start selling their wares – they start tooting the scope of their practice ”

(Durr. People of the Eye blog. March 5)

Is that giving out neutral information?  Can you say websites like this give out neutral and balanced information? Can you say that parents are given complete unbiased information with which to make their decisions? No, you cannot. (That particular website doesn’t even mention ASL. You have to make an effort to look for it in a link there somewhere.) There is CLEAR BIAS here in favour of making Deaf children hear rather than allow them to be Deaf bilinguals, exposed to ASL and ASL Deaf culture as well as English.

Back to my question…

Are parents of newly diagnosed babies given true choice in raising their Deaf children?  Are they being given the chance to make a  true choice without undue influence or pressure from audistic medical professionals and biased pamphlets and websites? Without subtle and subliminal messages that it is not a good thing for a child to be Deaf?

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Have parents of  Deaf babies able to exercise TRUE choice in the first place?  Or is “True Choice” an illusion?

 

ADDENDUM: Here is another vlog (captioned) by Dr. Donald Grushkin for your viewing pleasure on the same issue.

Category: Audism, Bilingualism, Deaf, Family  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  7 Comments
22
Dec

ICED 2010 Vancouver Documents

The www.ICED2010.com website that hosted the New Era Document is now closed. I asked the ICED 2010 committee who were involved in the development of the documents for permission to put the ICED documents here to be shared with everyone.

I thank Mr. Wayne Sinclair for sending me this PDF copy of the New Era Document, complete with signatures.  To read the PDF copy of the document that was signed by the ICED 2010 Vancouver organizing committee, BC Deaf community, Canadian Association of the Deaf and the World Federation of the Deaf, please click on the link directly below.

The ICED 2010 New Era Document

I  also offer my gratitude to Dr. Joseph McLaughlin for his willingness to send me PDF copies of the press releases that were made by the ICED 2010 Vancouver organizing committee.

Press_Release_Opening_Ceremony

Press_Release__Closing_Ceremony ICED 2010 VANCOUVER

Opening & Closing ceremony remarks on New Era_Dr. McLaughlin

For information on the history of Milan 1880 Resolution and its legacy, please go to the link below:

Milan 1880 History



Category: Audism, Bilingualism, Deaf, Deaf Education  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  3 Comments
23
May

Got Neutrality?

A commenter in my previous blog  referred me to a glossy website, Communicate With Your Child with the claim that this  website provided unbiased information from many various organizations.  She suggested that I click on “My baby has a hearing loss” section, which leads the viewer to various states that we could research.  She stated “Neutrality is now in the works. It still exists.”  

Is this commenter correct? Does this website actually provide unbiased information from many various organizations?  Has it got neutrality?

 Let’s analyze this website:

1. Count the number of times the words “hearing” and “hear” have been used on the homepage alone.  Total: 11!

2. Count the number of times ASL as a term is used on that same homepage. Total: ZERO

Talk about subliminal messages!

Now, let’s use this checklist to dissect the contents further:

a) Is t bilingual? Check! (English with Spanish translation)

b) Is it trilingual? Mais non.  Nowhere on this website do I see ASL translation.  
c) It has audio for those who may have reading issues: Is it accessible for the Hearing? Check!
d) FOCUS: the ability to hear words and songs. Check!
e) FOCUS: the ability to see ASL words and poetry. Where? Zilch and nada!

I checked “My Baby has a hearing loss” and clicked on states as instructed. This is what I found:

 The number of hearing loss professional organizations like AGBADHH, NICDC, Hearing Association, Let them Hear Foundation, etc etc far outweigh the number of Deaf-centered, or at least ASL-friendly organizations.

 I also clicked on http://www.raisingdeafkids.org which is on the list for any of the states you click on: Go to Communication choices, then you will see:

- Auditory-Oral, (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Auditory-Verbal (Emphasis: Hearing/Speaking)
-Bilingual-Bicultural- ASL and English (Emphasis: Bilingual Language Development)
-Cued Speech (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Total Communication (signing and talking with voice simultaneously… Emphasis: still hear and speak)

Consider the evidence submitted above.  One cannot help but reach the following conclusion:

 There’s an overwhelming emphasis on hearing and speaking, and little focus on ASL.  Therefore, this website is NOT unbiased.  It’s in fact heavily biased in favour of the hear-and speak ideology.  It’s got NO neutrality.

 But it’s sure got audism.

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,  6 Comments
02
May

Neutrality: Does It Exist?

Neutrality: the absence of a declared bias

In other words, neutrality means having no opinion and declining to take sides.  ”I’m neutral about this. I refuse to take an opinion. Here are the options, and each has equal viability.   I take no stand either way.”

Does this type of neutrality exist in reality? No.  It’s unheard of.  Really.  Each, and all, of us has a bias, a philosophy in life that we follow.   My own personal bias is simply this: ASL and English are of equal value.  To be Deaf is great.   I do not want to be hearing at all.  No thank you very much.   I like the way I am now.

Now, if you want to look at biases,  take the hearing loss professionals who claim to be neutral as an example.  These professionals are audiologists, speech pathologists, medical professionals who work with newly-diagnosed Deaf babies, early childhood educators.   These people say, “Oh yes, we provide all options neutrally, and lay them out for the parents to look at.”  (True, ASL is included, but in such a way that it is not  emphasized, and overwhelmed by the array of other options. ASL is offered, but usually as a last option. )

SEE, Cued Speech, AVT/CI, Signed English, etc… all those options are geared for the development of the English language with emphasis on the hearing and speaking component,.  Even Signed English places emphasis on the hearing and speaking as it includes voice, mouthing as well as signing.  So does Simultaneous Communication and total communication that are included in the wide array of options.   ASL, although seriously underemphasized, is offered on the table for the overwhelmed and bewildered parents to ponder.

Of course, the parents would go for the options that support the development of the English language solely.  They would go for what is familiar to them: hearing and speaking.  For further explanation on how the system is stacked in favour of the monolingual, hear-and-speak ideology, view Don G’s excellent vlog.  That vlog shows that neutrality is nonexistent when it comes to offering options to parents of Deaf children.

If you want actual evidence that the hearing loss professionals are NOT neutral, just take a look at the large number of Deaf children that end up in the mainstream setting with cochlear implants, and taught to speak.  Look at the smaller number of Deaf children that are enrolled in Deaf schools.   That, to me, indicates a definite bias on the part of the hearing loss professionals who influence parental choices that impact their Deaf children.

Further evidence of that bias can also be seen in the recent passage of AB-2072 in California.   Here is the link to this article that proves that neutrality DOESN’T exist on the part of the professionals behind the writing of AB-2072.

REMEMBER: There is no such thing as neutrality in real life!

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , ,  80 Comments
18
Apr

Imbalance in the Advocacy of Parental Rights re: AB2072

Sigh… I wasn’t planning to blog on the AB2072 issue that was raised lately; however, I was a little disturbed by the lack of balance in this blogger’s post.  This blogger and her commenters were all het up on the behalf of Hearing parents of Deaf children at the possibility of having the mythical ASL-only option foisted upon them.  She mentioned two scenarios, and I quote:

(1.) The Deaf parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must have their deaf child undergo surgery for a cochlear implant at 6 months and employ only speech therapy  in English for the child’s language development, no other options are allowed.  How would the Deaf parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

(2.)  The hearing parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must implement ASL only to begin the child’s language development.   How would the hearing parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

Then she spent the entire rest of her post defending the Hearing parents’ right to NOT have ASL foisted upon them by the state against their wishes.  Fair enough,  I agree that the state should not infringe upon the rights of the parents.

Yet, I see NO one on that post, either on the blogger’s or the commenters’ part, stand up for the Deaf parents of Deaf children who had their rights forcibly infringed upon in the name of the hear-and-speak ideology.  The blogger implies that Scenario 1 has not happened yet.  I submit that this is inaccurate information.   To wit:

The Deaf Sherlock’s post

Implanting against Legal Parents’ Wishes at Deafness.about.com

Parental Rights at Deafness.about.com

I have not seen much if any outrage re: Scenario 1 on the part of these people, and yet Scenario 2 causes them to blame Deaf ASL activists for the possibility of Hearing parents’ rights to decide for their Deaf children being infringed upon.   Why is this the case?

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , ,  38 Comments
16
Mar

What is Audism? Part II: The Effects of Audism

THE EFFECTS OF AUDISM:

As I stated in Part 1 of  the What is Audism? series, you cannot explain what audism is, without describing the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, and the Deaf community as a whole. Again, this information came from Malkowski’s presentation.

I will now give a few of the effects that Malkowski mentioned during his March 2010 presentation:

Audist beliefs result in intentional or unconscious audist behaviour, such as:

  • treating Deaf children with oral skills differently – more positively – than Deaf children with sign language skills (i.e. in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, sports and recreation.)
  • systemic discrimination
  • negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the abilities of Deaf and hard of hearing children, students, employees, social citizens.
  • dehumanization by medical and educational establishments (i.e. the focus on a deficit model or pathological view of hearing loss.
  • lifelong impact on children’s ability to acquire and understand English or ASL or both  (Malkowski, 2010)

To illustrate the systemic discrimination, and negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the Deaf/Hard of Hearing, I remind you readers of Amy Cohen Efron’s DVD, which began as a vlog: The Greatest Irony.   In that DVD, she described the irony in allowing Hearing babies to learn ASL while Deaf babies are denied access to ASL, especially by those in the AVT profession.  Malkowski mentions this irony as well in his presentation, saying that ASL is accepted, and viewed as beneficial for Canadian hearing children’s early development and yet viewed as detrimental to the development of Deaf children (Malkowski 2010).

The effects of this misconception in addition to the dehumanization of the Deaf by the medical and educational establishments are clearly described in Malkowski’s research article on audism in the January 2009 edition of The Canadian Hearing Report, page 28-30:

“it is still common practice, for example, for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, early intervention and early childhood education providers, educators of deaf children, boards and government ministries to discourage deaf children from learning and using their natural and accessible language – sign language. In fact, many parents of deaf children who are making decisions around their child’s education are still not given balanced information about the benefits of sign language. This restriction of the use of sign language. coupled with a fundamental belief that a deaf child should learn to use residual hearing or the hearing that is a result of a cochlear implant and learn to speak is the most blatant form of audism.

Sadly, when spoken language, both expressive and receptive, is not accessible, precious time is wasted. The child is labelled a spoken language “failure” and the window of opportunity to acquire language quickly closes. Unfortunately, these spoken language deficiencies can be identified as a learning disability. In some cases there is no cognitive disability; in others, learning disabilities are compounded by language deficiencies. In both instances, it is too late for the language deficit to be repaired and this can have enormous associated costs in terms of special education requirements, and long-term mental health issues, among others. A great number of professionals – audiologists, interpreters, educators, speech-language pathologists, and medical practitioners– have enormous amounts of power and influence.” (Malkowski, 2009)

Malkowski mentions that one of the consequences for  this practice of withholding ASL from Deaf children in favour of oralism, and isolation in the public schools is that there are now a higher number of solitary Deaf adults without contact or connections to the Deaf community at large.  This contributes to the long term mental issues mentioned in the quote above. (Malkowski, 2010)

For further examples of what audism is, and its effects on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, I strongly recommend that you view this DVD, Audism Unveiled, by Bahan, Bauman and Montenegro. This was shown during Mr. Malkowski’s presentation last week, and this will prove to be eyeopening for those who have never seen this movie before.

Simply put, audism is an attitude of prejudice and perception that it is better to be hearing than to be deaf, and that if one is Deaf, one must strive to fit into Hearing society as much as possible.  It is clear that audist attitudes and behaviours by the majority group do have negative effects on the mental, physical, emotional and educational well-being of Deaf and Hard of hearing people as individuals and as a minority group.  Thus, it is proven that audism as a term is valid, and must be addressed.

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  8 Comments
11
Jan

Resistance is Futile: Part Two

This posting is in response to a commenter in my last posting, Resistance is Futile: You will be Assimilated, who stated that he did not see that much resistance from the Deaf community in relation to the cochlear implant, and that the cochlear implant industry did not use force whereas the Borg did.

I wasn’t referring solely to the cochlear implant in my last posting. In actuality, I was referring to the entire orchestrated attempts at a systemic level to assimilate Deaf children into the Hearing society, and to mold them into the ideal “Hearing” image or at least a facsimile thereof.

I agree with the other commenters that there IS resistance against the CI. I would qualify that sentence, and reiterate there is plenty of resistance, especially against the tactics employed by the oralist establishment.

Perhaps you aren’t working in a field that works directly with children or survivors of assimilationist attempts to get them to “listen and speak”? Many who are in the front lines working with these survivors will tell you horror stories of delayed language acquisition and related consequences due to the desire of the majority to get them to “listen and speak”.

Speaking for myself, I am against the IDEOLOGY behind the cochlear implant (and AVT) industry, which perpetuates the myth that Deaf children DO NOT need ASL because it hinders speech development. This is another attempt at linguistic genocide, and that is what gets my dander up.

Many parents want their children implanted “to give them the best in life that they can.” That is how many parents see the cochlear implant. Many do not understand the necessity for children to have VISIBLE access to language, and that is ASL.

Since the system is already implanting children OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the Deaf community, I used the term BORG to describe the oralist system. This establishment is a juggernaut… which steamrolls whether people object, get hurt or not.

As for the use of force:

“Borg uses force to assimilate other people (and destroy people that it considers obsolete) while the technology of cochlear implant does not use force itself on people.”

I beg to differ. Force comes in many different forms. One is obvious: Physical coercion and subjugation. There are more subtle and insidious forms, such as rejection, which can be emotional as well as physical. Indoctrination, and emotional/mental coercion, and especially fear, are other forms. These forms of force CAN be done with such finesse that people won’t see them coming until too late. Many AVT therapists have threatened to cross families off their clientele list if they signed with their Deaf children.

When implanted children do not show that they benefit from AVT programs, they get “weeded out”. This phrasing was coined by the mother of a certain blogger that no longer comes to DeafRead.com. These children are considered obsolete and swept under the rug while “successful” AVT children are showcased.

If those weeded-out children did not have access to ASL while attending AVT therapy, their optimal potential has been damaged if not outright destroyed in some cases. Language acquisition then becomes a race against time.

Now, I see cochlear implants as astronomically expensive and invasive hearing aids. However, there are quite a number of parents who get their children implanted, and STILL want their babies to acquire ASL. As long as the children DO actually grow up bilingual with a strong start for language acquisition…

My primary concern is that children have access to ASL, and are NOT hindered in their acquisition of visible, accessible language, and for me that means ASL, as well as another language, whatever that is.

As for your contention that we have not truly seen how the technology of cochlear implant will affect the Deaf Culture and ASL, the impact is ALREADY being felt in the front lines as I mentioned earlier. The cochlear implant is only ONE tool in the entire Oralist apparatus in its goal to eliminate ASL and make us forget that we are Deaf.

THAT is Borg assimilation in all its glory, with finesse added.

Postscript (Jan 11 at 7:15 p.m.):

REMINDER TO COMMENTERS:

You are all welcome to comment here, but I request that from now on, please address the topic at hand and refrain from attacking or labelling people personally when you disagree with a viewpoint that is being brought up.

Thank you.

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,  10 Comments