Tuesday, May 06, 2008

I Am Against Oralism Because...


Someone asked me if I were against oralists when I know s/he must have meant oralism because to be against oralists just because they can speak is outrageous! So my response to this modified question is, yes, I am against oralism but not spoken English. Let me share you that the term oralism to me is a stigma. It is associated with “force” for some even “abuse” (i.e. hands whacked with rulers, hands being put down (watch this):

although physical abuse is prohibited but still, this term brings back these memories that many are scarred with the term oralism.

Oralism is way different than spoken English. Oralism tends to be the only approach and it bans from ASL. Spoken English is not against for one to know both languages since birth. It has no biased meaning – it is just a language. Spoken English doesn’t ban a Deaf child from using ASL nor force those who cannot hear enough to use it. Some people who think the world of oralism are ignorant. Using the word, oralism, still did not change to a positive concept just we would never change the concept of slavery. Now I am not comparing slavery to oralism but in that sense, the idea of slavery is negative just like oralism is for some, if not, many. Would we want to still practice slavery? No! Unfortunately, it is still happening in some parts of the world. Slavery will always be negative just like oralism is but in a different sense of course. There were horror stories associated to oralism that scarred them for life. Although it is history but today the practice, the principle and the philosophy still discriminate against ASL. The Deaf children are suppressed from using ASL. The term should be changed to oracy since it involves the use of switching to both languages where they have the options to use, spoken or signed, where there is more flexibility and compatibility.

(In my video clip, you will see my description on how Flemish Deaf view oralism definition vs. Deaf culture definition.)

That's why I don't accept and approve the concept of oralism because of the attitude. The concept is negative so that is something to think about how should we view oralism.

From my experience, I was able to grow up using spoken English and ASL. Did I ever think that I think of myself as a oralist? No. I am just a spoken English user so it is completely different than being oralist because one doesn't know ASL. I use spoken English, yes. I am ASL user, yes! Oralists don't use ASL. It is just a different view about the way I grow up as I never thought one has to separate those who speak from using ASL. They were placed in an environment using an only-oral-method approach and it was not necessary! ( ASL users still can use spoken English and to not to know ASL growing up because it will hinder language development is still unproven stated by research documents. It has been proven that bilingual approach will benefit the Deaf child to grasp the language, ASL, that is most accessible and natural to them, making the bridge to learn spoken English more effectively if the child desires to do so and benefits the time spent for learning speech).

Sunday, May 04, 2008

BI/CI Comparison? Why, sure! Deafhood Minions? Oh, Please!

This Anti-Deafhood priest and minions dissed people who support Deafhood and I have to tell you how much I have laughed so hard when reading that I couldn’t even take them seriously. Ok, just mock us all you want but my views stand based on the facts coming from FDA and no one can dispute that. Why of course, getting BI and CI is for a completely different reason although not life threatening but I have got news for you, there is a similarity, duh!

It is similar in a way that there are risk factors involved. Breast implantees and cochlear implantees even have to experience reoperations (including removal of implant) as a part of the risk factors. From the source, the overall cumulative cochlear implant survival rate was 91.7% for a period of 11 years. The main reasons for hard failures were design errors of the products and direct or indirect trauma to the cochlea implant site (especially in children) with consecutive breaks of the implant body or electrodes. As for BI, it is "likely that you will need to have one or more reoperations over the course of your life because of local complications from breast implants. Reasons for reoperations could include any of the potential local complications" (some are listed below).

Aidan has pointed out that there are people opposing to breast implants just like those to cochlear implants. Also she said that those who get Lasik has to wait until the age 18 (it goes the same for breast augmentation; 18 for saline and 22 for silicone) while for CI, babies as early as 12 months old can get it in spite of potential risks. It is not like she is trying to say that it is comparable for those to consider BI or Lasik for babies so stop twisting her words out of the content. I am just going to focus on the risk outcomes here since it is a no brainer to say that both of these procedures are not risk-free. This is what we have from the FDA webpage:

Reoperations of Breast Implants:

It is likely that you will need to have one or more reoperations over the course of your life because of local complications from breast implants. Reasons for reoperations could include any of the potential local complications above. Multiple reoperations to either improve the appearance of the breasts, to remove ruptured/deflated implants, or both may result in an unsatisfactory cosmetic outcome.

Of course, cochlear implant is not a cosmetic choice like breast implants are; however, they are both not life-threatening situations. Finally, what is common is that they both require invasive surgery that should be reserved for life-threatening situations, not simple life enhancements. CI is considered a tool that is interpreted by some on how it can enhance their hearing ability just like how BI enhances a woman's life by having increased self esteem or whatever the reasons are for them. So yes, these devices are life enhancing for some who need it but still not considered life threatening.

Reoperations of Cochlear Implants:

Among actions taken, at first pass it appeared that reimplantation was more common in the pre-1998 period, but it is important to note that the "pending" category in 2002 was large and accounted for nearly 30% of the actions taken. Therefore, it cannot be reliably stated that reimplantation was more common in the pre-1998 period. Furthermore, the high incidence of "pending" data makes reliable statistical analysis on these action data impossible. However, it is clear that for most of the adverse events described, surgical intervention, most commonly explantation or reimplantation, was the most common treatment.

Risks from the Surgical Cochlear Implant Procedure FDA Webpage

* Cerebrospinal fluid leakage --the brain is surrounded by fluid that may leak from a hole created in the inner ear or elsewhere from a hole in the covering of the brain as a result of the surgical procedure.

* Perilymph fluid leak --the inner ear or cochlea contains fluid. This fluid can leak through the hole that was created to place the implant.

* Infection of the skin wound.

* Blood or fluid collection at the site of surgery.

* Numbness around the ear.

* Reparative granuloma --this is the result of localized inflammation that can occur if the body rejects the implant.

* There may be other unforeseen complications that could occur with long term implantation that we cannot now predict.

Potential Local Complications and Reoperations for Breast Implants (narrowed it down to parallel to CI potential complications)

* Delayed wound healing

* Iatrogenic injury/damage (injury caused by medical procedure)

* Granuloma (is a small area of inflammation due to tissue injury)

* Inflammation/irritation

* Redness/bruising

* Scarring

BI and CI both have outcomes that leak, irritate, scar, inflame, bruise, and numb. Some may be temporary and some are permanent.

As for Lasik experiencing complications:

The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery has said that only about 3 percent of lasik patients experience complications, but other data and research suggest problems may be more common and long-lasting.

As for CI experiencing complications:

From the over 200 patients implanted at the University of Michigan Medical Center, 6 patients with a complete and irreversible cochlear implant receiver-stimulator failure have been identified and treated. This represents a 3% failure rate.

Key Points to Consider

* Breast implants will not last a lifetime so wouldn’t a cochlear implant.

* Either because of rupture or other complications, you will probably need to have the implants removed.

* You are likely to need additional doctor visits, reoperations, or removals because of one or more complications over the course of your life.

* Many of the changes to your breast following implantation cannot be reversed just like residual hearing cannot be reversed (only you have CI, your residual hearing won’t come back if you decide to have it removed).

By the way, as speaking for myself as I have always been, I am not saying no to anything including a good debate because this is a free country. The only thing I would do is to justify the reasons for my opinions, that's that, so just don't try to draw a picture of me that doesn't look like me. Just quit calling me Deafhood Hand-Job Priestess or a minion for that I am not a follower. This is how I think based on my experience since birth not because of deciding to follow Deafhood based on a book or a workshop (by the way I haven't even read the whole book and never even went to one workshop!) Even if I went, so what! What's wrong with you people? Looks like all you like to do is to look for someone to mess around with, heh? I am only interested to express my opinions for what I believe in and oh isn't that what this particular blogger said in her blog, that she supported anyone who believed in whatever it is that they believed in? Talk about someone who is living a double standard. (**laughing with amusement***)

Oh, one more thing anti-deafhood priest, calling me an expert in male masturbation is so hilarious! Guess it is what you wish for but too bad you will never get to see this day.

Friday, May 02, 2008

Summary on Social and Identity Issues Re: AG Bell participants

Here is the summary of findings showing the outcomes on how former mainstreamed students who belong to AG Bell feel about identity and social issues when experiencing inclusion education.

Inclusive Education and Personal Development by Irene K. Leigh

Thirty-four graduated participants who belonged to AG Bell and Oral Hearing Impaired Section (OHIS) took the questionnaire.

16 = deaf

12 = hearing-impaired

4 = HoH

1 = oral then deaf

1 = hearing

50% of them change their label when they were in school

School background:

20 out of 34 = public school

13 = private

1 = Deaf school

5 reported nonsupportive academic or social environment

-labeled as defective

-made to feel “different”

-can’t understand what was said in class

The rest felt more supportive because of teachers who provided attention and friendly social environments that have structured school settings.

How does a school’s experience affected one’s identity?

19 = (+) positive

13 = (-) negative

(+) = overcome disability, accepting oneself as deaf, functionally comfortably in hearing world, good self-esteem

(-) = wrestling with the idea deaf people cannot do what they want, feelings of insecurity, dependency or self consciousness, perceptions of isolation and catering to the dominant group, she because of past rough experiences, lower self-confidence, no Deaf peers making it hard to compare

Some saw relationship with hearing peers as comfortably but never completely relaxed in contrast to socializing with Deaf peers.

Views about deaf:

8 felt (-) negative about having relationship with Deaf peers – those who were not comfortable with oral values were rejected and they rejected them.

15 felt (+) positive that Deaf were like family – no need to prove anything, having common understanding about life experiences as Deaf persons.

16 felt (-) Deaf culture was a foreign concept and thought they had negative attitudes toward hearing and oral deaf persons.

4 (+) viewed more positively

14 felt that there are advantages of Deaf culture for signing Deaf persons but felt that they are limited in terms of connections with diverse people.

13 of them had no exposure to deaf adults while in school!

Some reported that when crossing over into Deaf culture experience, some conflicts because lack of support by AG Bell members for “cultural differences.”

The bottom line is that, yes, participation in the hearing community is a powerful goal but the need for connection with some segment of Deaf community cannot be denied as a part of ongoing identity and formation and social support.

Dual identity = more positive outcomes

Moschella ( 1992) notes the significant emotional benefits that products of strictly oral environments derive from contact with deaf peers in adulthood.

Today’s concerns:

1. Lack of Deaf Role models in public education system

2. Access of Deaf community is limited

3. Misconceptions formed about Deaf Culture

No Deaf peers should grow up without contact with other Deaf peers and adults.


Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (Vol. 4, Nbr. 3, Summer 1999) Inclusion and Personal Development by Irene W. Leigh

Educating Deaf Children Bilingually by Shawn Neal Mahshie, 1995

To see previous comments, click here.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

AG Bell Participants Respond to a Survey on Social and Identity Issues

Survey results reflecting identity and social issues of former mainstream students who belong to AG Bell. Transcript coming soon..