Cochlear Implants… Let’s Talk

Cochlear Implants… Let’s Talk

Yes, I am about to go where many good women and men have gone before

Yes, I am about to attempt to see if we can converse about cochlear implants (the device, the industry, the surgery, the recovery, the activation, the use, the lawsuits, the impact, etc) CIVILLY


will see-see if we can do it

it is most likely impossible because there is a MIGHTY fault line that divides those in favor and those opposed

and there are a bunch of folks who sit on the fence

I am not neutral.  I will not pretend to be Switzerland here but I will try to be fair.

I have always had concerns about cochlear implants – their use, abuse and proliferation.  I have compassion and love for folks who have chosen CIs or parents who have chosen them for their children because I understand why they have done this and because it is not my place to judge

But it is my place and moral obligation to question and to seek out answers re: the safety of CIs – please see the Audism Free American petition re: CIs

(this petition is a just and fair one that has over 1,000 online signatures and 300 by hand signatures.  Anyone who has anything to do with cochlear implants should want this independent and impartial investigation so we can have all the facts)

now there are folks who take STRONGER points of view against implanting Deaf children and say it is always wrong and bad and evil.  I do not support this rhetoric

there are folks who take STRONGER points of view in favor of CIs and say NOT implanting a Deaf child is wrong and bad and evil.  I do not support this rhetoric

For many many many years I took a detached policy of “to each their own” because when i expressed my concerns about the device, the practice, the system of implanting etc – the folks who have CIs took it very personally.  I did not want to hurt them.  I did not want to make them feel rejected and unloved so I went silent.

But then someone said – what about all the kids and folks who have been harmed by CIs – dont you care about them?  Why are you valuing the feelings of the ones who like their CIs over the folks who have had horrible experiences or who will in the future.

It was then i started to examine this gag order that we have put on ourselves – on our community.  This taboo topic.  But still i struggled with how to broach the subject of the DEVICE and the SYSTEM and not the individuals who have it or chose it for their children – HOW to NOT make it personal?

I have watched some really good v/bloggers make sincere efforts to engage in discussion on this topic to always see it go haywire.

So i dont know if People of the Eye is the right place for this discussion but after visiting Miss kat’s mom’s blog about her daughter’s 2nd implantation and difficult response to the activation & her follow up explanation – i revisited how this is a COMMUNITY issue and we need a COMMUNAL DIALOGUE on this.

so i invite ya all to come chat

what i ask first is:

1. come from love

no name calling (cyborg, robots, idiots, retard, moron, Deafhoodized, extremist (unless an extremist of love)

u can name actions or statements but dont saddle nobody up with a label except urself

2. no bull$hit

i have ZERO tolerance for b.s. – i can smell it a mile away and i ain’t having it here.  ill get my boots on and throw it right back at ya if needed or give ya the boot out the door

3. listen

there is much for us to learn

4. if i have scared you away with all these rules – my bad and im sorry.  I just really would love for us to come from love and talk about some of the truths re: CIs – what are our concerns, what have been our experiences, what are our questions, what we would like to see happen, what are our core value conflicts…)

Often audist systems and our own hostilities work hard to keep parents and Deaf people away from each other – id like us to thumb our nose at that systematic segregation and try a little integration here.

if folks think it is of any value – help spread the link as im way way off the grid due to being DeafRead free for a mighty long time and cuz i dont frequent CI chat rooms etc.

pick a truth any truth as u see it re: CI and put it forth firmly and lovingly and we will see where we go from there

if nothing materializes – we tried and it wasnt meant to be at this place at this time.

if u have read this far down – i thank you!




VOTE – its so easy, even anyone could do it!

VOTE – its so easy, even anyone could do it!

reminder to vote again today for Clerc’s Children

after you log in – click the vote button AGAIN to make sure ur vote really got recorded

it is now ranked at 35

we need a MASSIVE push folks

Clerc’s children can not make it into the top 10 without a heroic effort on ur part

yes – i am now BEGGING u not only to individually vote each day (after u log in MAKE SURE u click vote a 2nd time so u make sure it is recorded)
but i am now beseeching upon u all to guilt every body else u know into do this

come on its so simple we all should be doing it

it will take EACH of us and our BUDDIES and their BUDDIES to move this ranking up up up and away into the top 10

from 35 to 10 in 4 days – only doable if u u u u make it happen

pretty please

(only takes 5 minutes)

remember –

no one thought Obama was electable and remember

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

u can be part of the change u want to see in the world with a couple of clicks

everybody- 1 2 3 jump at da sun




Awesome New Video – Deafhood the Journey by Paul Ososki

Deafhood the Journey by Paul Ososki

Joey Baer – biggest thanks for sending me this link.  this film rocks – grab the URL and circulate it folks

Textbox in the youtube account says:

A story about a Deaf person onto a journey discovering how American Sign Language can be part of your daily life and your identity as part of Deaf World. Made by Paul Ososki for a service learning project for graduate school at Gallaudet University.


Me don’t know who Paul Ososki is but I love ya!  Pah! with Mosdeux’s “Vital Signs” and the Gallaudet “Gallaudet” film and now this “Deafhood the Journey” we r starting to see cinematic techniques meet the principles and properties of ASL – the sky’s the limit folks!



RED FLAG – AB 2072 Stakeholder Panel

Heye all

i blogged this before seeing the LATEST AB 2072 version (Aug 20, 2010)

so in this version the “includiing, but not limited to ASL,” is all striken out – GREAT.  Thanks Ann_C and Shel for sending me the latest version link

AB 2072 Aug 20 version

me so happy about that revision.

so ignore the below if u want to (except the bottom part as some of that is still valid as they have inserted 2 more stakeholder panelists (total 15 now)


RED FLAG – AB 2072 Stake Holder Panel got modified in the latest version of the bill (see the August 17, 2010 version)

see the RED highlights below marking all the newly added  “including, but not limited to, ASL” after each mention of the Visual Language representatives

NOW ask yourselves WHY WHY WHY after the auditory-oral stakeholders it does NOT say “including, but not limited to, spoken English”

this would ensure that the representatives for the auditory-oral panel seats should not be limited to oral / aural only folks but would include – all the signed systems (SEE, PSE, MCE, Cued speech are really systems – not languages- to support SPEECH and thus are part of the auditory-oral representatives).

it would also ensure that they NOT be limited to folks who are only familiar with spoken English but also familiar with OTHER spoken languages like Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese etc

why are they trying to minimize and LIMIT ASL representation yet preserve auditory-oral ONLY when in fact auditory-oral approaches often go hand and hand with Cued speech or SEE to supplement speech with some visual CODES (not language).

I’m fine with the visual language rep. not being limited to ASL if the intent and purpose is to ensure that OTHER natural and real signed languages are not excluded (i.e. French Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language, Vietnamese Sign Language etc) but Candy (Gina) over at Mike (kokonut’s place) said that she can assure us the “not limited to ASL” is there to weasel in signed systems under Visual Language – when in fact signed systems represent English to aid with audition and oracy so off u go to the auditory-oral representatives.

im sure they dont want to be LIMITING to oral / aural ONLY optionLESS option

geez the more i look the more i see

NOTE: i have underlined where the auditory-oral representatives are listed below so you can see how in the latest spin of AB 2072 they are still preserved, defended, and championed to be oral / aural English ONLY

unbiased – huh?

Why do i keep thinking they be thinking we is Deaf and Dumb

we can read folks – we got our reading glasses on and our boots

we know what the sponsors of AB 2072 keep pushing for – CHOICES that MANDATE and OMIT and EXCLUDE and they will call it an “option”

From AB 2072

(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses
auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.
(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses visual
language, including, but not limited to, ASL,
appointed by the
(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational
setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(D) An educator of the deaf in a visual language, including, but
not limited to, ASL
education setting, appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules.
(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses
auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.
(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses visual
language, including, but not limited to, ASL,
appointed by the
(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services
primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the
(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services
primarily visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL
learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral
communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing,
appointed by the Governor.
(J) A researcher engaged in the study of visual language,
including, but not limited to, ASL,
and communication modalities
for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the

(K) The Secretary for Education, who whall be an ex officio member.
Newly added folks that bring the tipping point in the auditory-oral majority favor – unbiased HA
(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating
infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology,
appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her
designee, who shall be an ex officio member.

Folks Visual LANGUAGE means ASL or other foreign signed languages

it does not mean coded systems that represent English – those systems are part of the auditory-oral representatives

also – it ain’t lost on me how they say “not limited to ASL” when for centuries folks have been saying to educate Deaf children using a natural signed language is limiting and that being Deaf is a limiting condition




“visual language”

wow – im getting me a real fine education in politiks and word playing

And shall we consider the current configuration of membership on the stakeholders panel, eh?

why did the pathological folks get thrown in to throw off the balance of things?  What happened to the ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era agreement that said – oral / aural ONLY education ain’t cool and denying Deaf folks access to a full natural and accessible language ain’t cool and Deaf folks have a right to be seen as a cultural and linguistic minority – well how can that be seen when the audiologist is saying the baby has failed before s/he even can sit up or see beyond blurs (what is this predestination – dont ya all know what happens with looking glass self and self-fulfilling prophecy) and how ICED 2010 Vancouver New Era said – DEAF Natural Signed Language folks should be involved in decision making in matters that directly relate to Deaf folks

why is AB 2072 CONSTANTLY changing and spinning to confine and restrict and limit while PRETENDING to be so inclusive, responsive, and just?




AB 2072 – why it chucks

NOTE: there is a new version of the AB 2072 bill up now which addresses some of the problems that i listed below – i have added NOTES in PURPLE for changed parts

for the latest version of the AB 2072 bill (aug 20) see

heye all

since we all have gone round this mulberry bush a few too many times – im gonna speak bluntly here to make sure ya all can hear me

AB 2072 chucks!


it includes programs, services, approaches that EXCLUDE natural and fully accessible LANGUAGE

denying a child access to a fully natural and accessible language ain’t cool folks

plain and simple

in fact it has detrimental results folks (see ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era agreement)

in fact it has been called a dismal failure in one congressional report (See Babbidge report)

in fact denying a child the right to a FULLY NATURAL and ACCESSIBLE language has been referred to as a crime against humanity and linguistic and cultural genocide in some quarters (see Skutnabb-Kangas, Lane, Cummins, and more)

in fact in many testimonies of folks who have endured Oral / Aural ONLY or speech with supplemental sign system ONLY programs have testified to the child abuse-like and restrictive nature of these “educational” approaches

No child should have to WORK for their language when they got a perfectly good, natural, whole, functional, useful, classy, cool, sweet, beautiful, awesome language at their fingertips

and of course – no child in the U.S. of A should be denied the right to learn English – i ain’t advocating for that and i don’t know anyone who is.

we r simply saying – don’t deny Deaf children the right to a fully natural and accessible language (ie ASL) and also English

Whereas the EXCLUSIONARY folks say Deaf babies and infants must have the “option” of having to work and labor and be tested and prod and physically altered to get access to English. No ASL allowed here folks.
See the “option” school near you folks

to find out more about “Option” Schools that exclude the option of a natural and fully accessible language go to:

go to their page on Communication Options (download your own copy!) at:

now we could pick apart the latest lamest version of AB 2072 to be circulated – but why should we have to pull out the self-evident?

Why should we have to state the obvious problems
[well i guess for some folks it is necessary – Hi Barry, Gina, Mike, MM, RR, Ann_C and Russell and all you other “anonymous” folks. i see ya)


“This bill would require that the informational pamphlet be provided to parents of all newborns and infants identified as deaf and hard of hearing by an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing, and by a local provider for the Early Start Program upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly identified as deaf or hard of hearing.”

ok so the previous existing law (Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening, Tracking, and Intervention Act) already requires that babies and infants be tested / screened re: being Deaf or Hearing

So what does it mean that an audiologist must IMMEDIATELY give this brochure?  Are the audiologists now going to be sent to the hospital maternity ward?

is it now a crime to have a Deaf child – u gotta be put into a SYSTEM and REQUIRED to report to an audiologist who’s “scope of practice” is fixing the ear and the lips? hmmmm

and who pays for this mandatory audiologist visit?

Why an audiologist?

ain’t they even a wee bit worried about the Dept of Justice suit against Cochlear Americas for doing kickbacks with doctors, audiologists, etc

Scope of Practice is out now

Evaluation and Treatment by audiologist is in now


This bill would require the informational
pamphlet to be made available in Cantonese, English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and be made available on the department’s Internet Web
site and the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board’s Internet Web site, as prescribed.

– HEY why doesnt it require that this pamphlet be made available in American Sign Language on DVD (it is amended now to have an ASL (with English captions) on its website but no take home or mailed out DVD version


The fund shall contain donations that have been
collected and deposited for the purposes of this section, as well as any federal funds made available for purposes of this section.
Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, the fund shall also contain any interest and dividends earned on moneys in the fund. No entity may contribute moneys to this fund that participates in a lobbying activity or has a financial relationship or any other conflict of interest, with, any appointed panel members, or that stands to benefit financially from the outcome of the pamphlet development. No state funds shall be used to implement this section.

– HEY why is this bill’s implementation gonna be dependent on the kindness of others – ya know gotta have handouts and donations to finance this state requirement – huh?

And whose got the bucks to develop, translate, print, and distribute this  pamphlet?  Nothings for free folks hmmm could it be the oral / aural only original sponsors (see below for the listing) of the bill and the audiology association and medical association that originally sponsored this bill

unbiased – my …..

And why did the part about no $$ from groups that engage in lobbying or have a financial relationship or other conflicts of interest with panel members or might profit from this bill get STRICKEN OUT

Reading glasses anyone?
Thinking caps anyone?

A New “no entity clause” is back in now:

 No entity
or individual may contribute moneys to this fund that has a
commercial interest   related to communication options, or
products for the deaf or hard of hearing. A donor shall disclose any
commercial interests at the time the donor's donation is remitted to
the State Treasury. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to
preclude a tax-exempt non-profit organization, qualified under
Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code from donating to
this fund. 


“The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice. “

Check out what the “scope of practice” is for an audiologist and you will see they are ANYTHING BUT NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED.

They in fact have a license to fix and TREAT the Deaf baby and infant – that is what they are there for.  So why have they been the chosen one – the state mandated ones to be providing “unbiased” information

good bloody question!

See the Reader family‘s experience with audiologists and the scope of their practice

Why isnt the original mandate of the parents seeing the Early Start Program sufficient – HUH HUH HUH?

If there is a problem with the Early Start Program and their materials – FIX that!

Scope of Practice is out now but evaluate and TREAT are in and getting the pamphlet from an audiologist is still MANDATED –  no other OPTION Is allowed – like say getting the pamphlet from a bi-bi specialist


The stakeholders panel – omg what a recipe for disaster

Would make for a GREAT REALITY TV program – might even help CA with its deficit if they could get a big TV channel to carry it.

Still might be a drama fest

New bill version upped the panel from 13 members to 15 (2 Deaf / HH Adults who use other visual communication modalities)

just the access issues alone r gonna make this panel pretty dang interesting – i envision CART, ASL interpreter, Oral interpreter, and PSE interpreter

Tower of Babel for the babies


the newly added “stakeholders” to the panel – geez how did you guys get in? audiologist and doctor who specialize in pediatric otolaryngogly

now there are 2 more new ones – “other communication modalities”


“An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.”

TREATING Folks – part of their “scope of practice” – it aint just about identifying and screening now. (See #7 – on)

“scope of practice” is out but Treating is in still


Who is missing from the panel? bilingual / dual language experts


not sure why the “other visual modalities” got added in but no bi-bi specialist is listed


Visual language is used throughout the bill – definition please

if they honor the use of the word LANGUAGE – then SEE, PSE, TC, Cued speech or any other sign SYSTEM used to represent English visually do NOT qualify under VISUAL LANGUAGE – instead VISUAL LANGUAGE should only refer to fully natural signed languages with their own grammar etc

why are they not saying NATURAL SIGNED LANGUAGES in the bill?

huh, huh, huh?

BIG RED FLAG – why o why has after any mention of VISUAL LANGUAGE is this phrase added “including, but not limited to, ASL,” been added to five of the stakeholders panelists to be appointed

HUH HUH HUH?  Why add the “not limited to ASL” oh cuz they aim to stake and stock (oh stock hmmm) the deck, the panel with folks re: Visual Language who really only know about signed systems or other coded systems that are somewhat visual based.  Gosh forbid if we have even just ONE solitary ASL and English expert on that panel

so why dont all the auditory-oral representatives also have a , “not limited to ENGLISH” after them huh huh huh?


the “other visual language” clauses are OUT – got the boot – ya hoo

for some reason im just kinda doubtful that the CA legislature knows what and why its doing what its doing

go back to the original source folks – De nile (denial) ain’t just a river in Egypt


this bill was designed of by and for the oral / aural only folks (with or without sign systems) to push for the use of aggressive and artificial means that deny Deaf infants and babies the right to a fully, natural language
Note: by oral / aural only folks – i dont mean the byproducts of those programs – the byproducts and alumni that are true to being oral / aural only are oddly mute on this subject so far.

the original sponsors of AB 2072 are:
* California Coalition (private schools and programs)
* CCHAT Center
* Echo Horizon School
* Jean Weingarten Peninusla Oral School
* John Tracy Clinic
* Auditory Oral School of San Francisco
* Oralingua
* American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
* California Academy of Audiology
* California Association of Private Special Education Schools
* California Hospital Association
* California Speech-Language Hearing Association

odd, eh?

options that exclude ain’t cool

and that me friend is why AB 2072 chucks

aren’t ya all tired of going around the mulberry bush?


PS: big thanks to Deafster for having sent me the latest version of the AB 2072 bill

Candyland still stuck in molasses swamp

“beyond the scope of his or her practice”

Why did Candy suggest we read something (latest AB 2072) and then omit / neglect to pinpoint the telling point q

From AB2072

“The pamphlet shall be provided:
(1) By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
the scope of his or her practice

red emphasis – mine cuz i got me reading glasses on

if ya care to know what the scope of practice is for audiologists – scroll down to see the 23 items on this list

Ya know the new part of ab2072 that now says that audiologist can only counsel re their speciality which is what folks q
A: H earing
Unbiased qqq
indeed …. not

And all along the rah rah rah we love ab 2072 (and u oppose folks suck) folks have been saying give parents the information of the gospel of options – especially those options that EXCLUDE a natural and fully accessible language and don’t for gosh sake send the parents and Babes that h ear not to language acquisition experts no way

Just mandate require legislate RULE that they all go to the fix it up chappy so he or she can make them all happy

It ain’t a small world after all folks
It is a h earing world

Or didn’t ya h ear that
Or read that part

The option on the table today is
Stand for justice or injustice

Believe in the spiritual audacity to assert our somebodyness (mlk)
Believe it’s better to h ear and or behave as h earing folks do (ie audism)

The choice / the option is ours

We can be ostriches or allies for the oppressor or we can take a stand for that which is right, just, and good

We can wear yellow and take a stand


we can be yellow and be too afraid to assert the radical notion that it is ok to be Deaf

There is no way to peace – peace is the way (Gandhi AJ Muste)

Positive peace is not the absence of tension but rather the presence of justice (mlk)

mandating parents to see audiologist that can only counsel about fixing the ear is not an option folks

Ab 2072 folks – with u in spirit
Shine shine shine shine
Let the truth shine
And justice roll down like a mighty stream

It may help candy wash away the molAsses Muck


image from flickr

Spin twist & shout & TRUTHS oppose 2072

Heye all

I see the b.s. Meister has been up to his specialty of twisting and destorting to reconfigure the world history into his own reality
He is now asserting that Native American languages and cultures were not adversely impacted by racism and linguicism. He also seems to think that to have a linguistic or cultural genocide all the folks have to be wiped off the planet.
Many languages and cultures have been wiped off this earth
Many genocides have not resulted in all the Folks or languages being killed off but they have tried and that ain’t cool

The uncoolness of genocides (large and small) should be self evident to even the chief twister and spinster of history and b.s.
All ya need is love and to be awake

Oppose AB 2072 folks
Thank u for taking a stand for that which is just,right and good

did ya know that yellow is a sign of hope
Did ya know u r beautiful when u r so busy strong and loveful – advocating for the right for Deaf children to:
Have the right to a full, natural and accessible language (ASL) as well as English
And to have the right to be fully loved and respected as a Deaf child
Ya know the crAzy radical idea that we all be created equal

Oppose 2072 folks – you rock
Barry – u b.s. And it sure do stink chap
And p.s. Ur statement “it’s so easy, even a deaf person could do it”. Is an audistic one

Peace & love

Previous Older Entries