DEAF - L:  Cochlear Implant
Key words:  Deaf Education Information, deaf related issues, deaf culture and history
 

Document 1 of 7

Document 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sender: Deaf List <DEAF-L@siu.edu
From: Jeff Majors <NetRox@AOL.COM
Subject:      another study...HAHAHA
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU

I just love making Eckert and others wrong..... another study about residual
hearing after implantation! ;-)

http://www.healthgate.com/cgi-bin/q-format.cgi?f=G&d=fmb97&m=500032&ui=9830072
2

Title
[Conservation of residual hearing after cochlear implantation]

Author
Shin YJ; Deguine O; Laborde ML; Fraysse B

Address
CHU Purpan, Service d'O.R.L., Toulouse, France.

Source
Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord), 1997, 118:4, 233-8

Abstract
Indications for cochlear implantation have been expanded to include severely
hearing impaired adults and may increase the number of patients presenting
with preoperative residual hearing. Conservation of residual hearing may
allow better performance with an implant. However, conventional thought is
that implantation destroys auditory structures involved in residual hearing.
This study was undertaken to assess if there are general or surgical factors
intervening in the conservation of residual hearing in a sample of
multichannel implant recipients. A retrospective study on 50 adult cochlear
recipients with preoperative residual hearing has been undertaken. Sixteen of
50 implanted subjects (32%) were found to have conserved their residual
hearing. Among them, seven patients have clinically non-significant changes
of hearing. Age, side of implantation, gender and etiology did not influence
the outcome of residual hearing. Round window ossification, ossification of
the cochlea, length of insertion, approach and site of insertion (scala
tympani vs.scala vestibuli) were not found to be statistically significant
between the population having lost and the population having conserved
residual hearing. This study emphasizes the need to undertake a larger
multicenter longitudinal study to determine the existence of factors related
to the conservation of residual hearing.
Language of Publication
French
Unique Identifier
98300722
 
 

Document 2 of 7
From: Richard Clark Eckert <rceckert@UMICH.EDU>
Subject:      Educational benefits and CI's
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU
Return-Path: owner-deaf-l@SIU.EDU

Again citing the same cochlear corporation literature what did respondents
indicate in terms of the learning in school.  This was a little bit higher
than phones and reduced tinnitus.  Approximately 25% claimed great benefit
and another 15% claimed some benefit with learning in school as a result
of getting a CI.  That leaves out a huge 60% who received little or no
benefit from CI's in regards to their learning in school.

Richard C. Eckert
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Sociology
University of Michigan
rceckert@umich.edu
 
 

Document 3 of 7
From: Richard Clark Eckert <rceckert@UMICH.EDU>
Subject:      Medical Progress Confronts Deaf Culture??????
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU
Return-Path: owner-deaf-l@SIU.EDU

"Can the Quiet War Be Brought to an End?: Medical Progress Confronts Deaf
Culture"

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990301/1deaf.htm

I'm hesitant to even look as the title already stinks so bad.  Of course
the individual posting it on the CI-Forum did even further damage by
referring to Deaf as a Cult.

This might be a good article for NAD to come out of the closet and
respond by exposing the CI industries for what they are.

btw I've been digging into the old information packets of cochlear
corporation to see if I could find some operational definitions to "some"
of the terms they use to describe frequencies of complications.  This is
interesting.  In the Spectra 22 literature -

When describing the expected benefits of a CI the Cochlear Corporation
footnotes ---

Few - is defined as >5% and = or < 34%

Some - is defined as > 34%, < 52%

Many - is defined as = or > 52%.

Definitions are found in "Issues and Answers: the Nucleus Spectra Cochlear
Implant System" [copyright, 1996 Cochlear Corporation, FUN212 Iss5, Sep96,
page 11.]

These are used to represent percentages of children who participated in
clinical trial.

Now same publication page 12 Scores in Noise for Open Set Words oin
Sentences -- 12% (n=99) recognized less than 20%.

Now this is the real neat part - next page (13). There was a survey of
1760 CIers.  10% reported great benefit on telephone, <20% received great
benefit from music, a little over 10% reported great benefit of reduced
tinnitus and less than 30% reported great benefit in school.  Oh goodness
it does get better.  The graph shows only those who reported Great Benefit
or some benefit.  It simply defines the remainder as little or no benefit
and then pools that with the no responses --- IN OTHER WORDS THE
MANUFACTURER INTENTIONALLY DELETED FROM THE SURVEY ALL RESPONSES THAT
DID NOT FIT THEIR NEEDS.  This is called a non porbability sampling and
randum methods were not used.  This CONFIRMS my previous accusations that
the companies are violating principles of applied statistics in their
advertising.

Richard C. Eckert
 
 

Document 4 of 7
From: Robyn Carter <carterr@IHUG.CO.NZ>
Subject:      Cochlear Implant
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.SOL.4.05.9903022210460.17935-100000@tempest.rs.itd.um
              ich.edu>
Return-Path: owner-deaf-l@SIU.EDU

> Guess who insisted the screen be right in front of them?  >If you guessed
the person with the CI, you were correct.  >Can someone with a CI on this
list explain such a >contradiction?  I mean face value says the individual
>needed the CART for accomodation because they couldn't >hear.

Richard, once again, a cochlear implant does NOT give you normal hearing.
It at best rates you Hearing Impaired or Hard of Hearing whichever term you
would like best. In quiet situations it can be almost normal, but with any
situation in a hall, or groups of people, you are still hard of hearing or
deaf. I still need to use some assistive devices. I still need captions on
TV. Yet I have normal hearing in quiet situations. However, I cannot hear
much at parties, and some sounds change - through a microphone for
instance, sounds become a bit distorted.

This also doesn't worry me much because I socialise with my deaf friends
and sign at parties.

Hard of hearing, Hearing Impaired people, still need assistive devices
whether they have a hearing aid, or cochlear implant in many situations.
You are assuming that the Cochlear Implant gives your normal hearing. It
doesn't. It's time to think of the Cochlear as another hearing aid, when
conventional ones work no more. Just because HOH people are not Deaf
doesn't mean they need the extras any less than Deaf people.

With my Cochlear Implant, I can use the phone with ease both at work and at
home. With my Cochlear Implant I was promoted at work quickly and earn a
good income which I would not have had I stayed profoundly deaf struggling
with hearing aids. I have a choice too. I can take my implant off and
choose to hear nothing if I want to. And sometimes I do.

A Cochlear Implant is nothing but an Assistive Device, not a miracle cure
for Deafness. But yes - it works, and it's MY choice to have one. I have
never ever knocked your choice of using ASL and being with the Deaf
Community, however, that's you and I'm really thrilled that you are happy
with that. It tells me your self esteem is whole and you're a happy person.
For me - I wanted to hear more. I chose a cochlear implant and it works for
me. I'm happy with it. It's *my* way of communicating with people, and it
has changed my life for the better in my opinion.

But I don't kid anyone - I'm not a 'HEARING PERSON' and I never will be.
Take it off and I'm just as deaf as Deaf. I still am hearing impaired and I
hate that, but c'est la vie!

I still will use any device that will make it easier for me and I know
other implantees will do the same. So please don't knock the Implantee that
was using CART. He/She still needs it. We use everything we can to help us
- the cochlear implant included.

Cheers
Robyn in NZ
 
 

Document 5 of 7
From: Richard Clark Eckert <rceckert@UMICH.EDU>
Subject:      Once in a blue moon
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU
Return-Path: owner-deaf-l@SIU.EDU

I truly believe that my very best writing about CI's was my more personal
story of why I choose not to get one ("Unwired from Noise").  I do grow
weary of being called rapid, militant, have false allegations and outright
lies posted about me on the CI-Forum, have my home address posted on that
same forum, be accused of having leanings to the KKK and Operation Miscue
(Rescue????), having had to answer to complaints by CI apologists
attempting to have my e-mail privileges revoked at my university (last
place an intelligent person would challenge freedom of speech btw) etc
etc.

I have frequently posted numbers on this list which concern the
imperfections and complications that should be examined by candidates
for surgery to produce artifical hearing. I say "should be examined"
because I think that decisions concerning CI's are tough and that the more
information a patient can get the better.  I will not tell a person to get
or not get a CI!  Nor do I consider those who get a CI to be monsters.

Foir the lurkers on this list who post on the CI-Forum I wish to point out
that the "head whistles" post I put on this list has been widely
misinterpreted on your list and used by apologists to further their
tactics of slander against me.  Paranoid?  Hardly, they have free
speech too!  At the same time I want to correct some of their factual
errors.  First, the head whistles post did not argue an association
between head whistles and CI's.  Rather what was posted was that IF the
head whistles described on the CI Forum could be attributed to only deaf
CI recipients then we MIGHT have a basis from which to generate a
hypothesis that should be investigated.  It is clear that a number both
deaf CI and non CI users claim to experience head whisltes - as such the
hypothesis that never was to begin with should not be generated without
more specifics.  Frankly, I doubt that head whistles can be empirically
verified.  My originally post was asking not telling.  That CI apologists
can not see the difference is surely revealing.  Now regardless of their
misinterpretation of my post, the very notion of "head whistles" was in
fact introduced to me by a a CIer. I did not invent or introduce the
concept.  I REPEAT the idea of "head whistles" first came to my attention
on the CI-Forum.

Now I thought about going through the numbers again, but I don't think
that necessary.  I do however want to dig at the notion of well
complications are only once in a blue moon, you can get hit by a bus more
easily and other such unscientific arguments provided by the CI
apologists.  Now suppose we accept the 1% figure the CI apologists
provide. Suppose the complications are with only 1 in every hundred
who candidates who undergo surgery.  How in the heck do we interpret that
percentage? Most rational people would compare with other things that
happen 1 in 100 times.

Ok when busses start to hit 1 person in every hundred crossing the street,
additional precautions are taken to reduce such risks. More lighting on
buses, different street signs, changing the signal lights, addign stops
signs, etc.  Now I MUST suppose that the CI manufacturers and doctors are
doing something similar with CI's.  No doubt they've made improvements
over the years and people can figure out on their own whether those
improvements are sufficient to change their mind.
 

BUT what would be an example of something that medical industries
would argue that 1 in 100 is too many?

Watching CNN yesterday I noticed a story about a woman who tested HIV
positive, but who wanted to breast feed her child.  Now the medical
experts were saying that the chances of transmission were 1 in 200.
Definitely less than 1%  That risk was considered too high for an infant.
To my knowledge none of the complications regarding CI's are life
threatening - at least not in the immediate sense so A GREAT DEAL OF
CAUTION MUST BE TAKEN WHEN THINKING ABOUT THE COMPARISION because we are
only comparing the risks involved and not the severity of the outcome of
those risks. Yet, it would be a good idea to remember that the 1% risk
with CI's (and I don't like that number btw) does not include
psychological complications that CI recipients must endure and live with.
Once that is done, gap in the severeity of the risks is surely reduced.
 

rce
 
 

Document 6 of 7
 From: Richard Clark Eckert <rceckert@UMICH.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Once in a blue moon - CORRECTION
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.SOL.4.05.9902181210410.7968-100000@battlezone.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Return-Path: owner-deaf-l@SIU.EDU

Major corrections ans additions to the last few paragraphs - sorry.
 

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Richard Clark Eckert wrote:
 

Now I thought about going through the numbers again, but I don't think
that necessary.  I do however want to dig at the notion that major
complications are only once in a blue moon, you can get hit by a bus more
easily and other such unscientific arguments provided by the CI
apologists.  Now suppose we accept the 1% figure the CI apologists
provide. Suppose the complications are with only 1 in every hundred
who candidates who undergo CI surgery.  How in the heck do we interpret
the meaning of that percentage? Most rational people would compare with
other things that happen 1 in 100 times.

Ok when buses start to hit 1 person in every hundred crossing the street,
additional precautions are taken to reduce such risks. More lighting on
buses, different street signs, changing the signal lights, addign stops
signs, etc.  Now I MUST suppose that the CI manufacturers and doctors are
doing something similar with CI's.  No doubt they've made improvements
over the years and people can figure out on their own whether those
improvements are sufficient to change their mind.
 

BUT what would be an example of something that medical industries
would argue that 1 in 100 is too many?  There are certainly instances in
which 1 in 100 are not acceptable, especially if immediately life
threatening.

Watching CNN yesterday I noticed a story about a woman who tested HIV
positive, but who wanted to breast feed her child.  Now the medical
experts were saying that the chances of transmission were 1 in 200.
Definitely less than 1%  That risk was considered by medical experts
as too high for the infant.

To my knowledge none of the complications regarding CI's are life
threatening - at least not in the immediate sense.  As such, a GREAT
DEAL OF CAUTION MUST BE TAKEN WHEN THINKING ABOUT THE COMPARISION of
complications resulting from CI surgery and complciations resulting from
breast feeding when the mother is HIV positive. The risks of severity of
outcome do not on the surface appear to be anywhere close to one
another.  Probably not even beneath the surface.

Yet, it would be a good idea to remember that the 1% risk with CI's (and
I don't like that number btw as both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced
Bionics have much higher numbers than that) does not include
psychological complications that CI recipients must endure and live
with.  Once that is done, gap in the severeity of the risks is surely
reduced.

But do children suffer psychological damage that can be directly linked
and/or associated with CI's.  The splice on NBC dateline about a month
ago that include a deaf PhD psychologist verty strongly suggested that
pyschological damage was being done.  Sure wish I could recall her name.

 rce
 
 

Document 7 of 7
From: Jeff Majors <NetRox@AOL.COM>
Subject:      The earlier you implant, the better
To: DEAF-L@SIU.EDU

Unexpectedly came from a hearing friend who msg'd me with this URL... good
info about auditory nerves and CI.

"A study using deaf kittens showed that devices called cochlear implants can
stimulate growth and change in the nerves of the hearing system among the
very young....Though the use of cochlear implants is controversial among the
deaf, Rauschecker implants early in life of children born deaf "have proven
quite successful." However, among adults who have been deaf since childhood,
the history of cochlear implants "abounds with examples of failure."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/1999/sep/09/090900474.html

-jeff