Thursday, January 17, 2008

Clarification on What I Meant By Denying CI Users "Disabled" Status

Here is the clarification on what I really meant by denying the CI users "disabled" status. I notice that I did not write more clearly. I intend to address the issue of how the future parents of deaf youngsters to be fitted with CI.

After reading numerous blog and comment postings by parents of deaf youngsters with CI. They kinda rub the "successful CI adaptive" stories against our eyes on repeated basis. Nothing to do with the current CI users! That would be seen as "grandfather clause" by waivering the present CI users from any restriction imposed upon them.

As for the issue of parents of deaf youngsters who want to implant their offsprings wit hthe CI device. They try to normalize the deaf child fitted with the CI device. So the parent of deaf child with CI ought not to find any excuse like saying "My child is disabled".

Too many parents of deaf youngsters unnecessarily receive the government benefits without their deaf child know about it. Why the parents of any deaf child want to normalize hir own deaf child, then still ask the society to see the child as disabled.

If we succeed the federal legislation to re-classify the future deaf child with CI as "non-disabled". That meant the parent of deaf child with CI will be not able to make any requests to the school system for the installation of the FM system or pay the operational cost of CI, ex. speech training.

Parents of any dear child with CI choose to normalize hir own child thru the invasive surgery without the consent of deaf child (often in many cases). So they should not expect hir deaf child with CI having double or triple advantages over culturally deaf people for future employment, etc.

The society at large should classify any future deaf child with CI as "non-disabled". So the deaf person with CI will not have any unfair advantage(s) over culturally deaf like the affirmative action programs recruiting disadvantaged individuals for employment postiton. So the future deaf child with CI will be NOT qualifed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) law. Parents of deaf child with CI choose to normalize hir own child.

The employers surely will choose the deaf person with CI over qualified culturally deaf person for the job postiton. Why should the deaf person with CI have more advantage over culturally deaf person? That is something to do with the premptive classifcation of social engineering by hearing people.

Future parents of deaf child ought to think TWICE before cochelarizing hir own deaf child. They will not use any kind of excuses by saying "My child is disabled. He/she have the special needs for accomodation/accessibility, etc."

I personally loathe the idea of classifying deaf people as "disabled" which many of us really not consider it. Culturally deaf people are part of the cultural and linguistic minority, not "disabled". Why should the parents of deaf child with CI consider hir own deaf child "disabled"

How true about the CI users remove the device, then they are still deaf anyway!

Same thing happened with Alexander Graham Bell successfully persuaded the New York state legislature in the late 1800s about the importance of oral education for deaf children to be normally intergrated into the society at large, not being clannish.

In the end, the deaf students of oral education still end up forming their own deaf clubs and other services and socialize with other deaf people, not hearing counterparts.

Why the society at large (private insurers and government) should pay for the cochlear implant surgery on deaf children, then still end up in the deaf world and seen as "disabled"?

No comments:

Post a Comment