raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) (08/02/90)
In article <[568]comp.misc@oldcolo.UUCP>, jep@oldcolo.UUCP (Josep Pfauntsch) writes: > My daughter "CASEY" has been deaf since birth. I've recently > discovered that a 22 channel cochlear implant is now available. > I understand that earlier models were experimental only and that > upgrades from one and two channel implants to 22 channel implants > were ok. I also know that the implant is done only to one side. This is the sort of work we do here, in the Cochlear Implant Research Laboratory (Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary). The person for you to really talk to around here would be my boss, Don Eddington (eplunix!cirl!dke@eddie.mit.edu). Yes, the Nucleus 22 channel implant is now available for children. There are all sorts of questions this raises, such as: is this a good idea surgically for infants? Will it provide stimulation to the auditory centers of the brain that will help in language development? Should it be done in pre-lingually deaf, as opposed to post-lingually deaf children? If there is any residual hearing at all, is it better to perform the implant (which destroys any residual hearing) in hopes of getting better stimulation from the implant than from the residual hearing? The big questions, in my mind, are social: the deaf community is a stable and reasonably content one. Is it fair to force a child to join the lip-reading community by performing an implant (since they are primarily an aid to lip-reading), or should they be given the option of joining the sign-language community? Are your expectations of the device reasonable? For example, a *few* subjects here can use a telephone, but they are our star subjects. But the device is not a cure, or a full replacement for hearing by any means. Is it worth the expense, risks of surgery, and awkwardness of the device? In any case, I'm forwarding your note to my boss: feel free to ask me or him questions, and I'll refer anything I don't know an answer for to the appropriate people. -- Nico Garcia Designs by Geniuses for use by Idiots eplunix!cirl!raoul@eddie.mit.edu
raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) (08/03/90)
In article <920@eplunix.UUCP>, raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:
[various comments and observations about coclear implants]
As my boss just pointed out to me, when I mentioned this discussion
with him: I am an *engineer* at the lab, not a clinician. Please
do not take anything I say as medical advice, and talk to your local
audiologists about these things.
My net postings are individual thoughts, not professional advice from the
infirmary. I'll make any further discussion concerning these implants
over email at the address below.
--
Nico Garcia
Designs by Geniuses for use by Idiots
eplunix!cirl!raoul@eddie.mit.eduosmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (rn) (08/09/90)
I want to thank Nico Garcia for his excellent post describing both sides of the cochlear implant decision with regard to a pre-lingually deaf child. No, by no means is the cochlear implant a panacea. It's quite common for lay parents of deaf children to become very excited about cochlear implants, as if it were some kind of "artificial ear" or something. Many parents make this decision not out of rational deliberation, but out of desperation and conflict in dealing with the experience of giving birth to a handicapped child. Another consideration is that coclear implants are, as far as I know, permanent. You pretty much destroy the cochlea when you install a CI. If a new, improved approach to neurological deafness develops in the future, and this includes new types of CI's, it won't be available to those who already have CI's. When thinking about putting a CI in a very young child who probably still has many decades yet to live, this is a MAJOR consideration. Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu