Wednesday, 8 January 2020

Did Deafo! fail to get BSL in education?

Seems they got little else but publicity but played down the fact the Welsh Assembly did not in the end, endorse it despite a campaign lasting 3 years...


Comment: BSL promotes BSL there was little or no evidence the deaf were using BSL to access welsh or wanted to, and there is well-known deaf opposition to learning English grammar too, the petition was not exactly clear or explained properly.  

It is simplistic on the face of a petition that fails to be informative.  It was also a non-inclusive petition which ignores other children with hearing loss and deafness, and parents who may offer preference for speech training as opposed to sign language, the fact the professionals needed to support their petition does not exist was not stated except by assembly researchers.  Of the registered 2,000 deaf children the petition was for, no statistic was offered regarding parental or child choices or current usage.

In essence, the BSL petition is a challenge to parental choice. As stated in the video over 500 THOUSAND have hearing loss so it was unhelpful to support just one mode in that regard and ignored a 60% take-up of CI's.  The petition suggested over 1,000 signed it, of course, that is not 50% of the 2,000 odd quoted deaf children but a 1,000 people and lobbied on the street or online many not even resident in Wales.   As there are no deaf schools IN Wales just how would it work anyway?

How Useful are CI's?

Image result for ci meaning medical implants
The usefulness of cochlear implantation in children with single-sided deafness



Objectives:

Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) show a poorer performance at school, which is attributable to reduced speech discrimination in noise, to reduced localization ability, and to a decreased power of concentration due to faster hearing exhaustion. Therefore, it is important to provide children with SSD with adequate hearing amplification to restore binaural hearing. This can only be achieved by provision with a cochlear implant (CI). But these treatment options in children with SSD are still under discussion.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate audiological and clinical results in children with SSD following cochlear implantation. A special focus was placed on the duration of deafness before implantation and on the frequency of CI-use in everyday life.

Methods:

Seven children with SSD of different etiologies who were provided with a CI between 3 and 16 years of age were evaluated. Every child underwent multiple audiological tests before and after cochlear implantation. After cochlear implantation speech recognition tests in noise using the HSM (Hochmair, Schulz and Moser 1997) test and localization tests were performed. Furthermore, the frequency of implant use was evaluated.

Results:

Speech recognition in noise with CI compared to the unaided condition significantly improved in all children in different settings. Improvement of the localization ability measured by the root mean square error (RMSE) was shown in all children. All children are very satisfied with the decision to have undergone cochlear implantation and are all full-time users.

Conclusions:

Cochlear implantation benefits speech recognition in noise and sound localization ability in children with SSD at different ages. All implanted children are full-time users regardless of age or duration of deafness before implantation.