"deaf"or "hearing impaired"

Thanks, SJ. DD2 is 9 months old. Yesterday she had the MRI, CT and ABR, so we hope that an operation won't be too far away either. Perhaps not around 10 months old as planned but around 1 year old. DS had his implant at 7 years old, but he'd been an excellent user of hearing aids. DD2 doesn't get any benefit from them. I suspect hers aren't as powerful as DS's were because she's much smaller. Maybe if we get on to another set of aids they'll at least give her something. DD1 can hear. DS is 3 years ahead with his language (had his SEN review yesterday). Thanks for your post. I think I'd feel more at ease if Heidi had at least something from her hearing aids. I mean I'm sure I'd still worry until her CI op was over and done with and switched on and her turning to sound, but to a lesser degree.

That's scary. DD2's deafness has the same cause as DS's, so it should work for her too. Yes, DS is still deaf in one ear but that's hardly a problem in the grand scheme of things. His life is immeasurably better for being able to hear as well as he does now.

I hate to say it but cochlar implants aren't always a success. I know a couple of children with cochlar implants at the school I work at and they litearally have no hearing whatsoever inspite of being implanted.

There are also some children who are not suitable for a cochlar implant for one reason or another inspite of being profoundly deaf. Even if a cochlar implant is a sucess, the child is still profoundly deaf in one ear as its next to impossible to get the nhs to fund bilateral implants.

I'm glad that your ds has had a lot of sucess with his implant and I hope that your DD2 gets the same level of benefit.

RT, I hope a CI can help most profoundly deaf children too. Our DD2 doesn't get any benefit from the hearing aids and we hope the CI will help. DS is also profoundly deaf (>100-120 dB unaided) and the CI has been fantastic for him (he's down to 20-30 dB with it).

I tell people that I am half deaf, easier to get through to people, and I do only hear about half the stuff I'm supposed to hear! I personally prefer the term hearing impaired though. I don't really consider myself as deaf as the term, for me, implies no hearing at all.

I think there are a lot of terms for deafness because being told that your child has a hearing loss means different things. It is like the autisic spectrum.

Ie. you might have a chld with short term glue ear in one ear and at the other end of the spectrum you have children like CristinaTheAstonishing's children or more extreme profoundly deaf children who cannot be helped by an implant.

The important thing is that children get the resources and good quality teaching they need to develop. It is national scandel how much deaf children do underachieve. It is this that we need to worry about rather than labels.

Smartiejake - but we are not a representative group of people so you can't draw such conclusions. As I've said earlier, I wouldn't have objected to the term deaf in the early stages of finding out DS was deaf, but I would certainly have been scared shitless. Hearing loss and hearing impairment did sound much lighter diagnoses somehow. I suppose the same way you'll hear people saying their child is on the autistic spectrum or has high functioning autism, rather than just autistic. There's nothing wrong with leaving the option of describing your child's condition however you want. It's bad enough they've got something wrong with their child.

I usually describe myself as deaf, although technically I fall into the category of deafened. These days my level of deafness is moderate to severe.

For me it's easier just say deaf. People usually know what you mean and it takes less syllables.

If someone prefers a different term then I would use that one if talking about them/their child.

That's a good point, Flamesparrow. I mean the example with non-teaching/non-clinical/non-academic etc staff.

I have no experience with it, but with Cristina's version, I would still lean towards "a child with deafness" rather than hearing impared.

Anything "impaired" or "challenged" seems to automatically make the non-impaired version the better one, which seems wrong. A bit like referring to people who don't teach, but work in a school "non-teaching staff" as though they are the lesser beings.

Does that make sense?

From a SN perspective, I would rather think of DD as "a child with AS/an AS child" rather than a "non-NT/NT impaired child".

Going back to the OP, though. I think it's easier to look at "child with a hearing impairment/loss" rather than "deaf child", the same way as i'd feel uncomfortable saying epileptic child rather than child with epilepsy. I doubt that many children identify themselves through their disability. Deaf (big D) as an identitity is something that comes much later.

DS and Dd2 are deaf. Depending on who I talk to I refer to their deafness either as deafness or hearing loss or hearing impairment. I think for parents of newly diagnosed children the term "deaf" is quite scary. After a few years down this journey I don't think it matters that much, you know what you're dealing with and that terminology won't change that. DS has a cochlear implant (and can hear brilliantly with it). DD2 will get a CI soon too, hopefully. She's 8 months old and we're hoping to get sthg by autumn.

My brother is deaf and he and all his friends much prefer that term, they feel that being deaf is a badge of identity and do not wish this to be diluted into other terminology.

Just to throw another word into the mix, I would describe myself as deafened. I had hearing until 2 years ago, now I have none.

As far as I can tell, 'Deaf' refers to the culture of BSL users who were prelingually deaf. Quite an emotive subject and divisive as well.

I have a cochlear implant which works fantastically well, which confuses people even more.

I was thinking about this post today at work. On the school database the profoundly disabled children are decribed as HI (short for hearing impaired) and the children who have partial hearing are described as HD (stands for hearing difficulties)

The HI children have all their lesssons in sign language where as the HD children have their lessons in English, but some of them use radio aids.

Sometimes I think we get so caught up in terminology that we lose the plot. Rather than worrying about labels I think its best to see people as individuals.

I tend to think of my little boy as being hard of hearing.

He manages well with his hearing aids as his hearing loss is mild. I think that to describe my son as deaf would be a bit of an exaggeration, but its not an offensive word. I know several people at work who are very proud to be Deaf (with a captial D).

"Mind you, when I'm typing e-mails to people to explain why prefer e-mails to phone calls and accidentally mistype deaf as dead...in which case I do mind that terminology!! "

lol ... It reminds me of the time that my son looked at leaflet from the National Deaf Children Society. He saw the word "deaf" and went white and as sheet and said "Mummy, I don't want to die!" I asked him why he though he was going to die and he pointed to the word "deaf". The poor thing had misread the word and thought it said "death".

My parents and sister were/are deaf and have different levels of hearing loss they all refer/red to themselves as being deaf (lower case 'd').

I'm profoundly deaf and I generally don't mind what terminology people use. Although I have to say that if there are people in work who talk about my hearing as being hearing impaired, I do say well its more than that - its profound, not because I'm prissy about the terminolgy, but because otherwise they may think I'm able to hear more than what I actually do and that could cause problems with work communication...

I don't see the problem with being called deaf - I am deaf! Dressing it up as audibly (can't even spell that!!) impaired is just too PC for words!!

Mind you, when I'm typing e-mails to people to explain why prefer e-mails to phone calls and accidentally mistype deaf as dead...in which case I do mind that terminology!!

Would agree that hearing impaired applies to whole range of hearing loss. Dd is Deaf with a capital D - she is a profound BSL user. I do not use hearing impaired when descibing her hearing loss as her hearing is not impaired - she doesn't have any of it.

this seems to be such an individual thing - the National Deaf Children's Society uses the term 'deaf' for all children with hearing loss. Now, dd2 has moderate hearing loss so quite a considerable impairment, but it would never occur to me to refer to her as 'deaf', I always say she has a hearing impairment or a hearing loss. Deaf, to me, indicates profound hearing loss.

I am partially deaf and wear hearing aids.
I don't call myself hearing impaired.
I'm not terribly PC though...