That's not true.
There are certain languages in the bill that restrict what audiologists can or cannot do. From the latest bill modification as of August 17, 2010 on page 3 (note the bold black word):
The pamphlet shall be provided:
21 By an audiologist immediately upon identification of aThe key legal word in this bill is "shall" which is a directive and not a word that provides an option. It is a command. An order. A non-directive word would be "should," "may," "might," or any other similar words. I do a lot of environmental writings on environmental recommendations and I am carefull to be mindful of certain "legally bound" words and the biggie one is the word "shall" which is a directive that cannot be bargained with. It is simply a legal command.
22 newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
23 not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
24 the scope of his or her practice.
In this case, in the bill the state issues a legal command to audiologists that they "SHALL NOT inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option." This legal requirement does not give the audiologist the option on whether to communicate or not toward a particular communication and/or language option. They simply do not have this option, period. It is a legal requirement given by the state of California to the audiologists that their role is not to communicate or counsel parents of deaf children about a particular communication option. That is not their role now. The bill actually reduces the audiologists' role and power on how to deliver those communication options to parents of deaf/hh babies.
Right now we are seeing that some Deaf people want to protest against this bill believing it gives more power to audiologists on informing parents of deaf/hh babies on which communication options are better. Heck, they should be rejoicing that audiologists' role and power will be reduced in this bill.
Now, that's the greatest irony of all.
Audiologists will soon be powerless to do what they want to do on informing parents about communication and lanbguage options. Instead, they will soon be legally required to give parents of newborn babies identified with a hearing loss an approved informational pamphlet that discusses communication and language options, and more with thanks to the AB2072 bill. Parents will no longer be in the dark on this issue. They will have a chance to be fully informed in their decision process.
32 comments:
Shows what little you guys know. Latest version to come out of Mendoza's office:
(1) By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option without reviewing other options. The audiologist shall note in the infant’s record that the parent has received the informational pamphlet, and has been informed and counseled regarding all communication and language options. This shall not preclude an audiologist from making professional recommendations to parents.
You need to call Rene Bayardo, Legislative Director for Tony Mendoza at 916-319-2056 and ASK what the latest amendments are before you guys go running your mouths about all the stuff you guys CLEARLY know nothing about.
Although I'm not in agreement with their stance at all, I can sort of understand where the opposition to AB2072 is coming from. Instead of getting their information from an audiologist who, in theory, is only interested in "fixing" the hearing problem, "D"eaf people who use ASL want the families to get their information from "D"eaf people who, in theory, know everything there is to know about being deaf. *shrug* I think there's no guarantee either way that parents really will be fully informed of all the options, even though the law says that an audiologist is supposed to simply give information. To have a bias or preference is part of human nature. A lot of deaf people I know have had bad experiences dealing with medical and education professionals regarding their hearing loss. I can empathize with their desire to avoid them at all costs. The problem I have with the opponents is assuming that everyone will have their bad experiences simply because they did. And as you have often pointed out, Mike, technology makes being deaf a whole new world compared to 50 years ago.
Mike,
Here's how I look at it:
22 The audiologist shall
23 not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
24 the scope of his or her practice."
In my experience, audiologist know very little about ASL, therefore, they ARE allowed to counsel towards options THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR SCOPE, which would mean oral and audio methods. So it does put ASL at the bottom of the list. That's how I read it.
Lucky
The problem we had when we found out our son was hard of hearing was that *nobody* counseled us towards any particular option. Most of the professionals we talked to would give a direct answer to a direct question... but everyone was so careful not to push us one way or another that it was very difficult to even get enough information to know the right questions to ask. And in the end, the important questions were too sensitive to get a direct answer anyway.
I worry that the mantra of "parental choice" really means putting the burden-- and the blame-- on exhausted new parents. In this situation, hearing parents are going to turn to oral-only education. Why? Because it seems obviously easiest and best for a kid to share his/her family's language, not need an interpreter, etc.... and if everybody's afraid of being caught "counseling towards a particular option", nobody will tell a parent that IT MAY NOT WORK.
For us, as it turned out, the only person who was willing to express an opinion was our kind, naive pediatrician. So naive! No understanding of the issues! Nobody told her that parents need to choose a single communication option and enroll the kid in a monolingual EI program! So-- what she said was: "why don't you just use both English and ASL for now, give your son as many options as you can, and see what works best for him as he grows up?" Sounds great; it's what we're trying to do; and it's an ongoing struggle to make it happen.
To the first "brave" anonymous,
"This shall not preclude an audiologist from making professional recommendations to parents."
If a patience asks a questions the audiologist can make a professional recommendation to parents. This bill isn't a gag order on audiologists if they are asked. Just that audiologists cannot be favorable to one communication/language options over another. Providing an approved informational pamphlet qualifies as having "informed and counseled" the patience.
This is about having an informational pamphlet that is unbiased for parents to have with so they can have the opportunity to be properly informed.
2nd anonymous,
Right. Parents have the right to make an informed decision. The problem is getting an unbiased information across to them and give them the opportunity to make inroads with that information to pursue further their research. That is exactly what this bill is about. We are dealing with hearing parents, deaf parents, hearing and deaf parents, Deaf parents, and babies born with a variety of hearing losses from mild to profound whether it's in one ear or both.
"The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option without reviewing other options."
Also note that "without reviewing the other options" is new, and modifies the "counsel" disallowed significantly.
"Brave" Enough Anonymous
I would like to ask the first anonymous guy to actually post a link that shows that.
Considering that this was what I did, i went to this link
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
Once you are there, click on the box that says bill information. Then type in AB2072 in the box under the "bill number or"
Then click on the link that says "status", if you look at "Last Amended Date" it says 08/17/2010
Then go back one page and click on the link along the same line where it says Amended 08/17/2010. HTML or PDF, your choice.
I didn't see in the the latest amended version where it said what the first anonymous commenter said.
Just because it came out of Mendoza's office, I don't see how it is actually right. Considering that the latest amended version came out on August 17.
I am no expert in the legislative process but if you look at the dates of when it was amended, April 5, April 13, April 27, June 9, Aug 2, Aug 17, logic tells me that there is no way that they would already have an amended version only 2 days after the Aug 17th amended version. However, that is not to say that there wont be more amendments as there could potentially be more amendments down the road.
Its quite possible what the Mendoza office wants, is what the anonymous commenter is saying, but it does NOT mean that he will get what he wants. He obviously isn't getting what he wants otherwise this would have already been passed and not repeatedly amended.
Some people have wanted some changes and they have accomplished that and my hat is off to them for that. But I also unfortunately believe that pigs will likely fly before they get 100% of what they want. What I am seeing here is something that is far better than the current law.
Let's use Vegas and gambling as an analogy, suppose you're playing blackjack, you are winning a lot of money after a lengthy period of time. Are you going to keep playing to try to wi more where it usually ends up losing it or are you going to walk away happily with your winnings altho it is not the million bucks you may have wanted? ;)
But as of right now, I will only believe what the anonymous commenter said above when I see it in the CA legislation website where the link is above.
Right, Valhallian. The current meat of the bill as of August 17 is in the link. Hearsay does not work here unless it is officially shown in the California Legislature website.
Believe what you want. The new amendment came at the request of the Senate Health Comittee.
Contact info for Mendoza's Legislative Director you already have. Here's contact info for the Senators' offices where you can ASK them if they did in fact propose the amendment.
http://www.opposeab2072.com/?p=411
It won't be up on the leg site until after it's voted on in the Senate floor session, whose date and time is still to be determined.
You are welcome to wait until it is passed there to know the truth if you prefer, or you can ASK and get the real answer, which is that you already DO have the real new language NOW.
B.E.A.
Anon-
Mike and Valhallian were correct. The bill posted is up to date.
You can believe whatever you want but you are sadly mistaken. By law, everything has to be posted in public.
R
R,
Yeah, I used to think so, too.
Remember how we didn't actually get to see just what they were voting on in back in the Health Committee on 6/9? How David Eberwein talked about how the opposition hyjacked the bill, but nobody could see the actual text?
This is because the negotiation for amendments is WAY more fluid than that. The 8/17 bill is NOT as AB 2072 WILL BE by the time it gets to the floor.
I suppose technically, the above text is just a "proposed" amendment, still up for horse trading, but the point is that it has been proposed by the Senate Health Committee, so it's likely going to stay in the version that goes to the floor unless somebody finds out about it and complains before the vote.
So, it may or may not be strictly legal, but it is precisely what is happening, as you will all know just as soon as one of you goes ahead and checks it out.
B.E.A.
B.E.A.
I called the phone # left by the first anonymous and am waiting to hear back from them. I asked for the current amendments to AB 2072 and was told they would have to get back to me. Will be happy to share when I get the info.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on the check, Mike.
Folks gotta know for sure what is real here, so they can act appropriately.
B.E.A.
They can make fools of themselves if they want thinking they can get the whole enchilada.
Oh Mike!
Look at "scope of his or her practices". it means that audiologist can do whatever he or she wants within the scope. That is not a neutral approach at all.
David,
No. Not so since the bill limits what an audiologist can do. Note the legally binding word "shall" as in "shall not." Note line 22 and 23.
21 By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a
22 newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
23 not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
24 the scope of his or her practice.
Sorry. Your fear is unfounded and unwarranted here. The bill gives no leeway to audiologist to spout biased claims either way.
Mike, your comments don't allow a real strikethrough, so I had to leave the struckthrough text out of the first attempt to share the Senate Health Committee version.
Let me try again with dashes between struckthrough wording and plusses between added wording. The "beyond the scope of his or her practice" language is gone now.
(1) By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward +any+one+ -a- particular option +without+reviewing+other+options+ -beyond-the-scope-of-his-or-her-practice-. +The+audiologist+shall+note+in+the+infant’s+record+that+the+parent+has+received+the+informational+pamphlet,+and+has+been+informed+and+counseled+regarding+all+communication+and+language+options.++This+shall+not+preclude+an+audiologist+from+making+professional+recommendations+to+parents.+
B.E.A.
Mike, I don't see it the way you do. But how to explain...? Hm...
Put it this way. I know practically nothing about cued speech. I don't think I'm biased against it, not really... I just don't know much about it.
I do know a bit about bilingual approaches to education, however. I'm not an expert, mind you... I'm just saying that out of all the options presented that happens to be the one I know the most about.
Now suppose you send a parent to me. Cool. Within the scope of my profession, I tell him all about bilingual approaches. I don't disrespect cued speech in anything I say, I just don't say all that much about it beyond "Oh, well, you might want to look into cued speech, too."
That's a problem, like it or not. If only because (assuming the parent is at the very least nervous and somewhat overwhelmed), all the information isn't there immediately. The parent is looking ot me like I should know, and I don't know.
That brochure might help a lot, but I'd need to see the final draft, because if CIs get like a full paragraph and ASL gets one sentence, that's not balanced.
What might help solve the problem is if the brochure listed ONLY every available approach followed by the address to a website dedicated to each approach. Then the parent goes and looks at each website and gets the very best presentation each camp can give.
But then you'd still have problems if any CI companies or AVT professionals out there are saying (on these hypothetical websites) "Don't sign to your child and use a CI. It'll screw things up because..." Then you're back to square one, because while the brochure itself might not be biased anymore, the websites themselves are biased. Then again I suppose you could make the same argument if any hypothetical bilingual website says that you can't learn ASL first while having a CI.
In any case, the "shall/shall not" thing is compromised a bit by the very fact that its an audiologist presenting the info in the first place, and that same audiologist is free to advise the parent within the scope of his profession. It has to be made clear EXACTLY what that means. Is recommending a CI within the scope of an audiologist's profession? I don't know and I'm asking.
See my point, though?
The bill specifically states that the pamphlet be presented in an unbiased manner.
Page 3:
"(a) The department shall develop an unbiased, comprehensive, evidence-based informational pamphlet for newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language(ASL), and Listening and Spoken Language,..."
Secondly, the bill says that the information be enough in the pamphlet for parents to make an "informed decision." This would suggest a balanced pamphlet where each communication/language option gets equal coverage.
The "shall" word for the audiologist, they have no choice but to present the pamphlet and can say no more. If a parent asks then the audiologist is obliged to respond as long as it is within the scope of his or her practice. Audiologists are not "free to respond" unless specifically asked by a parent certain questions. Hence the phrasing "The audiologist shall
not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice." The scope of an audiologist's profession is usually in the realm on determing and detecting hearing loss rather than in the educational and communication field.
Lastly, the appointed panel will determine the language and phrasing of the pamphlet and that for each person that represents a particular communication/language interest will seek that it gets equal say in the pamphlet. It would seem logical that they would seek that.
What's interesting in the Status file is the consistent number of "Ayes"
versus "Noes" to pass the continuing amending of the bill. It has been 10 to 1 count since then.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/12/2010
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 10 Noes: 01 PASS
There's much to what's going on that I don't really know anything about. Please keep that in mind. However, I'd like to respectfully argue the following points and then bow out of the discussion.
1) The flaw is in WHO presents. For example, it's an audiologist. Someone here aptly argued "Well, who else is going to do the testing." Good point. But consider. But consider, suppose the first person the parent went to was not an audiologist, but rather an expert in bilingual education. Would any of you feel equally comfortable that an expert in bilingual education could sufficiently represent CIs as an option, EVEN IF HE OR SHE WANTED TO? How? I just said above, for example, that while I personally am not an expert in bilingual education, I know even less about cued speech. It doesn't matter all that much what the law requires me to do. I can't do it. The only way I could do it is if I know an equal amount of information about each approach, and I simply don't. And neither will any audiologist. To get that kind of knowledge they'd need to be trained, and that training would cost just as much money as anything else. Unless there's some kind of script, as you were pointing out (the wording developed by each camp). But now we're arguing that every audiologist out there is going to have access to this script, is going to present it with equal effectiveness, etc. Think about it.
2) The fact is that no matter how much we debate and discuss, it's NOT going to be a a bilingual expert that presents this brochure. The medical industry has the home field advantage. And that in and of itself is not fair. Forget ASL for a second, just on the chance that there's too much bias against it. Let's take cued speech. Is it a medical approach? No. Correct me if I'm wrong--I may have overlooked something. But I don't think it is. So why should an audiologist get to present a brochure on it? Even if he doesnt say anything for or against it when he hands over the brochure, why does it get to be him? Like it or not, by default the medical establishment runs the game. If you cannot pick a person who is equally well-versed in ALL approaches in order to do away with bias, then you'd almost have to go the other way and pick someone who knows nothing about any of them, and that's foolish. That'd be like having a car mechanic hand over the brochure. So once we accept that we're not at one extreme (someone who knows about all approaches)or the other (someone who knows nothing about any of them) what are we left with? How can bias NOT be present?
3) At the very least, that brochure must be balanced in every sense of the word. Equal amounts of info, the pros and cons of each (the REAL pros and cons of each, including stats on how many deaf people each approach has failed). If ASL gets three sentences and other approaches get a full paragraph, and that's "okay" with anyone present, that's not okay with me. We are talking here about deaf children who have yet to be born, who have done nothing at all to us to feed whatever prejudices we may have against one camp or another. They deserve our every effort to construct a clear roadmap for their parents. OUR EVERY EFFORT. If we have any respect at all for ourselves and the hardships that we faced while living with our parents' decisions, then we won't deliberately visit those hardships down upon them.
Make sure that brochure is balanced, that's all I have to say. Make sure it's SO balanced it counters the the fact that it's an audiologist handing it over. Good writers will find a way to make sure the language covers this. Find them.
Thank you for allowing me to debate here. Do what you think is right.
Ok, so "Do pass as amended" means they can keep amending? If they didn't want any more amendments, they maybe would say just "Do pass"?
B.E.A.
This bill is primarily aimed at newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss. The profession that does the diagnosing for hearing loss happens to be the audiologist. Either that or through the local provider for Early Start Program of children already identified with a hearing loss. That's the "who" part.
"This bill would require that the informational pamphlet be provided to parents of all newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing by an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing, and by a local provider for the Early Start Program upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly identified as deaf or hard of hearing."
The goal is to provide equal information on communication and language options described in the pamplet which is why the bill recommends in setting up a panel that consists of 13 members of which possibly up to 5 members with ASL (i.e. visual language) background could be appointed to the panel. That's more than a fair share in seeing that ASL gets represented on the panel. Even with the fact that 3 of the 5 would be appointed by the Governor. So, please, let's not get into what's fair or not fair here.
Panel members:
The panel shall be composed 13 members, as follows:
(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.
(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.
(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(D) An educator of the deaf in a visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL education setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses
auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.
(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.
(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral
communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing,
appointed by the Governor.
(J) A researcher engaged in the study of visual language,
including, but not limited to, ASL, and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.
(K) The Secretary for Education, who shall be an ex officio member.
(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member."
Chris, please read the bill if you haven't done so.
Forgive my typos in the post above. It's late and I'm tired.
Mike, you and I have always spoken respectfully to each other. Yes, we most definitely ARE going to get into what's fair and what's not fair here. A year from now nobody will remember who was on the panel. What's important is the end result, the brochure. And that's our evidence of exactly how much bias was and was not present.
So once again, if AVT gets three paragraphs, that's great, but then ASL and cued speech get three paragraphs too. If CIs get a full page, ASL and cued speech and AVT get a full page too. Anything less? Not good enough.
I read like the third version of it. It keeps getting updated. I'll check out the latest wording in the morning when my brain is fresh.
Good night to all of you. Again, do what you think is right.
-Chris
Chris Heuer:
You wrote in a comment above:
"I know practically nothing about cued speech. I don't think I'm biased against it, not really... I just don't know much about it."
Great point - tell your extremists and radicals that the next time they claim audiologists are "biased against" ASL.
Best thing about AB 2072 is the fact that pass or fail, its proceedings have illuminated the public's eye on the lies, deceptions, and flagrant misinterpretations touted by your deaf extremists and radicals, all of whom view the world through a prism of "enemies", "war," and hatred.
To the last commentator: "enemies", "war" and "hatred" do not come from a void.
There have been prior practices that went unchecked for generations despite growing commentary and then opposition from the Deaf community.
Wise leaders listen even to apparent "extremists" because they may turn out to be telling the truth.
To Dianrez:
You wrote: "Wise leaders listen even to apparent "extremists" because they may turn out to be telling the truth."
President Obama should contact your local KKK group and listen to their truth. Right.
You also wrote: "There have been prior practices that went unchecked for generations despite growing commentary and then opposition from the Deaf community."
Likewise with your deaf extremists and radicals - they, too, went unchecked for generations, despite growing commentary and opposition from the Deaf community.
To Dianrez:
One other point about your statement,"Wise leaders listen even to apparent "extremists" because they may turn out to be telling the truth:"
Parents are not "leaders."
Should parents listen to extremists and radicals using terminologies like "war", "enemies", and "hate", they are more likely to NOT place their child into an ASL program. So, if you have declining numbers or test scores because too many children are sent to "oral" schools before flunking out into an ASL program, then it is no more the fault of "oralism" than it is the fault of your extremists in preventing parents from opting an ASL modality for their child.
To be biased against something doesn't necessarily mean you have to be overtly opposed to it. All that has to happen is, over time and on the average, enough audiologists simply end up not spending as much time talking about other options as they are talking about options within the field of their own expertise. I'm sorry but that just sounds like a contradiction to me. Right now, from my layman's point of view, it sounds like the bill is saying "Audiologists cannot try to steer a parent toward one option or another, but can only talk to them about issues within the limit of their own field of expertise."
So, best-case scenario, in a one-hour meeting, it's entirely possible that five seconds will be spent handing over a brochure, one minute will be spent saying "I'm not qualified to talk to you about any other option other than hearing aids (or whatever), so you'll have to research and pursue those other options on your own," and the remaining fifty-eight minutes and fifty-five seconds will be spent talking about hearing aids (or whatever is within the audiologist's field of expertise).
So then the parent will get a lot of info on hearing aids, jump on the internet, look up the other options and eventually bump into the political controversey that swirls around all of them. After all, just because the law says the audiologist isn't supposed to show bias, it doesn't mean anyone else isn't going to.
As for the "your radicals" and "your extremists" accusations, I'm out of here. If that kind of thing is going to become the standard response I don't want to be here.
My mistake. This is a forum for supporting the bill, apparently not for discussion of its many ramifications and weaknesses.
Ridiculing the opposition's points does not cancel their position, however.
Continue as you were. Sorry to have butted in.
To Chris Heuer and Dianrez:
Interesting you both took exception to the labels "extremists and radicals" considering Ella Mae Lentz, OpposeAB2072's leader, resorted to calling supporters of AB 2072 derogratory names.
Let's review your own statements:
Chris Heuer: "As for the "your radicals" and "your extremists" accusations, I'm out of here. If that kind of thing is going to become the standard response I don't want to be here."
Dianrez: "My mistake. This is a forum for supporting the bill, apparently not for discussion of its many ramifications and weaknesses.
Ridiculing the opposition's points does not cancel their position, however."
Did you publicly state such things to Ms. Lentz, or to the OpposeAB2072 group?
Hypocrites.
Post a Comment