Hi Mike,If you have questions or comments and would like to direct them at CAA use their contact page to submit your questions or comments.
I and my board read your blog and the comments to yesterday’s post. We would like the opportunity to respond. Please let your readers know it comes from the CAA board of directors and legislative committee..do not use my email as it is from work…
1. Anonymous asked about the decibel level of the second screening….This pamphlet is to be given out at the diagnosis of hearing loss, not the outpatient screening. Some babies who fail the outpatient screening just have fluid in their ears etc. and just need time or medical treatment to resolve. We are being asked to hand this out to ALL children who have permanent hearing loss, of any kind and any degree…so yes even parents whose child has a mild loss or unilateral loss will be required to get this pamphlet and have ALL of the options for communication reviewed with the family.
2. Linda should know that we actually did not amend the language form the 17th…We actually endorsed that language and asked the author to go back to it. We did not take it as a gag order as to discuss all forms of communication options IS in our scope of practice…we objected to the August 20th amendments that was given to the author from legislators and the opposition, NOT CAA.
3. This is not about screenings..Please read the bill..it is about children diagnosed with hearing loss, any kind, any degree.
4. We are not even going to address the cochlear implant concerns as that is NOT a communication option…it is a device that is surgically implanted and is not part of this bill and will/should not be a part of the pamphlet…
It saddens us that the DHH community has such misinformation about our profession and our training. One of the biggest problems we feel the bill does not address is our families who use total communication as their option..they were not even included in the negotiations or the panel..We believe the panel and the costs incurred but the State is not necessary as there are pamphlets out there that are non biased and include all options, including ASL and SEE sign. We also believe at this point the bill is so far from its original intent that we cannot support, nor do we think given the polarizing options on the panel that the process will be arduous.
As audiologists we are trained in spoken speech and language development as well as different sign languages, including ASL. Some audiologists’ practices are not diagnostic but actually are educational and or rehabilitative only, and work with families in the development of spoken and visual language. It is referred to as aural rehabilitation, or in the case of a child, habilitation.
Because we too felt this bill was getting into a political battle rather than about communication and educational choices we asked to be removed as the primary pamphlet distributors and asked that the educators hand out the pamphlet but we would be happy to answer questions regarding anything in the pamphlet or direct the parent to the appropriate agency or reference material. This was rejected by the author…….Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions….
Thanks for your efforts and your fair representation of the facts……We hope this answers at least some of your readers questions…Thanks for asking!
Thank you!
38 comments:
Now what, Linda? You naughty girl!
"3. This is not about screenings..Please read the bill.. it is about children diagnosed with hearing loss, any kind, any degree."
I get the point very clearly. Like I said in Mike's recent post, A child with 25 db in left ear and 108 db in right ear as for an instance. This child can talk and does not need to use sign language such as TC, SEE, or ASL. This child has a medical issue that Audiologist can help.
You are very, very naughty girl, Linda.
> Linda should know that we actually did not amend the language from the 17th…
That is an important clue!
I take exception to the claim that audiologists regularly know ASL. Some can haltingly sign using sign that is of poor enough quality that its origins are difficult to determine, but the poor fluency indicates unfamiliarity with the lives of the kids going on to fail most painfully under the expensive oral system that I see benefiting the oral option schools who put WAY more money into lobbying for this bill than CAA did.
What I want is for audiologists to stop saying "don't sign". Although CAA might be agnostic as an organization, individual audiologists ARE giving educational advice, and, since they really CANNOT be said to have sufficient training to be expert in anything other than oralism, I see this as a problem that simply MUST be addressed going forward.
CAA's agnosticism requires either an honest gag order on those audiologist who are NOT also experts in ASL-based Deaf Education, or it requires that the CAA continue to turn a blind eye to the FACT that those audiologists who rely on their Oberkotter-funded "Listening and Speaking"-biased training will continue to mis-refer some deaf of the deafest kids to oral programs where they will go on to become adults justifiably angry at their mistreatment.
Mike has my email address, and now has my permission to share it with his CAA contacts. Would the CAA person responding please get in touch with me by email, so we can compare notes and see what's going on here?
We may be close enough to arrange to meet, and begin to figure out how best to help the babies, which is the REAL goal of all who aren't just in it for the BIG bucks that I am finding out really ARE in the mix that is distorting things here...
Thanks to all who are chasing the truth!
If chasing the truth is naughty, then I don't wanna be otherwise! ;-)
- Linda
Linda, please use the CAA contact page in the link I provided and not through me. Thank you!
I cannot do the Total Communication issue justice here. but wish to quickly note that many former Total Communication programs have become Bilingual/Bicultural, and are shying away from sim-com for reasons of clarity.
While Total Communication does not necessarily imply simultaneous use of spoken English and some signed form of English, it is sim-com that is the issue for many, because it tends both to be unclear to the deaf viewer (spacial modifications to canonical signs are dropped, so the information is actually missing), and even more annoyingly, it allows the hearing turn-taking mechanisms to rule in a group setting.
In a hearing-only group, who will talk next gets determined by the overheard intake of breath, or overheard "uh..." that indicates, "I want to talk now".
In a sign-only situation, the raising of the hands to a signing position, leaning forward a bit, catching the eye of the speaker to indicate wanting to communicate... Those sorts of things serve the same function.
The problem comes in the mixed hearing/deaf situation, where everybody is trying to sim-com, but the deaf folks won't catch the intake of breath or "uh..." so these quickly take over and the hearing people inadvertently get to run the show.
I'm sure I've given the actual linguistics-trained folks fits with my description, but I bet that folks like Dianrez would be better able to explain what I'm getting at here.
So Total Communication actually winds up included in both and neither, as with cueing, and other methods-to-teach-English-visually, so has masked the fight to get the actual language recognized as providing REAL HELP that the rebus-like signing systems have failed to provide.
ASL is a language, and, done correctly is as fast as thought, just like spoken English is for hearing people. This is why Deaf folks have little patience for the half-measures historically foisted on them, which is how we got the division of the panel the way it eventually happened.
Personally, I believe the panel is like the brochure, a smokescreen for an Oral Options school push to get audiologists to recommend more kids wind up in their schools (you wouldn't want to waste that expensive CI, now would you?). If the CI gives the kid enough hearing, he or she will HEAR with fairly modest assistance, but denying sign language in the effort to misuse the child's "communicative intent" to try to force speech still DOES happen, and the results show up regularly at the state schools, already too late to ever catch up!
The Oral Option schools paid enough money to lobby for this bill that they could have distributed their original brochure (whose bias the CAA and I STRONGLY disagree, so will need to discuss).
Audiologists have their own baggage with regard to complicity with Cochlear Americas having been fined for paying kickbacks to clinics, doctors, and audiologists.
If kickbacks are known to have been paid, doesn't that imply that somebody received them?
The response of the state Audiology board seems to have been to ignore investigating any audiologists, and focus on combining its duties with the boards for Speech Pathologists and Hearing Aid Dispensers!
If this was intended to inspire confidence that consumers are working with an untainted audiologist, well, let's just say that the issue needs to be addressed, perhaps by an organization like CAA, in which honest Audiologists should WANT the bad apples pointed out, so that the parents of new deaf kids can expect some consumer protection against documented outright fraud that has been too-long ignored.
Sorry for the length, Mike. Thanks for the forum, tho!
- Linda
To CAA,
Thank you for the opportunity to leave your comment here and I got better understand where you (CAA) stand.
Thank again...
deafnet
Linda wrote: "but the poor fluency indicates unfamiliarity"
This is baseless and irrelevant.
If Linda's statement were true, then John Egbert would be disqualified as a "leader" or an "advocate" of Deaf Bilingual Coalition because he has poor English (the result of his undiagnosed dyslexia, and not "oralism"), and SHOULD NOT advise parents.
Using Linda's logic, "Deaf professionals" would be banned from discussing "oralism", since they are "biased" against oralism and lack the necessary speaking/writing skills and comprehension to properly educate parents.
(And John Egbert would again be disqualified because even though he may speak fairly well and use ASL, he can't read or write very well.)
(This is Linda's logic.)
Interesting.
I thought your getting a response from CAA and their responding to your blog comments was impressive.
I need to ask a question. Why didn't they reach out to CDNIAS when they were lobbying against AB2072? If CAA thought DHH community were misinformed, I believe that the AB2072 opponents would have welcomed a dialogue with CAA and draft amendment language that both CAA and CDNIAS can live with.
Sadly, I think CAA has no clue that ASL has had been getting the short shrift, and that was one of the issues of the opponents.
If CAA and CDNIAS would sit on the bargaining table, both groups could have learned a few things about each other that they didn't know before. That would have had been a healthy and forward step...but it didn't happen.
Why this did not happen would be a good question.
I agree that this is becoming a political battle. I think people do not realize that this is our life whereas this is your lifelihood. Deaf people's signed language shouldn't be a political battleground.
I really appreciate this dialogue from CAA, and maybe this is the beginning of a fruitful discussion.
Marla, let me ask you this. Has CDNIAS ever contacted the CAA at all?
All it took was one blogger. Me. To send an email to CAA requesting information on why they now oppose AB2072. Did ANYBODY else do that? Did the CDNIAS do that? CAD? Did Ella? Eberwein? Other anti-AB2072 "leaders"? A..n..y..b..o..d..y?
All it took was one email. And why should CAA contact CDNIAS or other Deaf people when they basically tried to make audiologists like a bunch of evil people sucking money from parents and saying how they ruin lives of deaf/hh babies? Might want to consider the actions of those who were rabid all along in voicing their eugenics nonsense and Godwin's Law comments.
Hello Mike ,
I appreciated it , glad that you let CAA leave the comments here and answered to some of the questions .
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
True, we should have reached out to CAA. There are other people we could have had reached out. I personally would be surprised if they would respond to a marginalized group. That's why I said your inquiry and their response were impressive.
To tell you the truth, CDNIAS initially had a hard time getting people to listen. They clearly were a powerless people, and I think they proved themselves eventually to be a group to be reckoned with.
Every oppressed group has extremists on both sides, and there's nothing the official CDNIAS can do about it. If you want to keep your energies on those people, that's your prerogative.
I have occasionally -- not always -- enjoyed your blog postings, and this is one of your better ones.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your responses.
Marla wrote: "True, we should have reached out to CAA. There are other people we could have had reached out. I personally would be surprised if they would respond to a marginalized group."
Marla acknowledged CDNIAS failed to reach out to entities.
Then Marla wrote: "CDNIAS initially had a hard time getting people to listen. They clearly were a powerless people, and I think they proved themselves eventually to be a group to be reckoned with."
If CDNIAS failed to reach out to parties and seek to establish collaborative relationships, then it is their fault if they are "powerless people." That is, they are "powerless" because of inept leadership.
Notice a supporter of AB 2072, KokonutPundit, reached out to CAA and facilitated Marla's contact with CAA; all it took was a simple email. CDNIAS could not even so such as do a simple thing as send an email to CAA and seek to collaborate, which means inept leadership causes CDNIAS to be "powerless." (Even if other entities "rejected" CDNIAS, the onus was always on CDNIAS: instead of being persistent, they quit and whined about being "left out" of AB 2072's early processes. Childish leadership.)
As for extremists, Marla admits there ARE extremists in the deaf community. Those extremists are people who advocate "war," label people with different opinions as "enemies", and preach hatred through the use of negative labels ("audist collaborators!", etc.).
Marla, wasn't CDNIAS working closely with Barry Brokaw, CAA's lobbyist in Sacramento?
Doesn't it count as communication with CAA leadership that we repeatedly made our points to him, only to be dismissed?
Perhaps Mr. Brokaw was not in good communication with the CAA leadership, since they now seem surprised by our repetition of what we've been trying to tell them in Sacramento since the very beginning?
Please let folks know, just WHO within CAA should the CDNIAS have gotten in touch with in addition to Mr. Brokaw, and just how they should have known to do so?
Mike, CAA has my email address by several routes now. No contact yet. Will advise if it happens.
- Linda
Linda,
Barry Brokaw NEVER worked closely with CDNIAS (or vice versa). Nor did CDNIAS ever reached out to them (CAA). I have that confirmation already. So, put that one to rest, please.
While it is good to know that the CAA board members read this blog. That being the case, I would like to use this as an opportunity for them to answer some questions here and they can simply answer while being anonymous.
My reasoning for this is simply because I am what one could classify as an "old fart" and i'd like to know just how much audiology has changed over the last 40 or so years. When I was a child, all an audiologist did was measure my hearing loss and outfit a a hearing aid that best fit my hearing loss, nothing else.
Times have obviously changed since then as I can see based on the "Audiologist and Speech Pathologist Act that was passed in CA last year.
I would like to quote their letter directly, "Audiologists are highly skilled health care professionals who are trained to counsel parents regarding appropriate educational and treatment options for their hard of hearing children."
That statement alone brings up a few questions.
1) Since they use the word hard of hearing and not deaf, is this to say that that are absolutely not trained when it comes to profoundly deaf children and that they can only work with hard of hearing children when it comes to educational and treatment options?
2) What educational backgrounds do audiologist actually obtain when it comes to counseling parents on appropriate educational and treatment options? What is their curriculum in college as they obtain their degrees in the field of audiology?
3) what is your definition of "appropriate educational and treatment options"? as you appear to not want to cover all communication options so what do you define as appropriate? just after this statement, to counsel regarding all treatment options, in your view, is professionally inappropriate, so that tells me that you obviously have some sort of preference of communication option.
It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the audiologist was simply to measure the hearing level and to counsel on areas how they can improve their hearing levels but outfitting then with devices that improve their hearing. That being the case, why even get involved with the communication options aspect at all?
This is where I actually agree with a portion of a statement that was made in this letter, "tantamount to a cardiologist discussing with parents a heart transplant for a child found to have a heart murmur", this is exactly what audiologists are doing, in my opinion, they are talking to people with a heart murmur (hearing loss) and treating it as if they are cardiologists themselves (getting involved with the education aspect and the language development process)
Forgive me, I, in no way intend to offend audiologists here, but me, being the old fart that I am and being the traditional guy that has always believed that audiologist should not deviate away from solely the ear in itself.
(this is telling me I cant send the whole thing so am putting this into a two part comment which will follow next)
To quote another portion of the letter, "the federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing". This also brings up a couple questions.
1) Would you kindly point the way where we could find such unbiased publications? Ya not only gotta talk the talk, but also walk the walk, and show us all where we can actually find unbiased brochures that audiologists can actually pass along to parents of deaf children.
2) If these brochures are actually unbiased as you say, then why is there even a need for the audiologist to step outside of the role of simply telling the parent their baby is deaf or hard of hearing and how it may have resulted? Why even get into the educational or language development aspect of it?
Lastly, is it your fear that this bill may actually change things that were included in last year's Audiologist and Speech Pathologist bill that has handed out too much power in my opinion and has allowed them to step outside of the actually roles that they should be solely focused on?
Again, I am not here to intentionally try to shoot audiologists down, but my own personal upbringing and experience has shown that their role may have been expanded a bit too much based on last year's bill.
After all, allow me to use the wikipedia definition of audiology as an example, "Audiology (from Latin audīre, "to hear"; and from Greek -λογία, -logia) is the branch of science that studies hearing, balance, and related disorders. Its practitioners, who treat those with hearing loss and proactively prevent related damage are audiologists. Employing various testing strategies (e.g. hearing tests, otoacoustic emission measurements, videonystagmography, and electrophysiologic tests), audiology aims to determine whether someone can hear within the normal range, and if not, which portions of hearing (high, middle, or low frequencies) are affected and to what degree. If an audiologist determines that a hearing loss or vestibular abnormality is present he or she will provide recommendations to a patient as to what options (e.g. hearing aid, cochlear implants, surgery, appropriate medical referrals) may be of assistance."
I hope you do not mind me asking how does audiology fit into actually counseling parents regarding educational and treatment options when it comes to "The practice of audiology” meaning the application of principles, methods, and procedures of measurement, testing, appraisal, prediction, consultation, counseling, and instruction related to auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech, and language" that was so eloquently defined in the CA Audiologist and Speech Pathologist Act that was passed last year?
Better yet, allow me to use the merriam-webster definition "a branch of science dealing with hearing: specially: therapy of individuals having impaired hearing.
How would you define therapy in this aspect? I would imagine that it would be where in involves improving the use of hearing in itself, where does education and language acquisition come into the picture.
Lastly, I apologize for having so many questions, but to be honest, I would imagine that many reader here are wondering the same thing and your answers would go a long way in explaining the situation and why the letter from the CAA was sent to Tony Mendoza.
In conclusion, I thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to seeing your response.
Val...
"1) Since they use the word hard of hearing and not deaf, is this to say that that are absolutely not trained when it comes to profoundly deaf children and that they can only work with hard of hearing children when it comes to educational and treatment options?"
There are more children with hearing loss from mild to severe than there are those with profound hearing loss. Audiologists are trained for any varying degree of hearing loss and types. Exactly what are the treatment options for a profoundly deaf child versus a child with mild hearing loss?
TO ALL READERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR CAA PLEASE USE CAA'S CONTACT PAGE AND DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS TO THEM FROM THERE. THEY WILL NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IN HERE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION. THEY MAY BE READING YOUR COMMENTS BUT WILL NOT ANSWER THEM HERE.
THANK YOU!
Mike, you are correct and I agree with your assessment, but that should be related to hearing treatment options, so why even go outside of that? They should be focused solely on how to improve the hearing level in itself and nothing else.
There are other experts in that area that can do it better than audiologists could in my opinion ya know? This is just me, but I have always labeled profoundly deaf and severe as the same thing.
But while you're here, I would love to hear your opinion of the Audiologists and Speech Pathologist Act that was passed in CA last year. Your thoughts on it?
Valh..
I'll have to sit down and review the Audiologists and Speech Pathologist Act. I'm not familiar with it.
@ Valhallian: with all due respect, your questions do reveal you to be the "old fart" you claim to be. :) I'm not a professional audiologist, but like you, I've encountered them throughout my lifetime. I currently work with a Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.) on a daily basis. Like a lot of medical fields, the art and science of audiologist has grown tremendously due to advancements in technology. I don't think the job is as simple as a hearing test and fitting with hearing aids any more. Nowadays, our school audiologist diagnoses and counsels parents of children with complex hearing issues such as auditory neuropathy or central auditory processing disorder. It's a whole new ball game. I would further venture to surmise that like other medical professions, audiologists have sub-specialties such as geriatrics, pediatric audiology, school audiology, and so on and so forth. So it's probably safe to say that not every single audiologist in practice is able to do every single thing equally compared to colleagues. Lastly, I will say that the identification of hearing loss in a newborn probably was not possible when you were an infant. it's now done via auditory brainstem-evoked responses (ABR) and a couple of other techniques I don't even know how to spell yet. In other words, the audiologist of today ain't the same audiologist of yesteryear.
suggestion: instead of asking CAA to spoonfeed you information, why not do your own research and educate yourself? there's plenty of information out there on the Internet. You could tour the CAA web site, or maybe American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA).
In the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, many deaf children are served at Children's Hospital Oakland. I've read hundreds of their audiological evaluations. Because the state school for the deaf is nearby, pediatric audiologists at CHO are aware of the residential school, as well as local districts that have deaf programs. They know about ASL, SEE, sim-com, etc., and even sign themselves. Audiologists are not all alike. It's unfair to lump them in a single group or to demonize them. It's also unfair to tar them all with the same brush because someone had a bad experience with one.
Mike, would you happen to know their reasoning for not answering questions in the comments section?
I would think they would reach out to more people this way ya know?
And you may wanna read up on the audiologist and speech pathologist act, you may find it interesting and you'll find a link to it in your other blog posting.
Mike, I seriously pondered the thought of emailing the CAA contact you mentioned above with my questions, but it also hit me that considering you already have established a relationship with them and they already know that you will not reveal your sources.
It has me thinking if it would actually be easier if you were to email them my questions as they already know that you would not reveal your sources as opposed to someone completely new, such as me, and they may potentially be paranoid about me revealing sources?
That being the case, I would imagine that you would agree that my questions are quite legitimate and that many readers may wonder the same thing as well. What if you were to email your source my questions? You do not necessarily have to copy and paste the entire posting that I had made as a portion may unintentionally offend them although that wasn't my goal.
Your thoughts on that?
Val, read anony's comment to you just above your 2nd recent post. I forgot to approve it
@ Linda...Are you angry? WHY? Is it you? Your child? Family member? You stated: "I take exception to the claim that audiologists regularly know ASL. Some can haltingly sign using sign that is of poor enough quality that its origins are difficult to determine" You also stated: "What I want is for audiologists to stop saying "don't sign".
Perhaps your focus should be on the "schools of audiology" and not the audiologists?" You stated: "kids going on to fail most painfully under the expensive oral system that I see benefiting the oral option schools who put WAY more money into lobbying for this bill than CAA did." Ok... let's go there.. with the "price tag" upon deaf babies. What is your solution to lobbying against and benefiting "oral options schools?" Where are the resources?
You stated: "Mike has my email address, and now has my permission to share it with his CAA contacts." Mike is not your messenger, have you "personally" contacted the CAA? I am not a mind reader,just asking.
@ Linda...You also stated: "We may be close enough to arrange to meet, and begin to figure out how best to help the babies, which is the REAL goal of all who aren't just in it for the BIG bucks that I am finding out really ARE in the mix that is distorting things here"... Really? Do you OWN my/others deaf baby/babies. Ummm..Nada.. Linda you also stated: "While Total Communication does not necessarily imply simultaneous use of spoken English and some signed form of English, it is sim-com that is the issue for many, because it tends both to be unclear to the deaf viewer (spacial modifications to canonical signs are dropped, so the information is actually missing), and even more annoyingly, it allows the hearing turn-taking mechanisms to rule in a group setting." Annoying? Really? hmmm...Oh, Please enlighten me.
Linda ,
Stop assuming too much ! You sounds like Ella !!
While I would be happy to discuss why sim-com is unclear and how the inability to hear the turn-taking mechanisms tends to bias who gets to speak next, we have an elephant in the room here with us.
I, too, would like real answers to Valhallian's question right here in this public form we already KNOW they are reading.
CAA? We're "all ears" ;-)
RLM, you're not welcomed here. Get a clue.
Linda stated:"I, too, would like real answers to Valhallian's question right here in this public form we already KNOW they are reading.
CAA? We're "all ears" ;-)"
Let's reflect on Mike's statement:
"TO ALL READERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR CAA PLEASE USE CAA'S CONTACT PAGE AND DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS TO THEM FROM THERE. THEY WILL NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IN HERE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION. THEY MAY BE READING YOUR COMMENTS BUT WILL NOT ANSWER THEM HERE.
THANK YOU!"
Considering CDNIAS new stance seems to mirror what AB2702 "detractors" were saying in the beginning, I wonder if they owe an apology to people like you, Candy, and Barry Sewell for demonizing your perspective from day one.
Anonymous,
I don't know about that unless leaders from within were actually bashing those who supported AB2072's agenda. Do you have names to support that?
This is in response to the anonymous commenter that responded to my comment. First of all, I do appreciate your input there, and I did already know a good portion of what you had to say. But nowhere did you say that they are actually involved with the communication options in itself. Hearing is one thing, communicating is another, unless auditory neuropathy or central auditory processing disorder actually requires them to be directly involved with the teaching of any of the communication options themselves. I can certainly understand them working with specialists in a particular communication option, but not doing it directly themselves, which appears to be allowed as per the act that was passed last year.
I can certainly respect your input where you say instead of asking CAA to spoonfeed me information and that I should do my own research. You said it loud and clear that audiologists are often demonized or are unfairly tarred with the same brush.
I certainly can see your point on that, but wouldn't you think that it may help them if they were to provide us all with the information as opposed to me singlehandedly doing my own research, they would reach out to a significantly wider audience and help educate us all on the actual modern-day role of an audiologist?
Update from leginfo.ca.gov:
Last Hist. Act. Date: 08/27/2010
Last Hist. Action: Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment.
Comm. Location: Sen Appropriations
Vote: 72 Ayes 2 Noes
I'm not well versed. Can anyone gladly to explain why the bill have returned to the Senate Appropriations?
Thanks.
It hasn't. It's now ready for the Governor's signature either he signs it or vetos it.
Mike is right.
It is now "to enrollment" per the bill status history. Enrollment is a process where the final bill is printed & proofread, delivered to the Governator.
The whole legislative process is explained here:
http://libguides.law.ucla.edu/content.php?pid=55167&sid=404007
Do check out the history part of AB2072, it says: To enrollment.
Anonymous ,
UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: AB 2072
AUTHOR: Mendoza
TOPIC: Hearing screening: resources and services.
DATE: 08/27/2010
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: AB 2072 MENDOZA Concurrence in Senate Amendments
(AYES 72. NOES 2.) (PASS)
GoatMan aka Travis
Valhallian, thank you for taking my comments in the spirits they were intended. The point I was trying to make is that audiologists do all kinds of things besides testing hearing and fitting aids. Some of them do provide direct services, such as aural habilitation, to children and their families. some of them consult with classroom teachers on the correct use of devices such as FM loop systems.
I'm a professional myself. As a professional, I would have no way of knowing that someone has questions and wants to learn more about my job - unless they ask me. I'm way too busy doing my job to reaching out to the faceless masses who might be curious about how I spend my day or what I think of the burning issues of the day. there are as many misconceptions about my field as there are about audiology. I belong to a professional organization that has a web site containing info about my work and one can order brochures or contact someone in the organization. that's why it makes so much more sense to contact CAA than to wait for them to contact us.
and truth to tell, if I were an audiologist, I'd think twice about reaching out to a hostile bunch like opposeAB2072. I'd be insulted if someone accused me of only doing it for the money, taking kickbacks from surgeons or CI companies, or only focused on the "ears" instead of the whole child. "follow the money" -- give me an effing break.
Anonymous, I will agree with you in a heartbeat when you say that there are hostile people out there, as those hostile people are not people that I would side with either. They are the ones that actually divide the deaf people even further and I would love to see deaf people unite, regardless of the severity of their deafness and their preferred communication mode, as opposed to them being divided.
However, I can also see how some of them may feel about "following the money", considering that there was a DOJ settlement with Cochlear Americas not too long ago. Altho this was primarily the surgeons and physicians that were involved with these kickback scheme as I understand it and I do not recall reading about audiologists being involved with that scheme. Its unfortunate that audiologists may have been lumped in with them by some people.
Then again, there are those that may have had a bad experience with an audiologist and everyone other audiologists get lumped into this as well and I would agree that this would be unfair too. This happens with other professions too, especially in law enforcement.
But then again, when you look at the bill that was passed last year, the audiologist and speech pathologist bill, why did these two even have to be lumped into the same bill? Wouldn't you at least agree that it could potentially lead to misconceptions? For example, I would imagine that these days, correct me if I am wrong here, that the highest number of people that would see audiologists would actually be those that are losing their hearing as they age, such as senior citizens, and there is no need for speech pathology for them is there?
Furthermore, this bill also potentially may make some people feel that audiologist are not associated with ASL, as ASL is not included in the audiologist and speech pathologist bill ya know?
I am not jumping to that conclusion in itself but it does make me wonder.
Post a Comment