Captioned Video: The Doubters of Sarah Churman

Remember the phrase people, deaf people can do anything...even speak really, really well just like Sarah Churman. Even hear pretty good, too! But we still have a hearing loss at the end of the day when we turn off our hearing aids or cochlear implant.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Churman

I predicted this would happen a few days ago that Rush Limbaugh would discuss about the YouTube viral sensation of Sarah Churman and the Esteem implantable hearing aid remarkable result and impact on her and to the rest of the viewers. I heard Rush discussed the whole thing over my radio this morning. And his transcript can now be seen on his website.

The video of it on YouTube has gone viral. Millions of people are watching it. They got one thing wrong. She was not deaf. For the Esteem to work, you have to have some hearing. If you're a hundred percent deaf it won't work because it restores your natural hearing using your own eardrum. It's a prosthetic hearing implant, just became available last year, totally invisible. If you were to meet her today you would not see it. The Esteem works with her natural hearing to restore it to near optimum levels. The video I mentioned, you can actually see Sarah, the minute the Esteem is turned on she can hear herself laugh for the first time. She can hear her own voice clearly for the first time. She's so overwhelmed by all of this, something that we all take for granted, that she starts to cry.


Now, the video's only a minute and a half long, but it's a couple-Kleenex video. She's crying and laughing so hard, she goes through several tissues. Her husband, Sloan Churman, videotaped the moment for her, and he posts it for family and friends to see that could not be with her in the doctor's office when they turned the thing on. So one person tells another, the video starts to go viral and a week later six and a half million people have seen it or there have been six and a half million views of the video and what made it all possible was the Esteem from Envoy Medical. Now, you can see the video on YouTube, and we're gonna post it at RushLimbaugh.com, too. You can see the Esteem at EnvoyMedical.com, or call them, 800-518-7320.


But you should see this video. The moment it's turned on for the first time in her life she can hear, and it's an amazing thing. If you've never lost your hearing you have no clue what it's like and it's just an amazing thing to see, and it's a fabulous product, and when I saw the video, I said, "That's it! That's the Esteem, that's our client, that's our sponsor." I was proud as I could be, as we only associate with the best.

One thing Rush got wrong was that, yes, Sarah was born deaf. Maybe Rush was thinking in the context as stone deaf but yes, she's deaf and even hard of hearing, too. And now, she's easily hard of hearing to the point when people would automatically assume her to be hearing the way she would speak so clearly.

Congratulations, Sarah!

Parental rights and their deaf child

Joseph Pietro Riolo (JPR) made some very salient points and asked the important questions when it came to parental rights and their deaf children as seen in Patti's blog. I'll use some of Joseph's points and comments in my blog by highlighting them. What it really boils down to is that parents do have the right to decide on how to raise their deaf child in terms of mode and mean of communication and language acquisition.

First, let's talk about the article “And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped: An Examination of the Cochlear Implant From a Jewish Bioethical Perspective” by Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh whose last paragraph makes a conceding point.

“A consolidation of these views leads only to the idea that from a Jewish perspective we ought not to impose opinions on the people who must make a decision vis a vis the cochlear implant, namely, the parents or legal guardian(s) of deaf children. The responsibility of Jews with respect to the cochlear implant is only to make sure that individuals considering this medical procedure have access to all of the relevant information from the medical community, the Deaf community, and from within Jewish tradition. Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.”

JPR makes this comment regarding the article in the last paragraph and I agree with his assessment, too.

This paragraph actually supports the decision to put cochlear implant in a deaf child if his or her parents decide to do so. Also, it supports the decision not to put cochlear implant in a deaf child. In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child.

Certainly, nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child. Parental rights are ensured here in allowing them to make the necessary and informed decision for their deaf children.

Next, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26(3) it states:

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” 

I agree with JPR's assessment that this

"strongly suggests that the parents of a deaf child can choose the pure oralism for the deaf child." 

There is nothing in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights document that states that this parental right would be overridden by the right of a deaf child to be culturally deaf. In fact, there is no mechanism to enforce the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf over parents' rights, and there shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure that due to numerous inherent problems as JPR explained why.

How a person is supposed to do when he or she sees that the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf is violated? Is he or she supposed to report the violation to police? Is he supposed to report the violation to Child Protection Service (or similar agency)? Is she supposed to report the violation to National Association of the Deaf, Deaf Bilingual Coalition or similar organization that will send a legal team to defend the right of the deaf child? Is he supposed to report the violation to any organization that focuses on human rights? After the violation is reported, how is the right supposed to be enforced? Does this mean that the parents are to be ordered by court or governmental agency to respect, maintain and support the right of the deaf child to be culturally Deaf? What will happen if the parents still refuse to do that?

Indeed. Lots of problems once that Pandora Box is opened.

But let's look at the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." In that document it states that no obligation is required of the parents to use sign language with their deaf children. In other words if parents choose pure oralism without using a signed language approach for their deaf child, the parents do not violate anything in that document supported by the United Nation. Although the document does require governments to accept and recognize the use of sign languages as seen in Article 21(b) and (e):

(b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means,modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;

(e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.

Also in Article 24(3)(c) it states:

“Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children,who are blind, deaf or deaf/blind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development."

Note the underlined bold in the above which could mean to include CART services, FM loop, sign language (ASL, PSE, SEE, what have you), speaking and listening, and so on. There are a variety of ways that can meet those assurances.

In Article 30(4) it points out for people with disabilities on the

“recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture”

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the document (Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) forbidding the parent’s right to choose pure oralism, ASL, SEE,PSE, SE, SimCom, contact language, manual alphabet, cued speech and such. Just as well there is nothing in the  document that showed any support of governments to actively suppress the use of sign language through laws, governmental actions and so forth, either.

In fact, JPR pointed out an all too apparent of an obligation and concluded that

"a government has the obligation to deliver education in the modes and means that agree with pure oralism. What the governments cannot do is that they cannot suppress or exclude any modes, means or languages when the parents of children with disabilities want them or ask for them."

And that's the bottom line when it comes to governmental intervention, which is already limited for a reason, on language and mode of communication and that such a decision is still within the parents' rights.

Some people might see choosing oralism over ASL as "punishment" or acts of "genocide" but according to the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" it says nothing of the sort.  JPR elaborated: 

Again, if the parents of a deaf child decide to exercise their right to put cochlear implant in the child and to use the pure oralism when raising the child, they do not violate anything in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The only thing in the document that seems to be related to the topic on hand is the term “mental harm” as in “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;” (Article II(b)). Although the enumeration of groups does not include linguistic groups (“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, …” (Article II)), I will assume that the enumeration is broad enough to include the linguistic groups that include Deaf culture.

It may be possible that some people will attempt to argue that depriving a deaf child of ASL is equivalent to “mental harm” on the child. However, the child is usually not a member of Deaf culture if the parents are hearing or are of the Hearing culture. Just because a child is deaf does not mean that he or she is automatically a member of the Deaf culture. In this interpretation, the parents do not violate anything in the convention if they decide to raise their deaf child in a Hearing culture without using sign language.

Two points here as seen in the above underlined bold words. First, there is no intent, systematic or otherwise, to rid or destroy the use of ASL or sign language. Second point is that a deaf child born into hearing parents is not automatically a member of the deaf culture. And that brings up an important consideration about raising a deaf child in a hearing culture without using sign language because doing so does not violate any of the articles or documents I provided in this blog thus far. 

Below JPR explains and clarifies his position which mirrors much like mine in a lot of ways.

1) It is always my personal position that any deaf child – actually, any child – should have the freedom to sign (not just ASL or any natural signed languages but also SimCom, Cued Speech, Signed English and contact languages). But, I would never want to impose my position on any parents. I would write a true story about a deaf child being punished for signing at home; I would write an opinion article criticizing some parents who do not allow their children to sign; I would make a film that tells about a deaf child who run away from draconian parents who do not let him or her to sign; I would search for grants to research on deaf children who are not allowed by their parents to sign; if I were a professional, I would confront the parents and inform them that they are going too far in not allowing their deaf children to sign; and so on.

But, I would never want to create a new right for a deaf child to be culturally Deaf. When we create a new right for a deaf child, we are eroding the parental right. This will give a precedent for the majority (read: Hearing culture) to create another new right for a deaf child to have the access to spoken language through cochlear implant and doing so erodes parental right further more. If the parents of a deaf child refuses to put cochlear implant in the child, the majority will say, “See, any deaf child has the right of access to spoken language and therefore, your child must have cochlear implant. Never mind your parental right to decide how to raise your deaf child. After all, you want bilingualism. Giving cochlear implant to your deaf child will help bilingualism. Your child will have both ASL and the spoken English language. More power to bilingualism!” The deaf child is taken away from their parents for surgery at an undisclosed hospital.

I may go too far in describing the above scenario but it can happen. It is not hard to predict that cochlear implant technology is getting better and better and the success rate is increasing steadily. Before, the success rate was around 1/3 (33%). Now, it is around 1/2 (50%). Maybe, by the year of 2015, the rate may go up to 2/3 (66%). Maybe, by the year of 2020, the rate may go up to 3/4 (75%). It is very tempting for the majority to override the parental right and go directly to the deaf children and have them receive cochlear implant in spite of the objections from their parents.

Creating a new right for deaf child may be cool now but it could give a new precedent for the majority later on.

In other words, be careful on what you ask for.

In my own clarification, I'd be wary of allowing the idea that government be given the consideration to force parents with deaf/hh children on issues regarding sign language, cochlear implant, oral/aural routes and educational upbringing.  Removing parental rights is not the answer. The parents have the right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh child when it comes to mode of communication, the means, language development, and educational upbringing. All we can do is provide all the necessary information for parents and provide them them the necessary resources and support so they can make an informed decision. Just as Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh said in the very beginning of my blog on parents making an informed decision:

Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

And so there you have it.

When oralism pays at the Royal wedding of the century

Yes, oralism literally pays when you are an excellent lip-reader at the Royal wedding of the century.

And according to one lip reader he even cracked a joke to his father-in-law, saying: "We're supposed to have just a small family affair".

Although via the Drudge Report it headlined "Networks employ lipreaders to catch private moments..." even though in the actual article it linked reported only one lipreader who caught the royal groom's comment to his father and no indication whether networks actually employed a bunch of lip-readers, either. If networks did employ lip-readers then I wonder how much those people were getting paid. Heck, maybe lip-readers are bad ones or fake ones and just wanted the cash and make up stories along the way? Who knows? At least the Drudge Report captured my attention on that one today. And that is what they're supposed to do. I do that sometimes yet some people actually take the time to whine about my methods. Gotta laugh whenever that happens.

ADDENDUM: More on the lip-reader and additional comments that were captured.

Deafhood supports cochlear implants and oralism

The philosophy of "deafhood" as it pertains to a deaf or hard of hearing person's journey based on his/her hearing loss experience explicitly acknowledge and support the use of cochlear implants and even oralism. Nothing about "deafhood" ever said anything about rejecting cochlear implant or oralism since they are a part of the whole diversity facet that makes each deaf and hard of hearing person unique in many ways. One of the many valid ways of how a person with hearing loss live his/her life. It becomes a part of that person's identity. Not only that such a philosophy also lends support regarding the diversity and acceptance of Cued speech, SEE, PSE, use of hearing aids, AVT, speaking, talking and listening over the phone, CART, note takers, closed captioning, open captioning, subtitles, and so on. Even living the full and rich life as a person with hearing loss not ever having the need to use or even learn sign language certainly fits the "deafhood" philosophy. The same can be said of those who use ASL. Nothing is rejected under that philosophy but supported and acknowledged instead. It makes no distinction or specificity.

The true philosophy of "deafhood" accepts diversity. A person's journey is a deeply personal one that cannot be pidgeon-holed or boxed in for convenience sake. The problem with "deafhood" nowadays it's no longer seen as a neutral philosophy. It has become a political and ideological machination bent with a money motive designed in mind to segregate and discriminate people with hearing loss based on certain criteria (e.g. not "Deaf-centric" enough). The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and acceptance and into the maws of power and politics. If it were about diversity it would have been plainly obvious for all to see.

The mask has fallen off.

Growing up...something about me.

There were lots of things I remembered while growing up as a little boy. A boy that wore happily and proudly a body hearing aid from almost the age of two years old to age seven. I took a trip down to memory lane over the last few weeks over a pile of my baby and boyhood pictures. I also got to see many of my old drawings and other artsy stuff I did. Read some of the John Tracy Clinic correspondence letters that were written to my parents. Got to see my past grades, state testing results and more. I even found my old State Champion soccer patch that my teammates and I won in a hard fought soccer game for state champ recognition in 1974 when I was in the 4th grade. It was my second state champion team in 1974 after winning a state championship soccer game in 1973 when I was in the 3rd grade.

As I went through my old stuff I recognized the fact that I liked to draw where many of my hand drawn pictures were happy, memorable ones. Oftentimes with me wearing proudly my body hearing aid.  The hand drawn and colored in picture you see above "Something about me" was a drawing about my missing tooth.  I drew that picture when I was in the first grade at 7 or 8 years old during the 1972 - 1973 school year. It was part of an activity drawing of a story of mine with 8 pages of drawing made into a "book." My oral upbringing was certainly filled with memorable times where I was happy, outgoing and a fun guy to play with my friends, hearing and deaf, where I didn't let my body hearing aid stop me from having fun.

Something about me.

Billy Seago's old newspaper clipping

I found an old newspaper clipping of Bill Seago (around mid 1970s) about how his deafness was not a hindrance. If you don't know the name Seago then you should be familiar with his brother Howie Seago who played the part as a deaf mediator, Riva, in one Star Trek episode. Look here on how Howie came up with a better idea for him to sign instead of speaking in this Star Trek episode, producers liked his suggestion. And thus born was an episode where his character, Riva, was forced to use an alternate communication, ASL.

My mother....My hero.

Last night I was going through my garage and found what I was looking for. My stuff when I was just a toddler up to a young boy with pictures, report cards, John Tracy Clinic letters, my stories I've written while in the 3rd and 4th grade, my old hearing aids with one of it a box (chest) hearing aid, a couple of pro-oral bumper stickers, Birney School information, drawings, a Washington state champion soccer patch in 1975 the team I was on, a wrestling letter congratulating my wins, and so on. Lot of it deaf related stuff along with my history of my childhood that I am collecting for later research and organization.

I sat down and read a few of the several John Tracy Clinic letters written to my mother (and father) when she took up John Tracy Clinic's correspondence kit when I was around two years old which helped me on my way to a better oral-aural development only after when I received my hearing aid. Those letters were very positive, encouraging and informative. In fact, my mother was so inspired, encouraged, and determined to help me where I've improved so much that I was placed at Birney School's oral program before age 3. And by grade 2 in a school report card from Birney School saying I was ready for public school (with a deaf teacher for supplemental support) for the 3rd grade. And then finally I was placed in a regular public school in the 4th grade and stayed in the public school system until I graduated at age 18.

You would think that I had a miserable time as a deaf/hh boy growing up with a box hearing aid but I didn't. I had fun, enjoyed my hearing aid and the sound I was able to pick up, and had both deaf and hearing friends. In fact, I drew a picture when I was 8 showing me and my friends playing on playground set. You can see in the drawing I included my box hearing aid with me smiling while swinging on a swing and with the sun smiling in the background and wind blowing while kids wore long stocking caps (which means it must've been around fall/winter time when I drew that). All good times with a few rough spots in between but that picture epitomizes my childhood time.

My mother is my hero. She's the one who rescued me, loved me and nurtured me into who I am today. I love my mother. And she knows that but I want to say that here for all to see.  Everyday is Mother's Day to me because what I do today was because of her love and dedication.

In the coming days and weeks here I will reveal letters, pictures, my personal stories and a bit of history about myself in my blog as a deaf/hh person growing up learning how to speak while I had auditory training at the same time with my hearing aid. Because oralism, when done right, does work. And to ensure its success, early intervention is the key.

A video tribute to John Tracy Clinic

Here's a special video thanks to the John Tracy Clinic where I am a successful product of their oral-auditory program.  This a candid and frank video about my background in my oralism upbringing which made me for who I am today. Without it I wouldn't be where I am today.

Deafhood - religion like?

Recently over the last few days based on comments I received in my blogs I had the realization about how some people follow "deafhood" to such an extreme. How extreme? That depends. One commenter named "Kim" had this to say about "Deaf culture" in one of my most recent blog where she discussed "deafhood" and religion:

Language and religion are definitely huge. While we can't say that Deaf people have their own separate religion, their fervent belief in the Deafhood experience almost seems like a religion sometimes.

There it is. Religion and "deafhood" in the same sentence. So that got me thinking.

Kim soon clarified the next day on what she meant by what she said earlier.

Judging by v/blog posts (and comments) it seems like there's this strong fanatical, almost religious-like movement of Paddy Ladd worshippers who spout passages from his book like it's the Holy Bible of Deaf existence. So when people like Mike here ask questions, such as "is there a Deaf culture," there is a tendency among those "few" to over react, and sometimes they accuse him (and others) of not being Deaf since he doesn't seem to believe the right thing.

Candy also followed up about the whole oralism thing segueing into "deafhood" in that same blog.

This one need to be documented and published in the deaf blog as part of deaf history of deafhood and how they really are taking Paddy Ladd's colonialism too far. I suggest you all view Ella's comment number 41 in ASLrocks. It is a must viewing to see how delusional this deafhood thinking is. There is this evidence right there that indicates that dh is all about going after this oralism system rather than a personal journey to find one's deaf center.

Is there a conflict of interest here regarding certain "deafhood leaders"?

Let's look behind Curtain #1 about the Deafhood Foundation and you'll find a familiar name as who those board members are, and quickly you'll get to the "Vision" part where it says:

The Deafhood Foundation will provide financial, educational and social opportunities to end the economic exploitation of Deaf people. The Foundation aims to free the world from a*dism and recreate a society where everyone experiences full humanity and celebrates Sign Language.

So, this "deafhood" isn't about celebrating individual's own identity and personal journey wherever it goes even if it means identifying and embracing oralism and excluding ASL but about the attempt to wipe out oralism, avdism and have sign language to take its place instead according to one "deafhood leader"? Even though oralism has shown to be beneficial in many cases (even I have benefitted tremendously from it, too):

Deaf individuals who use Oralism have "proficiency with spoken language and . . . have an average reading ability . . . of thirteen to fourteen-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf" (Stone 2). Furthermore, programs using Oralism generally have strong academic curricula resulting in high achievement levels and more students who go on to complete secondary or higher education programs (Schwartz 167-168). This also results in "more social, educational, and work opportunities . . . [and] to a more fulfilling and independent adult lifestyle" (168). With such results, it can be understood why those who value education truly approve of Oralism. These benefits of Oralism allow deaf individuals to reap the educational benefits and equal opportunities that people such as Mary Wollstonecraft strived to obtain and society, particularly the Oralists, continue to cherish.

It is obvious that oralism has its own benefits and that many deaf and hard of hearing people have benefitted tremendously from that. I understand that there are those who fell between the cracks and how beneficial signing is on an emotional and social level. But that's beside the point here. If people simply cannot leave alone the philosophical concept of what a personal journey of a deaf or hh person is like but instead use it as foundation to push their own ideology while espousing for the "death of oralism" and so on certainly does give it a religion-like feel. A fanactical-like following.

If this continues then this whole "deafhood" thing will simply stay within the Deaf community circle that is mostly accepted by some Deaf people rather than seeing it accepted by the rest of the hearing loss population that is 33 times bigger than the Deaf population of some perhaps 900,000 Deaf people.  This acceptance by the bigger population will never happen if this fanaticism continues. This is the perception of what many people would probably see whether they're hearing, deaf or hh who happen to come across this whole "deafhood" drama. Especially seeing how some "leaders" and other "followers" would prop up this "deafhood journey" under the guise of a friendly non-profit Deaf organization while in the background advocate for the "death of oralism," use of ad hominems, harrassment (see Tayler Mayer's example who is the owner of Deafread) and such. No wonder other groups like "Deafhood? No Thanks" cropped up recently as a response to this whole mess.

Many people do cherish the free and independent thinking regarding the many hearing loss issues out there and recognize the fact that there is no one shoe size fits all when it comes to addressing hearing loss, modes of communication, education and language development. Especially in a period of time when technology has been a boon to help address communication, educational and language developments owing to the simple fact is that hearing loss range from mild to profound. The diversity is large and mixed out there.

As a closing, I liked what Kim said in my blog "You have to be hard of hearing to understand":

People like Ella can never understand what it's like to be me. I experienced a life time of hearing before my hearing began to decline. Those experiences made me who I am. Naturally I still identify with hearing people.

Through HLAA and ALDA, I am part of a growing, thriving, powerful mostly oral deaf community, and we don't care what Ella thinks.

And you know what?  Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) would certainly look to be the better organization to join when it comes to advocacy and support in a more neutral manner rather than wade into chest deep the hypocrisy, the conflict of interests, unprofessionalism, rogue followers and petty politics. And I'm certain people wouldn't want to be a part of an organization or group of people that has a religion-like feel to it seeing how some use an inquisition-like process whenever one states a view opposite of somebody else's opinion. And then there comes the auto de fe.

This whole thing simply doesn't feel right.