California Academy of Audiology responds to blog readers' comments on AB2072 bill controversy

An email was sent to me today from the CAA in regards to my yesterday's blog in the effort to answer many of the readers' responses. They asked me to do this and so I am putting this email response in my blog. No names will be divulged here so please DO NOT ask me for them! The CAA's responses are below and answers some of the responses/questions seen yesterday in my blog comment box.

Hi Mike,

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!

If you have questions or comments and would like to direct them at CAA use their contact page to submit your questions or comments.

Thank you!