Does this scare anyone else? The thought of the state having control.......

[smurfy2day]

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=960227&nav=0RcdBbtO

 

State wants boys to receive hearing implants, mother objects<!-- --> <BR clear=all>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD></TD>

<TD align=right><NOBR><IMG height=14 src="http://woodtv.static.worldnow.com/global/images/icon_email.gif" width=20 align=baseline border=0> Email story to a friend </NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=150 align=left bgColor=#ffffff border=0 NAME="D20">

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD align=middle colSpan=2><IMG hspace=3 src="http://woodtv.static.worldnow.com/images/960227_BG1.jpg" width=180 vspace=3>
<IMG hspace=3 src="http://woodtv.static.worldnow.com/images/960227_BG2.jpg" width=180 vspace=3>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- -->(Grand Rapids, October 3, 2002, 11:45 p.m.) A Wyoming woman who has temporarily lost custody of her two hearing-impaired sons is now fighting to prevent the state from sending them to a hospital for surgery to implant hearing devices.&nbsp; The devices are called Cochlear Implants.

Leigh Larsen is also hearing impaired.&nbsp; Her attorney says Larsen believes the implants will negatively affect her relationship with her boys, ages three and four.&nbsp; An attorney for the state says Larsen lost custody late last year when the state determined that she had neglected to provide appropriate care.

"She believes the choice is hers to make," said Larsen's attorney David Gersch, who says he'll seek a "stay" for the purpose of appeal should the judge rule against Larsen.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
"The Cochlear Implant is the most significant advance I've seen in 19 years as an audiologist," said Jack DeBoer, who testified in Grand Rapids Circuit Court earlier this week.&nbsp;

The hearing, on the 10th floor of the downtown courthouse, is expected to conclude by early Friday afternoon.&nbsp; There is a demonstration scheduled for Calder Plaza between 8 am and 4pm organized by several deaf advocacy groups that side with the mother in the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[ZiSunka]

My nephew got this implant ten years ago, and it really opened up his world! He was eight years old and couldn't talk or read well, because he was profoundly deaf from birth. After the implant was turned on, a whole new joy came to him. He could hear! He never knew before that running water made a noise! He never had any idea that his panting dog made a sound! He never even knew the sound of his mother's voice when she said, "I love you." It was like being born anew for him--this time as a hearing person!

I strongly recommend the implant if the doctors feel that it is appropriate. Her boys should have the best, most open life possible! Hearing is a mircale from God, not something to be shunned and reviled!

 

[paulewog]

I think the point was that the government is more and more in control of even your own kids......

which is not good

 

[smurfy2day]

That was the point exactly.

Why should the government have control over what this woman does for her children?! I believe that if God created you blind, deaf mute, whatever, you are that way for a reason.... personally.

 

[lisa03wilson]

that is scary, if the mother doesn't want them to have the opperation, that's her choice. If the kids really want it then they can get it when they are 18

 

[Dewjunkie]

If the woman lost custody of her children for neglect, then she apparently hasn't had their best in mind for some time. If a child is taken into state care, then it is the state's duty to determine what is best for the children. If they had pnuemonia, and the state decided to give them medicine, would they be out of line? If the implants can give the children the gift to hear, then how is that not best for them? If she doesn't want them to have the implants, then she should provide adequate care for the boys so she can get them back, then she would have the right to say yes or no.

 

[smurfy2day]

To my understanding, the proof of her neglect has NEVER been revealed, and I have been following this pretty closely......

I believe a PARENT and a PARENT only is responsible for their children. This is the same state that has about 10,000 foster kids that are currently missing... Who are THEY to determine ANYTHING about this set of kids when they have several others with much more concers to be bothered with.

And also, why don't they ask the kids what they want?! Shouldn't they wait until 18 to make any sort of a decision as a ward of the State. PLUS, tax payers are paying for this.... that's another thing to think of. I want laser correction surgery, but the State of MI's not offering to pay for that for me...... just a thought.

 

[Dewjunkie]

I didn't know anything about this until your post, smurfy, so I cannot speak on cause.

But, if a parent refuses to give their childen proper care, then they in turn give up their right to decision making for the children. The tax payers would pay either way, either for the implants or for the long term specialized care and education the children would require. It's probably cheaper to just do the implants. The children are young enough that they most likely wouldn't remember being deaf in the long run. That would be good for them.

I, as a parent can't comprehend why you wouldn't want your chldren to be able to hear properly. I, as a taxpayer, would much rather see my money go for something like restoring a child's hearing than to some of the other ridiculous programs taxes go towards. I, as a federal law enforcement employee, can say that there is most likely far more to this case than the media is aware of. The media only gets what the local enforcement agencies want them to have.

 

[OutletOverkill]

I suppose you all agree then, that the government should keep out of it when people beat their children. She's a poor parent, plain and simple.

 

[Havoc]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
To my understanding, the proof of her neglect has NEVER been revealed, and I have been following this pretty closely......

I believe a PARENT and a PARENT only is responsible for their children. This is the same state that has about 10,000 foster kids that are currently missing... Who are THEY to determine ANYTHING about this set of kids when they have several others with much more concers to be bothered with.

And just who would they reveal it to....you? That sort of information is not generally given out to the public. Why is it when a Child dies of neglect people whine and shout that the state should have moved in but when the state does move in they whine and shout about parents rights?

You are entitled to your belief that a PARENT and a PARENT only is responsible for their children. Fortunatly for the Children the State recognises that it must take responsibility for parents who will not care for their children. It's amasing that you have to have a licence to drive, practice law, run a business, own a dog... but any Moron can have as many kids as they want. Face it smurfy, there are some Bad Parents out there who should not be entrusted with the care of children. I for one am glad that the state has the moral courage to step in for the sake of the child, at least sometimes before it is too late.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
I believe that if God created you blind, deaf mute, whatever, you are that way for a reason.... personally.

&nbsp;

really?&nbsp; that's kind of scary.&nbsp; What if god created you with a whole in your heart?&nbsp; should you die from it?

What if God created you with a body that got appendicitis?&nbsp; should you not have it removed?

Weak lungs and asthma, just die at age 4?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lisa03wilson
that is scary, if the mother doesn't want them to have the opperation, that's her choice. If the kids really want it then they can get it when they are 18

not really, the success rate is much higher the earlier these are done.

 

[Lacmeh]

Real scary is, that people whine about the government not acting, when it comes out, that the chilfren are mistreated and whine about government acting when the children are mistreated. So when will you people stop whining?
It is one thing, if the operation is unaffordable by the parents, it is another to purposefully deny them. I know briefly a mother, which had a deaf child and it was hard work for her and not easy for the child. It is a god thing,t hat nowadays such a thing can be mended in many cases and prevent a lot of difficulties for parents and child.
Wha tis the difference in denying this operation to help get over the deafness and prevent proper treatment for cancer, asthma or chicken pox?
Would the outcry about government meddling be the same, if the child would be prevented treatment from cancer or chicken pox or any other illness, which is potentially harmful to the child?

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by lambslove
My nephew got this implant ten years ago, and it really opened up his world! He was eight years old and couldn't talk or read well, because he was profoundly deaf from birth. After the implant was turned on, a whole new joy came to him. He could hear! He never knew before that running water made a noise! He never had any idea that his panting dog made a sound! He never even knew the sound of his mother's voice when she said, "I love you." It was like being born anew for him--this time as a hearing person!

I strongly recommend the implant if the doctors feel that it is appropriate. Her boys should have the best, most open life possible! Hearing is a mircale from God, not something to be shunned and reviled!

Excellent post.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by smurfy2day
That was the point exactly.

Why should the government have control over what this woman does for her children?! I believe that if God created you blind, deaf mute, whatever, you are that way for a reason.... personally.

What if God created you stupid?&nbsp; Should you remain stupid?

 

[coastie]

by Lacmeh Would the outcry about government meddling be the same, if the child would be prevented treatment from cancer or chicken pox or any other illness, which is potentially harmful to the child?

Good point... No I doubt it. Probably because those things are more harmful. But any parent who doesn't do things that are in their child's best interest is being irresponsible.

Since mommy lost custody, I don't think the decision is up to her anymore anyway.

 

[HazyRigby]

Does anyone else here realize that there is more to this case than a simple "parents' rights versus state's rights"?

You may not realize it, but to some people, deafness is NOT a disability, but a difference to be cherished. The mother in this case likely has strong feelings about the so-called "deaf community" and wants her children to be a part of it. Though I am not deaf, I worked for seven years at a school for deaf children, and I was required to attend multiple seminars on deaf awareness. Granted, I don't understand their point-of-view personally because I can't imagine what my life would be like if I weren't able to hear, but they ARE part of a unique culture--the only visual language society in the world. They view cochlear implants (especially when chosen by a deaf or hard-of-hearing parent) as a misguided attempt to "correct" something that they don't believe is wrong in the first place. They see their "handicap" as what makes them who they are. It's likely that these children would be shunned from the deaf community were they to receive the implants, and like it or not, that's probably a scary possibility for the mother. You may not agree with her standpoint, but being hard-of-hearing IS something these children were born with. It's not like being born with a hole in your heart. You're not going to die of it, and frankly, the deaf people I know don't seem to think they're missing much. Would you people be as quick to applaud the state if it were a cosmetic deformity that the mother refused to correct, simply wanting to accept her children as they are? What is so incredibly wrong with being different these days?

Until neglect is proven, this woman should have absolute control over what surgical procedures are done to her children. Even after neglect is proven, every measure should be taken to try to reunite the children with their mother. I don't know all of the details of the case, but "neglect" can mean as little as not keeping the house clean enough or failing to call an exterminator for a bug problem (believe me...I know a family that had their children taken away for SIX months because a neighbor complained about the house being dirty).

Allowing the state to decide whether these children have cochlear implants IS NOT in the children's best interest. The implants are rarely the "miracle" hearing cure of the person's nephew described above; the results are often disappointing.

 

[coastie]

Hmmm.... interesting point of view. That hadn't occured to me, even with that brought to light, I stand by my statement that any parent who doesn't do things that are in their child's best interest is acting irresponsibly.

if it is in the child's best interest to remain deaf then so be it. That's not a decision I'd be qualified to make.

 

[smurfy2day]

Originally posted by HazyRigby
Does anyone else here realize that there is more to this case than a simple "parents' rights versus state's rights"?

You may not realize it, but to some people, deafness is NOT a disability, but a difference to be cherished. The mother in this case likely has strong feelings about the so-called "deaf community" and wants her children to be a part of it. Though I am not deaf, I worked for seven years at a school for deaf children, and I was required to attend multiple seminars on deaf awareness. Granted, I don't understand their point-of-view personally because I can't imagine what my life would be like if I weren't able to hear, but they ARE part of a unique culture--the only visual language society in the world. They view cochlear implants (especially when chosen by a deaf or hard-of-hearing parent) as a misguided attempt to "correct" something that they don't believe is wrong in the first place. They see their "handicap" as what makes them who they are. It's likely that these children would be shunned from the deaf community were they to receive the implants, and like it or not, that's probably a scary possibility for the mother. You may not agree with her standpoint, but being hard-of-hearing IS something these children were born with. It's not like being born with a hole in your heart. You're not going to die of it, and frankly, the deaf people I know don't seem to think they're missing much. Would you people be as quick to applaud the state if it were a cosmetic deformity that the mother refused to correct, simply wanting to accept her children as they are? What is so incredibly wrong with being different these days?

Until neglect is proven, this woman should have absolute control over what surgical procedures are done to her children. Even after neglect is proven, every measure should be taken to try to reunite the children with their mother. I don't know all of the details of the case, but "neglect" can mean as little as not keeping the house clean enough or failing to call an exterminator for a bug problem (believe me...I know a family that had their children taken away for SIX months because a neighbor complained about the house being dirty).

Allowing the state to decide whether these children have cochlear implants IS NOT in the children's best interest. The implants are rarely the "miracle" hearing cure of the person's nephew described above; the results are often disappointing.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Wonderful post! You say it MUCH better than I can!

 

[Gerry]

The question was, does this scare me? No! It makes me feel good that the sate cares enough to provide the services that this excuse of a mother should have provided herself. Is it wrong for the boys to be able to hear? Is it wrong to do something that will bring Glory and honor to God? Nay.
God bless the state for caring for these children!