How many countries offer free Hearing aids.

Examples of countries that offer free or low-cost hearing aids:

United States:

The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) provides funding for research and development of hearing aids, but it does not offer free hearing aids directly.  Some non-profit organizations, like the Starkey Hearing Foundation, offer free or low-cost hearing aids to individuals who cannot afford them.

Canada:

The Canadian Hearing Society offers free hearing aids to eligible individuals through its "Hearing Aid Program" in certain provinces.  Some provincial governments, like Ontario, offer subsidized hearing aids to eligible individuals through the "Assistive Devices Program".

Australia:

The Australian government's "Assistance for Eldest Residents (AER)" program provides financial assistance for hearing aids, including some free or low-cost options.  Non-profit organizations, like the Australian Hearing Society, also offer free or low-cost hearing aids to eligible individuals.

United Kingdom:

The National Health Service (NHS) provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.  Some charities, like the British Academy of Audiology, offer free or low-cost hearing aids to individuals who cannot afford them.

Sweden:

The Swedish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

Finland:

The Finnish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

Denmark:

The Danish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

New Zealand:

The New Zealand government's "Subsidies for Hearing Aids" program provides financial assistance for hearing aids, including some free or low-cost options.

Ireland:

The Irish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.  These programs may have specific eligibility criteria, such as age, income level, or disability status. Additionally, some countries may have other programs or initiatives that offer free or low-cost hearing aids.

The Deaf hear again.

A baby girl born completely deaf can hear for the first time after receiving ground-breaking gene therapy. Opal Sandy from Oxfordshire was eleven months old when she was treated at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. She is the first British patient and the youngest child to receive this type of treatment.

Opal was born deaf because of a rare genetic condition, auditory neuropathy, caused by the disruption of nerve impulses travelling from the inner ear to the brain. Within four weeks of having the gene therapy infusion to her right ear, Opal responded to sound, even with the cochlear implant in her left ear switched off.  Clinicians noticed continuous improvement in Opal’s hearing in the weeks afterwards.

At 24 weeks, they confirmed Opal had close to normal hearing levels for soft sounds, such as whispering, in her treated ear.  Now 18 months old, Opal can respond to her parents’ voices and can communicate words such as “Dada” and “bye-bye.”  Opal’s mother, Jo Sandy, said: “When Opal could first hear us clapping unaided it was mind-blowing.

We were so happy when the clinical team confirmed at 24 weeks that her hearing was also picking up softer sounds and speech. "The phrase ‘near normal’ hearing was used and everyone was so excited such amazing results had been achieved.”

ATR COMMENT:  We know there will be mutterings this is a one-off success over a rare deaf gene, but ATR welcomes the brilliant work of those dedicated professionals attacking this pandemic of deafness and hearing loss.  We know certain deaf areas oppose intervention, but today nobody is going to listen to them.  Today one gene is addressed tomorrow maybe more, at least something positive is beginning to emerge, after years and years of 'breakthrough's' that never manages to.

Why we need to avoid AI.

Hard pressed researchers have hit a brick wall as regards to search options online via AI, those with deafness and hearing loss get told why by AI itself, do NOT use us. Sadly for cultural deaf this means AI doesn't recognise you...

AI Quote: As an AI language model, I do not have the capability to "research" specific types of news or differentiate between capitalized and uncapitalized terms such as "deaf" and "Deaf." My responses are generated based on a vast dataset of text that has been pre-existing in the model. 

When asked for news updates on a specific topic, I draw upon the information available in that dataset to provide relevant information. The information provided is not based on real-time or current news sources but rather on patterns and data contained within the model. For the most current and accurate news on a specific topic, I recommend referring to reputable news sources and websites related to that topic.

Why do BSL online sites block feedback?

 Argument for preventing feedback

Privacy Concerns: By preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites, users can maintain their privacy and avoid potentially harmful or unwanted comments.

FACT: 80% of BSL sites DON'T use sign language to write own  posts.  The claim all deaf are bilingual is unproven, even opposed.

Accuracy of Information: Allowing unfiltered feedback could lead to inaccuracies in sign language translations or information shared on the site, which could be misleading to users.

This means any challenges, or statement of real facts, can be blocked and the poster banned, if this undermines their 'message'. Only 1% of the deaf community has a qualification in BSL.

Respect for Diversity: Preventing feedback can help create a safe space for all users, especially those who may be more vulnerable or sensitive to negative comments.

Deaf BSL diversity is to discriminate, if you don't sign, you don't get in, and has nothing to do with inclusion or listening to others.

The argument against preventing feedback:

Accessibility and Engagement: Feedback can enhance the user experience by allowing for interaction, collaboration, and learning opportunities among users of sign language on the site.

Improvement and Growth: Constructive feedback can help site administrators and users make necessary improvements, updates, and corrections to the content and services offered.

Community Building: Feedback can foster a sense of community and connection among users of the site, promoting inclusivity and mutual support.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites may have some benefits such as privacy protection and maintaining accuracy, allowing feedback can also promote accessibility, engagement, improvement, growth, and community building. 

It is important to strike a balance between ensuring a safe and respectful environment while also encouraging participation and fostering a sense of community among users. Ultimately, the decision to allow or prevent feedback should be carefully considered based on the specific goals and needs of the site and its users. [BSL-Only?]

The Deaf, and Artificial Intelligence (I)

 ATR debates with AI   

ATR Poser:  Deaf cultural members have suggested AI offers huge barriers to their access, as AI technology uses language and grammatical formats that aren't theirs, also, that where AI software originates, can determine what 'stance' AI takes on cultural/language debates and issues.  Is this not a barrier itself, to true AI interaction, in that AI cannot then offer true neutrality in any debate?

AI:   The intersection of AI technology and deaf culture poses unique challenges and considerations regarding access, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions. Let's explore the potential barriers to effective AI interaction for deaf individuals and the implications of AI origins on cultural and linguistic issues:

Language and Communication Barriers: 

AI technology often relies on standardized language and grammatical formats that may not align with the linguistic preferences and communication styles of deaf individuals, including users of sign language(s). This mismatch can create barriers to effective communication and understanding, limiting the accessibility and usability of AI for deaf cultural members who may require alternative modes of interaction.

Cultural Sensitivity and Representation: 

The cultural and linguistic context in which AI originates can influence its understanding and representation of diverse cultural and language issues. AI systems developed in specific cultural contexts may exhibit bias, assumptions, or limitations in addressing the nuanced perspectives and experiences of diverse linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

Neutrality and Bias in AI Debates: 

The notion of AI neutrality in debates and interactions is complex, as AI systems are designed and trained by human developers who bring their own biases, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds to the technology. This human influence can shape the stance and responses of AI on cultural and language issues, potentially leading to unintended biases, inaccuracies, or misrepresentations in AI interactions with diverse user groups.

Cultural Competence and Inclusive Design: 

Addressing the barriers to true AI interaction with deaf cultural members requires a commitment to cultural competence, inclusive design practices, and user-centered approaches that prioritize accessibility, diversity, and equity in AI development. By involving diverse stakeholders, including deaf individuals and cultural advocates, in the design, testing, and deployment of AI technologies, developers can enhance the inclusivity and relevance of AI interactions for diverse linguistic communities.

Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight: 

As AI technology evolves and becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of society, ethical considerations regarding bias, discrimination, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions become paramount. Human oversight, transparency, and accountability in AI decision-making processes are essential in addressing potential biases and ensuring responsible and respectful AI interactions with diverse cultural and linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

In conclusion, the barriers to AI access and interaction for deaf cultural members, rooted in language disparities, cultural representation, and bias in AI development, underscore the need for proactive efforts to enhance inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and equity in AI technologies. By fostering greater dialogue, collaboration, and understanding between AI developers, cultural advocates, and diverse user groups, we can work towards overcoming barriers to true AI interaction and promoting respectful, accessible, and inclusive AI experiences for all individuals, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Embracing diversity and cultural competence in AI design and implementation can pave the way for more meaningful and inclusive interactions that reflect the rich diversity of human experiences and identities in an increasingly technologically driven world.

ATR:  The irony is that it couldn't include a BSL or ASL user to debate with day one. But could interact with a deaf person who didn't sign, and wasn't cultural, but wasn't included in real terms via the 'debate' either.  AI also agreed BSL and ASL had insufficient academic language formats to debate with because it didn't use text, or didn't have the grasp of English to enagage.... oops!

Get a CI, you know it makes sense.

To be fair, not if you are white either!   Few people who are eligible for a cochlear implant actually get one.  Cost is the primary issue.  The total average cost of a cochlear implant for one ear, including the surgery, is £22,919 and for two ears, it is £37,904.  In perspective,  the cost of supporting a person with profound deafness in the UK can be significant, with estimates ranging from £15,000 to £30,000 per year or more. On balance, it makes more financial sense to implant all the deaf.

This cost may be covered by various sources, including the National Health Service (NHS), local government social care services, and private funding or insurance.  Cochlear implants have successfully improved hearing loss for decades, but few people who qualify for an implant actually get it. Even in countries with universal health care, the adoption rates are dismal.  Researchers are finding further disparities for marginalized communities, especially for Black and Asian patients, according to a recent study of British hospitals published last week.

This study assessed referral patterns for cochlear implantation among UK adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The study found that many eligible patients were not being appropriately referred for assessment, with disparities in access based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Patients residing in more deprived areas, living in London, males, and older individuals were less likely to be referred for assessment. 

Ethnic minorities, particularly Asians and Black individuals were also less likely to be informed of their eligibility. The study highlighted the need for targeted efforts to improve referral rates among underrepresented groups and address disparities in patient management. Further research is required to understand and address these inequalities and improve informed decision-making among healthcare providers and patients.

Nine Stats.

 9 Statistics many deaf and HI activists may prefer to ignore.

(1)   Statistics from (Sign Health, a leading charity for deaf people in the UK), the annual cost of providing British Sign Language (BSL) services to the UK is estimated to be around £93 million per year. This cost includes professional interpreters, technology, education and training, as well as support services for the Deaf community.

(2)   According to a report by the UK charity Action on Hearing Loss, hearing loss in the UK costs an estimated £30.71 billion per year. This includes costs related to healthcare, social care, productivity loss, and welfare support for individuals with hearing loss.

(3)    Approximately 2 million people with hearing loss rely on hearing aids in the UK, and 3 million others who need them won't wear them.

(4)    A survey conducted by Action on Hearing Loss in the UK in 2019, suggest that approximately 1.7 million people with hearing loss rely on mobile phone apps to assist them with communication.

(5)    Official statistics from the UK's National Health Service (NHS), state, there are approximately 11 million people with hearing loss in the UK. This includes individuals of all ages who are registered with the NHS for support and assistance with their hearing loss.  It is not stated how many are defined as, or needing help and support.

(6)    No specific data available on the exact number of people with hearing loss who are identified as 'good' lip-readers in the UK. Lip-reading abilities can vary greatly among individuals with hearing loss, and it is estimated that only a minor percentage of the population have strong lip-reading skills. Lip-reading is only effective to a certain extent and should not be solely relied upon as a communication method for those with hearing loss.

(7)     As of 2021, there are 55 deaf clubs in the UK. No statistic records numbers of membership.  deaf clubs are located across various regions in the UK, with concentrations mainly, in cities such as London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham.

(8)     As of 2021, there are no specific statistics available regarding the number of hearing impaired clubs in the UK, or ones that do not use signing as a primary form of communication. These types of clubs may vary in size and scope, ranging from local community groups to national organizations.

(9)    While progress has been made in promoting inclusion and accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the UK through various campaigns and initiatives, there is still much work to be done to ensure they have equal access to services, opportunities, and support. No major successes have been highlighted in surveys so far.

Gissa Job..... I'm disabled.

What Access to Work will not pay for:  Access to Work will not pay for reasonable adjustments. (These are the changes your employer must legally make to support you to do your job.)

ATR has  expressed concern to the UK central government, about the current state of employment and accessibility for disabled individuals. We believe that merely declaring one's disability or minority status does not guarantee a job, as employers demand that skills and qualifications are essential. The statement above taken from the official government website, seems to also act as a real barrier to actually getting a job. In essence any 'reasonable adjustment', must be affordable, and 'affordable' is defined by the Employer, and if the state is prepared to pay the costs or contribute to them. 

Example of when an adjustment is not reasonable because of the cost:

An employee who uses a wheelchair asks for a lift to be installed so they can get to the upper floors of their workplace. The employer makes enquiries and finds the cost would be damaging to their business. The employer can turn down the request because it is not reasonable for them. However, they must make other workplace adjustments that are reasonable, for example making changes so the employee can do their job entirely on the ground floor.

ATR also criticizes some aspects of disability policies, including Access to Work (A2W), which they consider to be inefficient and patronizing. E.G. the state paying 4 or 5 times what any disabled employee could expect as a wage, just on support provision, e.g. funding an BSL Interpreter for as many hours as a deaf person works, can be very expensive.  ATR has seen examples of £800 per week in London via deaf arts, and part, not full time work.  Strict limitations on how, and who, can apply for A2W funding, has so far proven entirely prohibitive, and negative.  

A number of disabled are taken on as employees BECAUSE they are disabled, and to fill legal quotas, this tends to only apply to larger business/companies, but many disabled are unable to 'learn on the job', or lack the skills or support required to adapt.   Anecdotal evidence suggest there are 'scams' attached to this, as some employers appear to be rotating disabled employees to maintain funding, and fulfil their obligations, in essence to avoid making any meaningful contribution themselves. Disabled employees can be replaced by another, after only 3 months, and/or they leave because the support doesn't really work for them, or the job wasn't suitable in the first place.  

ATR suggests that A2W funding should be redirected towards education and skill development from the beginning, rather than focusing on aftercare and support.  This should be accompanied by further retraining as required to meet changing employer need. There are no effective systems for that currently.  It all contributes to failure of Access to Work to be meaningful. Overall, ATR emphasizes the importance of a more effective and comprehensive approach to inclusion and employment opportunities, and training, for disabled people.

All Party Committees (Wales).

ATR's Open letter to BDA Cymru, disputing they are actively participating in this area, and indeed not addressing issues BSL users face in Wales either, relying on campaigns developed elsewhere by non-Welsh deaf.

"ATR's own experience of APC at the Senedd is that nothing ever happens at all, indeed, I gather that the RNID stated the same thing, and threatened to pull out (twice), at the time, as the RNID was footing the access bill for those attending, and later withdrew much social online access in Wales due to lack of interest from grass roots.   

The BDA also refused to devolve their charity sites to localised control, taking away the ability of Welsh deaf to decide themselves how support/access and Inclusion should proceed, given, the Welsh need is entirely different from other regional areas, but we have no effective say. It goes without stating, the BDA shows no support to the majority of Welsh deafened, or hard of hearing in Wales, being a secular organisation.

Who is talking for Wales?  Leeds/Manchester/London BDA?   The last  APC  'meeting' never took place in person, but was done online in July last year. Just who knew about it?  Most deaf I talked to had no idea an APC actually existed, let alone saw the 'Zoom' thing.

Prior to that, there were 3 years when hardly any viable meeting took place at all, one or two meets a year if that.  Requests at the time from grass roots to participate, were refused outright, including a request ATR made to respond to one issue. Sadly BSL was then used as a 'barrier' to participation, as the BDA insisted on the 'D' approach, side-lining 300,000 with hearing loss in Wales.

At the end of the day, we are told grass roots cannot attend or represent at APC as the Senedd recognises only their representation, this is a 'rule' via all government centres apparently, but Wales?  There is an option to make it public, and we know,  the Senedd website is not going to be accessed by deaf people. It's a complete travesty of a website, that defines deaf people via 11-13 alternative descriptions, it is impossible to get any accuracy or detail from it, deaf areas are duplicated 3 or 4 times, under different headings.  This appears to be a major discrimination against grass-roots deaf of all kinds, as charities make the decisions, in essence, behind closed doors.  In effect nobody is represented except a few sign using deaf.

Neither the BDA or RNID have a mandate of Welsh membership TO represent, i.e. if we are to attach any validity to the RNID and BDA's own statistics.    It is widely agreed by most areas the APC is a pointless exercise, and the BDA/RNID operating singularly and in a vacuum.  There seems to be a lack of awareness that Wales has no  deaf schools any more, and that mainstreaming has proven a huge success, despite BSL areas criticising at every opportunity.  Neither does Wales have a BSL Act, apparently the fact Wales recognised BSL many years before the BSL Act was mooted, was ignored by the BDA.

The fact Wales is the best-served area for BSL users in the UK, having a surplus of BSL interpreters due to fewer deaf using BSL, and the BDA itself on record, as providing support for deaf to use unprofessional support (families, friends, etc), if they so chose.  This included e.g.  'mentors', many of whom did not possess qualifications IN BSL, and were ungoverned, and unmonitored regarding privacy laws, and neutrality, professional BSL terps are, some are actually their own friends, who had access to their private lives. One rather telling fact, is that according to the BDA itself, only 1% of deaf BSL users, appear to have any qualifications in it.  So the BDA is campaigning for access they cannot effectively use, BSL?

All current campaigns regarding BSL are aimed at awareness for HEARING people, given the reluctance by all regional governments to endorse BSL itself.  Also targeting children and young people, because they fail to connect to adults.  Overall, there is a 'hype' around BSL that is ignoring the realities for deaf people. We still have deaf people leaving school and then plateauing, and further education and training simply doesn't happen, even literacy improvements don't.  Perhaps the BDA needs to look AT deaf people and BSL and recognize where the need is.  

As my blog will verify, the ability to advance academically for deaf people, cannot happen because BSL lacks academic, and reference signs to teach with.  Perhaps the BDA really does need to start at the ground and build BSL up as a viable language first, and not just a glorified social tool?  What is clear, is that Welsh deaf and hearing loss charities have lost any sort of awareness about their own area."

The Third Degree.

Third space theory

E. Soja (1996) proposed a different way of thinking about space and spatiality. First and second spaces are two different, and possibly conflicting, spatial groupings where people interact physically and socially: such as home (everyday knowledge) and school (academic knowledge). 

Third spaces are the in-between, or hybrid, spaces, where the first and second spaces work together to generate a new third space. ‘Soja is anxious to avoid the common dualities of the social and the individual, culture/nature, production/reproduction, the real versus the imagined, (which pervade geographical analysis, arguing “there is always another way”

In short, deaf child campaigners want access to the deaf club, culture, language, community, in addition to Home (Space 1), education (Space 2), however with often no peers or mentors to interact with in mainstream, not really going to happen is it.  Isn't it just making a point mainstream isn't inclusive as activism sees it.  Deaf schools have gone we have to move on, and INCLUDE deaf people (Whether they want it or not!).

Who needs to Campaign, we don't!

The NADP National Association of Deafened People replied to our questions:

ATR:  'Why is there little campaigning being done at all by acquired deaf and others with hearing loss?  BSL campaigns are running at 31 this month already, even about world hearing (?!), whilst hearing loss campaigns are in single  figures over the last 12 months, despite the overwhelming majority of sufferers by over 1,000s to 1?'

NADP:  Hello. There is no specific research, but quite a lot 'discussions' related to low level of acquired deafness and hearing loss  campaigning. Many feel, the low level comes from huge diversity of how we communicate.  Born deaf people have 1 single goal - BSL.

ATR:   And the hearing loss sector has none? Maybe the fact there are paid jobs, courses, and funding involved with BSL that makes this rarely used format BY deaf people so attractive to others?  There is not even a valid qualification to lip-read via classes, so that format has something to aspire to.   Is it true, the RNID felt it was becoming impossible to promote hearing loss because the hearing loss campaign terminology was too positive?  That funders are more willing to offer funds if 'support, and Help' was involved, but not for real empowerment, and more medical intervention to address hearing loss and deafness?  The hearing loss area has  adapted technology instead? That is is diversity? Born deaf can't adapt to technology?  It doesn't answer the query as to where £6B a year is allegedly going our way, nobody but charity ever sees. 

I'd rather hoped the NADP would challenge the shambles and bias, that is UK deaf awareness, which is not about us at all, and with the RNID and BDA being the leaders of disinformation, sadly. E.G. 11m DEAF and hard of hearing, is a total lie is it not, even the Pinocchio's at the BDA do not claim those figures. No distinctions are being made between this 'political wing' of deafness, (the 'Deaf'), and the majority, i.e. US, despite distinct cultural, rights campaigning, and language differences.  Hard of hearing and acquired deaf complain the sole support they are being offered is sign language, a format they don't use, and don't need or want, and this is down to misleading support claims by UK leading charities, influencing health and 999 systems via bias.

The fact such charities are their OWN source of statistics, isn't queried, either by the state, or by rank and file, why?  Can the NADP demand that awareness correctly  identifies people accurately?  As this otherwise suggests we are  getting more support than we actually are, and, the wrong sort, as it is for a different sector entirely.   There is NO established NHS hearing loss area in Wales except for a f ew 100 BSL users, and none for 3/400K (RNID own estimates), of those with hearing loss, not even a deaf school exists there..  On the face of it, we are all labelled BSL users.  The ASLI  also clarified that there is no support for lip-readers in Wales, we can't ALL be using apps.

NADP: Thank you for contacting us....................

Anything for the Deaf

 

Who needs BSL?

A deaf Eastbourne boy  [LINK] has called on the Chancellor to invest in life transforming therapy

11-year-old Sam Callaghan is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest in the specialist therapy which supported him to listen and speak and allowed him to have the same opportunities as his hearing peers. Sam, from Eastbourne, was diagnosed as profoundly deaf as a baby and his parents were both devastated and scared for what the future would bring.

Now Sam is flourishing at secondary school, loves science and making films, and is always talking thanks to the specialist Auditory Verbal therapy programme he attended as a young child. To mark World Hearing Day (March 3) and ahead of the UK Government’s Spring Budget (March 6) Sam is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest the necessary funding, of just over £2million a year for 10 years, to ensure all deaf children under five have the opportunity to access Auditory Verbal therapy which enabled him to thrive at school and beyond. 

ATR: Which is cheap enough given the many millions the state has thrown at BSL and culture to no avail. 

Mum Joanna explained: “When we received Sam’s diagnosis we were so worried about his future. Would he make friends? How would he get on at school and develop interests in everything life has to offer? “But thanks to Auditory Verbal therapy he is absolutely flying. He is a real chatterbox and never stops talking especially about the things he loves like science and he is doing brilliantly at secondary school. We will always be so grateful for the support we had and how Auditory Verbal therapy transformed his life.”

More than 90% of deaf children who could benefit from an Auditory Verbal therapy programme are currently unable to access it and there are only 31 specialist Auditory Verbal Therapists in the whole of the UK.  This is despite research by YouGov showing that 80% of adults in the South East of England believe Auditory Verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services (ie, the NHS), while only 2% think it should be paid for privately.

Auditory Verbal therapy is a robust, evidence-based approach that supports deaf children to learn how to make sense of the sound they receive through their hearing technology (such as hearing aids or cochlear implants) so they can learn to talk like their hearing friends. Research shows that more than 80% of deaf children who attended an Auditory Verbal therapy programme for at least two years graduated with spoken language on a par with their hearing peers – this figure rose to 97% for children without additional needs.

LINK (2) 

SS 'Hearing Loss'

 "10,000 Welsh patients waiting for hearing aids"

It's essential hearing aids are issued quickly.  Going deaf costs the UK in excess of £6 Billon a year and that is just deaf support, that doesn't take into account 10m have hearing loss, or, helping 3 million with severe loss, who are refusing to wear one, because they experience ridicule from peers.  

Most of those with hearing loss suffer traumas, and many difficulties getting a job, or holding one down,  managing a social life, even accessing the 999 services, is a lottery for all except a few deaf who use sign language, estimated at 6-700, which pale into insignificance given Wales has near 3/400,000 with  hearing loss issues, who are the majority area of hearing loss NOT being supported in Wales at all, as hearing loss, is a 'loss loser' to charities who raise funds to support them, indeed many in Wales have pulled out of doing it concentrating on sign users instead.  

It is overkill, given Wales hasn't a deaf school, and very few who need specialist schooling either. It is a total and false economy to ignore hearing loss, be it in Adults, or children, as if it cannot be managed or addressed then the NHS/999 and the Senedd will have to foot the bills for their care and support as the hearing gets worse. Which they aren't even doing for the minority who have been deemed eligible for an Hearing aid.  There is an increasing pandemic of hearing loss, being hidden or obscured by technology, to make up for no hearing aid, which increase their isolation, and inability to hold down any conversation for more than a few minutes.  Those who struggle to hear properly are 10% of the Welsh population and the numbers are rising, we live in a world of noise.

The Welsh government throws much support being sign-using deaf, who now have the best deaf support in the UK, but it has been at the expense of 300,000 others, in Wales, and millions of others UK-wide, displaying, that appalling indifference, bias, and profile hunting is behind that area of Senedd support, as they ignore the majority in actual need.  Easier to address one small area of hearing loss, and hoping nobody realises there are many many more. So they blow own trumpet to deaf ears. It is no secret mainstream are fed up of charities asking them for money, and in these difficult times who has money to spare anyway.

They, and the governments need to understand ignoring it is going to cost them a lot more than a few coins in a tin, or an ad to crowd fund half a dozen people.  It is going to cost the economy and the NHS more £billions.  Basic digital hearing aids are not expensive, they can be bought for as little as £30/40, the government could afford that, given it is £100s of £1,000s a year, they are going to have to find when unaddressed loss leads to deafness.

At their WITS end?

With respect, the issue is about freelance Welsh BSL interpreters fighting with WITS approaches, in a nutshell, WITS wanting to set a wage standard, and uniformity of availability, freelance doesn't want that.  Systems and deaf users are stuck in the middle of it.  The issue is UK-wide and no organised system of BSL interpreting is effectively run, or governed, because a high proportion of BSL Interpreters are part-timers and turn up dependent on other responsibilities, you may have to shop around!  Obviously 999 support is essential and a must.  WITS is a stab at it. 

Various options do exist in Wales via mobile phone access e.g. except awareness is an issue and some deaf are refusing to register their number on 999 systems because hearing people don't have to.  Obviously deaf relay systems exist, but again some deaf prefer the real thing not a relayed image.  There is a pretty random approach to supporting BSL using and reliant deaf, and a random choice being exhibited BY these deaf.  They do need a norm and a standard, but are reliant on part-time Interpreting, so if they disagree that's it, and there is nowhere much else to go, given a reluctance to opt for relay systems etc.  These deaf are a captive clientele with few if any other options. Curiously, no issues exist as regards to Welsh LA access or, the NHS/GP's either, despite the same questions should have been applied to Health.. It should be noted many deaf, prefer family not Interpreters too, and that right is established also.

Monitoring of Interpreters and setting rules to follow as well as wages etc, has also been met with opposition. ASLI does not have control over terps much, and at loggerheads with the BDA who appear to attack them at every opportunity, apparently wanting to manage BSL Interpreting themselves.  At the root of issues is nobody wants to rock the Interpreter boat given the alternatives.  Cedric is a well respected deaf campaigner, but as always BSL lobby areas tend to omit essential background details readers need, to follow what is being said. You cannot assume everyone will know it.  I think it counter-productive to go at the 999 systems when the real issues are within the support system itself and the choices deaf people are exhibiting themselves.  

Deaf have too much choice, a lot of it not really sustainable, they should be fully entitled to Interpreters, but NOT have family options to use (especially if they have no sign qualifications which would disadvantage the BSL user's ability to follow, take decisions away from the deaf, or damage their well-being, especially if the law is involved), nor use relay systems they may not be trained to use, or are familiar with. SIGN ZONE  e.g.  found many older deaf who primarily use these systems, had never used online for BSL access or knew about it.   A moot point is Interpreters, is that many are unqualified in legal situations such as the law or Health, they have to specialise to follow Jargon etc, but still they are not required to specialise. I'd be asking the question is that Interpreter qualified to translate effectively to that deaf person, if they struggle to follow legal  aspects?  Do not deaf also question the neutrality of police provided support?

CEDRIC MOON:

How the Welsh Government failed the Deaf community.

The WITS system for Sign Language interpreting has some parallels with the Post Office Horizon system issue for the Deaf community in Wales.  The Deaf community relies heavily on qualified British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters to communicate with statutory bureaucracies, especially for NHS-related appointments. Interpreters were commissioned by charities for Deaf people, including the South West Wales Interpretation Agency at Swansea (which was taken over by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID)), the Wales Council for the Deaf, and the British Deaf Association.

The system operated by the charities was easily understood by their Deaf clients. One would contact the charity for an interpreter to attend an NHS appointment. The charity would discuss this with the health board concerned, agree payment, and inform the client that a named BSL interpreter would be present for the appointment. Although the system was not foolproof, it was Deaf-friendly, fairly bureaucracy-free, and easily understood by Deaf users. But then everything changed.

Welsh Interpreter and Translation Service

In 2009 a bureaucratic triarchy comprising Gwent Police, Cardiff Council, and the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board instigated an initiative to provide an interpreter service for foreign-born nationals who needed access to statutory services like the NHS and the courts. This well-intentioned initiative was designed to save public money and reduce bureaucracy.

It was titled the Welsh Interpreter and Translation Service (WITS) and was based in a Gwent Police station, managed by senior police officers. Until 2014 it was managed by a chief inspector of police and then, until 2016, by a police superintendent. Obviously, a low crime rate in Gwent meant that its police force had the spare time to effectively run a business.

However, those involved with WITS decided to include BSL interpreting for Deaf people within its provision. There was no consultation with the Deaf community about this seizure of Sign Language services. Gwent Police and WITS unilaterally and undemocratically took control.....

I'm in survey overload....

Another 'Survey' aimed at hearing parents of deaf children regarding how they 'choose' to have their child educated. We could save the Uni a lot of pointless effort, as even the NDCS has never gained a significant response to such a survey (Or indeed published any stats if they had).  The issue for areas like the NDCS is to support deaf children and their parents, they don't have a definitive policy for communication/language inclusions in deaf educational areas. Choosing such is outside their domain too.

The promoters of this survey are obviously wanting to know why parents are NOT opting for a BSL tuition.  We can only put this naivete into prospective by saying they haven't done research on how deaf educational approaches currently function.

Apart from a diminishing deaf school system and fewer deaf to fill them, there is a gross shortage of Teachers to the Deaf. Also as per the BSL GCSE teachers of BSL are NOT  qualified to teach the school curriculum, it is a separate qualification.   This would pose significant issues to those who insist such teachers should be deaf as well.   So it's 'Academic' (Sorry!), to question why parents choice A or B options.  In reality choice isn't a real option, A system whereby deaf children can be taught in BSL only doesn't exist, this issue was covered via the BSL GCSE thing, where all BSL areas involved know the tuition isn't there or the training of that tuition exists to make it viable. Least of all to include aspects of deaf 'culture' which hasn't an academic refence system to use, or teachers specifically trained to teach it.. 

ATR and others, have pointed this out day one, and only this week did the BDA (Who drive all this BSL output), admitted we were right, on their BSL SEE HEAR TV show, i.e. after 10 YEARS or bans, blocks and personal attacks.  For 10yrs they talked about it but never did their homework, or discussed practicalities of making it happen.  It's important to understand it is 90% emotive and 10% chat and not research, because the research didn't back what they proposed. ATR covered 5 research surveys the last 4 weeks, what you will find is 5% engagement at best, because nobody knows where the hearing parents are, not even the NDCS, or, how a BSL approach could work, it hasn't been tried, and parents are reluctant to have their children used as 'guinea pigs' for the advantage of BSL promotion. Online surveys are suspect as you never really can quantify who is responding.  You have to restrict response to your target area, it is easy to get around that online.

Consider, if a proportion of parents DID want their children taught via BSL.  You would propose a 'Tiered' system?  Whereby some children will be educated in BSL, (You cannot  force all parents to comply),  and others educated via what works best for them, (which is the current approach).  Do you suggest parents get overruled?  You cannot offer them choices where options to choose do not exist.  No doubt why current BSL campaigners  (The majority aren't grass roots, they are charities with  few if  any grass root membership),  are all lobbying politicians and NOT consulting parents, because they know they have no rights or authority to do that in law, so 'back door ' campaigning is way of circumventing parental choice and state mainstreaming too.  The BSL GCSE an example, but only aimed at teens and Hearing mostly.

What we see is an area who are desperate to ensure a BSL community continues, commendable in part, but we are talking about parents and their children's futures which are not any domain of deaf groups of any persuasion. We know fewer deaf are using BSL now.  The BDA stated it also. We would prefer is surveys (We get 30 a year online doing the same thing), published real data too, as currently      those who run surveys do not validate their numbers.  Asking 50 people and getting 15 responses e.g. is not sadly, going to produce the results you hope for.  I think the public are far more aware how these things operate by now.

Lies damned lies and Pipe dreams.

How the  sign user interprets own surveys.  I can but refer you to your own survey results.   As a 'social' tool sign has obvious uses and of course the choice is the users. where it fails to register is as an educational tool to access mainstream and advance deaf options. 'BSL' has next to no signs for terms compared with English, so that renders the grammar hit and miss too.  500,000 words  in the English dictionary, 2,500 in the BSL one.   A  1,000 added since 1970.    I can point you to more able deaf who have professional jobs, who have no signs for the work they do, and trying to invent their own, again based on English.  The BSL ABC by default is using English letters/words and terms.  Sign is the visual interpretation of it.

Based on colloquialisms, and formats people use together 'BSL' can become a language, it can be an advanced form or a very basic one, the only rule is a grouping uses it. If you have few signs, you have no real grammar and an impoverished language.  There is next to no signed academic resources, so it cannot be used to teach deaf on its own, so it is used to access a real language. BSL is more a 'pigeon' form of the host language, S.E. and SSE more appropriate as it is more a match, also no issue to deaf as it is a visual medium too. Given  only  point 2% of deaf have ANY historical, or genetic deaf background, you cannot apply this maxim to everyone or, 'infer' it.  It is dishonest.

I  concede it is a novelty but we are in different times to the 1950s and 1960s of the last millennium, huge advances in assisting the deaf to hear etc, fewer deaf schools and clubs, and as your survey identified fewer deaf too.  if we refer back to the 'British Association for the Deaf & Dumb' videos of the times, (The old BDA title), of the pre 1950s, then finger-spelling was the primary signing used, not 'conceptual signing' they claim  it is now, that suggests deaf are so aware, they  can fill in details of things they aren't aware of. 'Edited highlights' cover a multitude of awareness sins.

I am grateful you have admitted as I have stated for many years, the utter lies and distortions emanating from the BDA/RNID regarding who is deaf how many etc. I was somewhat puzzled you used 1970 statistics to bolster your 2024 survey point, and even European Statistics, it looked a little like desperation frankly.    I have used AI as well as own research, and little of it backs the BSL/Deaf or cultural argument. NOBODY has any idea who is what, or how they communicate, 32 times the responses I got were that the Data Protection Act will block any attempt to do that. UK charities refused to even validate or respond, claiming exemption, from what? admitting the truth?

I've spoken to my minister and told him this allows vested interests like charities/BSL classes and course operators to declare whatever statistic they want, because they KNOW you cannot check on them for that reason, you can get responses like 'YOU prove differently..' if you challenge..  This kills any sort of logical debate on the issue. The idea of a survey is to determine need basically, you don't use your survey for that, we can refer to official systems like the NHS/LA or even the DWP who clarify and support this need, some sort of bottom line has to be established, we can't all be whatever we think we are, it would be support/provision chaos.  Assessment is the way its done, we don't always know what is best for us, or, what best suits our abilities, regardless of current ridiculous claims. No magic communication bullets exist.  Other hearing loss areas believe alleviations are the way forward, e.g. Hearing aids, CI's, genetic intervention, even apps on your phone etc.

Obviously the db thing is already dumped as any guide to being deaf, because many who allude to being culturally so, aren't in clinical/profound terms.  Their figures suggest barely enough needy deaf to fill a classroom. What is 'deaf? or even Deaf?' apparently whatever you think it is, is really no basis to assessing how it is to be addressed, or managed.  Actually the DWP is the ONLY area that officially defines deaf need, or indeed how much of an issue it is. Whether we agree or not on their assumptions is for another time, as people will read into things what they want.  The census as you saw, (and quoted), reduced the 150K UK/BSL using deaf to 1/10th of that by own deaf admission, the BDA mounted a very hostile and personal  attack, when I quoted the same figures, even operated a total online ban, and I am still reading these outrageous claims are not only 'fact' but getting worse, but no validations again.  Think of  a number,  double it, who can deny it?   The D/d thing hearing haven't a clue about, so use  150K or even 10m, politicians swallow it because they have to, forgetting the sole source of the Stats are the same people lobbying them, the bigger the number etc.....   

At the root of it, is misinformation to promote BSL this way, and, to mostly to hearing people, again nobody has any idea if the Deaf themselves are fluent signers, you cannot ask or test them.  As an ex deaf club  treasurer I can tell you the level of sign capability was barely Lev 3 amidst the best of them.  The best sign users are obviously hearing people who HAVE to attain high levels to 5/6 etc.  Terps in  turn complain they spend many £1,000s to qualify, and subject to adjudgment based on regional sign use which they aren't taught, and deaf  resist a norm of the signing, regional sign versus the pressures to normalise BSL as a language.

Do I sign, yes, am I deaf? yes again, have I been involved in the community, erm obviously as a treasurer in a deaf club, they asked me, presumably because I had alternatives to BSL to communicate, it was a hindrance to them as they only used interpreters and terps, who only work the systems, not the social areas with hearing which would help deaf to manage the mainstream.  The state support for BSL goes no further than their own system access, there is no desire to support BSL to integrate on any social level, indeed it is stated Deaf signers would not go that route, the drive is to establish some sort or 'parallel' way of life.

The suggestion mainstream is going to adapt to them is never going to happen, deaf are stuck with terps until they expand their options, I acknowledge not every deaf person can do that, but most can.  It is not an 'attack' on BSL it is a statement of the reality.  The current approaches are designed to prevent the deaf integrating or being accepted as some sort of cultural protectionism, really?    It can only function in isolation and if deaf never attempt to be outgoing.  Language pursuit should be based on its access advantages, the sole advantage is to the deaf themselves, which is fine assuming they never work with or integrate with anyone hearing.  

Hence why we see clusters of these people in towns and cities, because that is the only way it can work, just be thankful you are NOT a sign user who doesn't have any access to this 'deaf world'.  Which is actually 56% of the whole. I.E. deaf sign users, this doesn't include deaf who don't rely on sign language, who outnumber signing deaf by many 100s to one, perhaps you could research how THEY succeed without sign or a culture? as indeed they had to by way of adapting to no signed access, or, they chose not to sign anyway to retain some form of independence.  It is why  Hard of Hearing resist sign use.  

One statistic you could look at is  that primarily text is the main form of communications deaf are using on phones/TV etc, NOT BSL, obviously, English and its grammar is not the issue you are making it out to be. You actually discounted any link that BSL and Inclusion are relative.   Of course it isn't if the deaf world is the only one you are part of.   There is such hostility from hard-core BSL users, completely unnecessary as the majority of deaf are the people who can show them a way of moving forward, because they HAD to.  I don't think deaf people want family or interpreter reliance all their lives, and personally I challenge the statement most do anyway, one stat from ASLI suggested 78% of all deaf didn't use them but family, family with no qualifications in BSL.

Campaigns to encourage deaf to utilise terps because of their neutrality, (especially in medical areas, because deaf were complaining hearing relatives were making decisions for them e.g.) were opposed by the BDA. I personally campaigned for a ban on family interpreting in the NHS and 999 for that reason.  I was attacked for denying deaf rights.  I think any 'awareness' you should start with your own area first....  The duality of BSL/Cultural campaigning makes your arguments weak and unsustainable, your responses aggressive and attacking.  I don't have to prove anything to you, what authority grants you this right? The law says you cannot ask if I am deaf, if I sign or if I am a member of this excusive BSL set up. I feel I have proved BSL isn't helpful to the deaf as it is currently mooted, but more a jobs for the boys gig for those that profit from them, of course they are determined the golden goose keeps laying for them, £6B a year isn't to be sniffed at......

HEARING AIDS TNG.

 

The Latest Hearing Aid Technology 2024

Predicting new developments in hearing aid technology for 2024

 

What will 2024 bring?

It is difficult to predict exactly what hearing aid technology will look like in 2024, as the field is constantly evolving and new technologies are being developed. However, we will likely see a continued trend toward the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), collaborative ecosystems, and other advanced technologies in hearing aids.

When people predict hearing aid technology advancements or how any industry is going to move forward it is no easy feat.  The rate at which digital hearing aid technology has advanced over the last few years has given rise to increased competition within the industry itself.  Inspiring consumers to want, need, and expect more from these devices. 

Although hearing aids still consist of four main parts - today's modern hearing aids give consumers far more than those of the past.  They have switched to, in some cases, complete automation and features that support hearing loss needs in all environments.  This article goes through the audiology progressions so far and what we could look forward to in 2024.

 

  2024 Hearing Aid Technology

Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration and Augmented Reality (AR) applications will continue

 

Artificial intelligence and biometric sensors will continue to impress

Anticipate further integration of AI in hearing aids, enhancing their adaptability to various listening environments. AI algorithms can dynamically adjust settings, analyse and adapt to the wearer's surroundings in real-time, automatically adjusting the volume and frequency of sound to optimise the listening experience.

This can be particularly helpful in noisy environments, where traditional hearing aids may struggle to distinguish between important sounds and background noise.  Even though artificial intelligence isn't anything new in hearing aids - it will continue to up its game for 2024 and beyond.

For instance, towards the back end of 2023, we saw the 2nd generation of Phonak's health and fitness tracking features, especially the heart rate sensors, in the Audeo Lumity Fit model.  This allows hearing aids to collect data on the wearer's physical activity, sleep, and other health metrics, which could be used to optimise the performance of the hearing aid.

We might find an increase in AR technology in hearing aids, providing wearers with augmented information about their surroundings. This could include visual indicators of sound sources, language translation, or real-time captions, enhancing communication in diverse situations.  We saw this first in Signia's Augmented Xperience range and this technology has shown even further developments in the IX.

 

Machine learning and powerful processing chips will continue progression

Continued progress in machine learning algorithms and more personalisation will enable hearing aids to learn from the wearer's preferences and behaviours. This technology could adapt to individual listening habits, automatically adjusting settings and improving overall user satisfaction.

More high-performance chips will no doubt continue to be the norm, which will make quicker and more efficient tailor-made amplification and connectivity.  Resulting in a higher level of personalisation for wearers.  

 

Hearing aid-assisted technology, features, remote care & apps will continue to rise

Hearing aid apps are software applications that can be used to control and customise the settings of a hearing aid, as well as to monitor and track the wearer's hearing health. 2024 may bring even more advanced and sophisticated hearing aid apps that offer a wider range of features and capabilities.

Such as more hearing aids with the ability to customise the volume and frequency settings of the hearing aid in real-time, or to switch between different listening profiles depending on the environment.  There will no doubt be more evolved hearing aid apps offering features such as speech recognition or language translation, which could be particularly useful for people with hearing loss who need additional communication support.

In terms of design, we will likely see a continued trend towards user-friendly, intuitive hearing aid apps that are easy to navigate. More hearing aid apps may offer features such as voice control, which could make it easier for wearers to control their hearing aids without the need for buttons or physical elements to manage.

 

What's new in hearing aid technology for 2024?

Bluetooth will continue to be a spotlight

 

Bluetooth hearing aid technology will continue to revolutionise

The legacy of Bluetooth hearing aid technology has been evolving for years and has revolutionised the way people with hearing loss experience everyday life.  In 2024, expect advancements in wireless connectivity, enabling seamless integration with a broader range of devices.

Enhanced compatibility with smartphones, smart TVs, and other IoT devices will allow users to have a more connected and interactive experience with their hearing aids.  We also predict there will be more In-Ear products offering low-consumption Bluetooth and integrated rechargeable technology.  Therefore, in terms of design, it is likely that we will see a continued trend toward smaller, more discreet hearing aids.