If a child has to go through auditory-verbal therapy sessions in Canada, how much does it cost the government per year? Can a child be inadmissible on these grounds? We have received medical furtherance for our children and I am speculating about the reasons right now.
My children are fitted with hearing aids. They do have residual hearing so they don't need cochlear implants (and we don't plan to get them implanted). They have been going to auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) sessions for 2-3 years now. Although they don't need to take AVT sessions now, we do take them there just to give them the best. They go to normal school and have normal progress reports.
BERA test results of one of them show "no recordable waveform" at 105 DB in one ear. She was fitted with hearing aid in that ear on trial basis and it worked (We are planning to submit PAT and aided test results to prove residual hearing). One of them had innocent murmurs (showing no other symptoms) from heart, which is not a problem as many children have them during growth (My research on internet says so...
).
We went to a child education psychologist a couple of years ago. He told us that our children are intelligent (it proved to be so seeing their arts and maths results) and we should focus on auditory-verbal therapy as much as we can and we did so. We won't have a problem if they decide to do their psychiatric evaluation or IQ test.
We have been completely truthful until now and told them that we do take them to AVT sessions. In Canada, they recommend AVT sessions for minimum two years even after cochlear implants. They might not agree with us and say that children need AVT sessions, which might cause financial burden on their health care program. So, how do I counter this argument? Especially when I know that it is not a need. That's my only point of concern.
My children are fitted with hearing aids. They do have residual hearing so they don't need cochlear implants (and we don't plan to get them implanted). They have been going to auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) sessions for 2-3 years now. Although they don't need to take AVT sessions now, we do take them there just to give them the best. They go to normal school and have normal progress reports.
BERA test results of one of them show "no recordable waveform" at 105 DB in one ear. She was fitted with hearing aid in that ear on trial basis and it worked (We are planning to submit PAT and aided test results to prove residual hearing). One of them had innocent murmurs (showing no other symptoms) from heart, which is not a problem as many children have them during growth (My research on internet says so...
).We went to a child education psychologist a couple of years ago. He told us that our children are intelligent (it proved to be so seeing their arts and maths results) and we should focus on auditory-verbal therapy as much as we can and we did so. We won't have a problem if they decide to do their psychiatric evaluation or IQ test.
We have been completely truthful until now and told them that we do take them to AVT sessions. In Canada, they recommend AVT sessions for minimum two years even after cochlear implants. They might not agree with us and say that children need AVT sessions, which might cause financial burden on their health care program. So, how do I counter this argument? Especially when I know that it is not a need. That's my only point of concern.