Audiology as a science, by itself I have no complaints about. But the manner in which it is practiced, as a business, is not well thought out. Audiologists as a group are not really prepared or able to understand or appreciate hearing aids in the real world, in real use. Academic scholarly research is no substitute for experience.
Hearing aids as an assistance to sensorineural loss are not so wonderful. The word is “over-rated.” I do not think normal hearing audiologists know what it takes to “commission” a hearing aid. The process of fitting a hearing aid is much more complicated than adjusting the sound levels for 7 bands or whatever. And commissioning should always include systematic testing and re-evaluation to confirm its operation. Do they enforce that? Hardly. Is it worth the thousands of dollars to get fitted for one?
I think they should require that audiologists wear the models they sell for a minimum of 60 days for at least 12 hours a day before they can legally or ethically recommend and sell any particular make and model. If they have not, they should be forbidden to recommend that product for sale.
The usual 14 or 30 day trial period is insufficient. I think the hearing aid seller may not even offer any device unless they increase the trial period to 60 days, and there should be strict regulations that permit the user to return it for a full refund. That someone would sell something this complex and pricy, that they have not tried and experienced themselves is just ridiculous. How can you trust someone who does not use his own product??????
http://ahearingloss.com/2009/08/01/deaf-audiologist/ from one man’s journey on this path, who DID become an audiologist. I admire this audiologists courage to solve his personal hearing problem by getting a cochlear implant.
NOTE; my research indicated that NY state may have a 45 day statutory trial period. Also, there is at least one manufacturer and a few hearing aid vendors that already follow my 60 day suggestion. KUDOS to those people! Thanks













