Today marks 28 years since I received my cochlear implant.
On July 7, 1998, I underwent cochlear implant surgery that changed my life. Nearly three decades later, my internal implant continues to function — something I never take for granted. My first thoughts on this anniversary are of gratitude.
I remain deeply thankful to Dr. Paul Hammerschlag, whose skill and expertise made this journey possible. My surgery was successful, I experienced no complications, and the implant he placed 28 years ago is still working today. That is a remarkable achievement and a testament to both the technology and the medical team who made it possible.
This isn’t the first time I’ve reflected on my cochlear implant journey. Over the years, I’ve written about my 18th and 20th hearing anniversaries and explored the ethics of cochlear implants four years ago — at a time when Advanced Bionics was still saying it was working on an upgrade for the original Clarion (C1) users (implanted in the 1990s). Looking back at those articles now, I never imagined how relevant they would become to this moment.
This anniversary should have been a celebration.
Instead, it has become a reflection on trust, long-term stewardship, and what happens when a medical device continues working while the support around it suddenly begins to disappear, leaving the very people who depend on it feeling shocked, unprepared, and betrayed.
On May 28, while I was in the middle of my dream vacation in Sydney, Australia, I woke up to an unexpected email from Advanced Bionics (AB) about the original Clarion (C1) internal implant, saying that letters had been sent to recipients about the end of support for the broader C1 ecosystem. I immediately asked my family whether a letter had arrived, and they opened it and sent me photos. That was how I learned that support for the C1 ecosystem was ending.
The irony could not have been greater. I was halfway around the world — in Sydney, the home of Cochlear, the very company whose original N22 recipients, implanted years before me, continue to benefit from newer sound processors through long-term backward compatibility. Reading that letter in Sydney made me question again a decision I had made 28 years earlier. It was, quite literally, the irony of all ironies.
The news was a bombshell. My jaw dropped. I was beyond upset, and for a moment I didn’t know what to think. But it was not the beginning of my disappointment with Advanced Bionics. It was the final blow after 28 years of broken expectations, delays, and frustrating experiences.
Instead of simply enjoying one of the most memorable trips of my life, I found myself wondering how much longer I would be able to continue using the implant that had served me faithfully for nearly three decades. My dream vacation had suddenly become overshadowed by uncertainty about the future of the technology I rely on every day.
Why I Chose Advanced Bionics
When I was preparing for cochlear implant surgery in 1998, I had two realistic choices: Advanced Bionics’ new C1 implant or Cochlear’s N22.
For clarity, C1 is Advanced Bionics’ abbreviation for its original Clarion internal cochlear implant, which recipients received in the 1990s. It should not be confused with CI, the common abbreviation for cochlear implant.
Ironically, my original plan was to choose the N22. Cochlear already had a behind-the-ear (BTE) processor available, while Advanced Bionics only offered a body-worn processor.
I disliked the idea of wearing a body-worn processor. Advanced Bionics assured me that a behind-the-ear processor would be available “soon.” Believing that promise — and believing I was choosing the company that represented the future of cochlear implant technology — I changed my mind and chose the C1.
At the time, I believed I was choosing a company that would continue advancing alongside its earliest recipients. The name “Advanced Bionics” itself suggested innovation, progress, and a long-term commitment to improving the lives of the people who placed their trust in its technology.
Looking back today, I realize that the promise of “soon” was the first crack in that trust.
“Soon” became three years.
For three years, I put up with a bulky body-worn processor that I hated while N22 recipients were already using behind-the-ear processors. Eventually, the Platinum BTE became available. It was certainly an improvement over the body-worn processor, but it brought its own frustrations. I ended up using it for about ten years because there was no better option for C1 recipients.
Fifteen years ago, I finally upgraded to the Harmony BTE. It was a significant improvement and, for a while, restored my optimism. Once again, I believed Advanced Bionics was moving forward and that original C1 recipients would not be left behind as processor technology continued to advance.
Instead of receiving a newer BTE upgrade, however, C1 recipients were later offered the Chorus in 2019 — another body-worn processor. For me, after choosing Advanced Bionics in 1998 partly because I had been promised a BTE “soon” and then spending three years putting up with a body-worn processor I hated, this felt less like progress and more like going backward. Many C1 recipients, myself included, chose not to upgrade to Chorus and continued using Harmony in the hope that Advanced Bionics would eventually develop a newer BTE upgrade.
Unfortunately, that optimism gradually faded.
Over the years, the explanations became painfully familiar:
- Battery limitations.
- Technical challenges.
- Please wait.
- We can’t share anything yet.
The message was always that something was being explored and that we simply needed to be patient.
In 2022, I again spoke with managers at Advanced Bionics about the long-overdue BTE upgrade C1 recipients had been waiting for. Then, about three years ago, communication with me stopped.
Then came the bombshell news in May. Only afterward did I learn from fellow C1 recipients that some had already been struggling for years to obtain replacement parts, with components backordered or unavailable long before the official announcement.
Looking back now, I realize that the May announcement was not the beginning of my anger and loss of trust.
It was the culmination of what nearly three decades of waiting had already been telling me.
Why Backward Compatibility Matters
One point I want to make very clear is that I never expected Advanced Bionics to support the C1 forever. Technology evolves, and medical devices eventually reach the end of their life cycle. I understand that.
What I did expect was that a company called “Advanced” Bionics would continue advancing alongside the recipients who placed their trust in its earliest technology.
Instead, many C1 recipients experienced relatively few processor upgrades, years of uncertainty, and very limited backward compatibility compared with recipients of other cochlear implant manufacturers.
That experience becomes even more difficult to understand when viewed alongside the history of the other major cochlear implant companies.
For example, Cochlear’s original N22 implant is significantly older than my C1, yet many N22 recipients continue benefiting from newer sound processors through long-term backward compatibility. One remarkable example is Graham Carrick, who received his implant in 1982 and has continued using the same internal implant while benefiting from multiple generations of sound processors over more than four decades. A friend of mine recently celebrated her 39th anniversary with an N22 implant and still uses a modern behind-the-ear processor compatible with her decades-old internal implant.
MED-EL has likewise demonstrated a long-term commitment to supporting recipients with older implant generations through continued processor compatibility.
I recognize that every manufacturer faces different engineering, regulatory, and business challenges, and I do not believe any cochlear implant manufacturer is perfect. Nor am I suggesting that Cochlear or MED-EL are better than Advanced Bionics in every respect. However, when it comes to long-term legacy support and backward compatibility, they have demonstrated that a different — and, in my view, better — approach is possible.
That naturally raises two difficult questions.
My implant is younger than many of theirs, so why did Advanced Bionics’ original C1 recipients reach the end of the road so much sooner?
And after nearly 28 years, I find myself asking another question:
What exactly was “Advanced” about my long-term experience?
For much of my journey, being an Advanced Bionics recipient meant waiting:
- Waiting three years for the promised behind-the-ear processor.
- Waiting years for the next meaningful upgrade.
- Waiting through repeated explanations about battery limitations.
- Waiting because something was supposedly being explored.
- Waiting because “we can’t share anything yet.”
Then, after years of waiting, support suddenly ended without meaningful advance notice.
When Medical Implants Outlive Their Support Systems
The announcement was especially upsetting to me because my implant itself has not failed.
The internal device implanted in 1998 continues to work.
The problem isn’t the implant.
The problem is the growing lack of access to the external components that keep it usable.
Like many implantable medical devices, cochlear implants depend on an ecosystem of processors, batteries, chargers, cables, and other accessories. Even when the implanted device continues functioning perfectly, it becomes increasingly difficult — or eventually impossible — to use if those external components are no longer available.
This highlights an important distinction: When support ends for a phone or computer, you can usually buy a newer model.
When support ends for an implanted medical device ecosystem, the consequences can be far more complex. The internal implant may still work, but the external equipment needed to use it may no longer be supported. For C1 recipients who want access to newer technology, the path now involves another surgery to replace the internal implant — along with anesthesia, insurance approvals, recovery time, and medical risks.
Unlike consumer technology, moving forward with an implanted medical device is not simply a matter of buying a newer model.
This issue extends far beyond cochlear implants, which is why I recently wrote When Medical Implants Outlive Their Support Systems. I believe it deserves broader discussion because it affects not only cochlear implant recipients, but also the future of many implantable medical technologies. What happens when an implanted device continues to work for decades, but the external ecosystem needed to use it disappears?
Why Advance Notice Matters
What upset me most was not simply that support was ending.
It was how the transition was handled.
The letter from AB gave recipients barely a month’s notice that service and support for the C1-compatible Harmony and Chorus sound processors would end after June 2026. By the time recipients learned of the decision, many were already struggling to locate essential replacement parts.
Had we been informed earlier that support was approaching its end, many of us could have purchased backup batteries, chargers, and other components while they were still available.
Instead, recipients were left competing for a rapidly disappearing supply of essential equipment.
Since receiving the letter, I have worked through every channel available to me. I contacted my cochlear implant center, the Cochlear Implant Awareness Foundation (CIAF), and the C1 CareConnect support team at AB.
Despite those efforts, I have still been unable to obtain additional Harmony batteries. I managed to secure a backup processor and charger, but without additional batteries they are of limited use. It’s like owning several cars but having no gas to drive them.
Those conversations left me with no indication that AB is currently pursuing any practical solutions to preserve the existing C1 ecosystem.
While I appreciate the time people took to speak with me, my central concern remains unresolved.
To make matters worse, AB offers no disposable battery option for the C1-compatible Harmony processor, while both Cochlear and MED-EL provide disposable battery options for many of their BTE processor models.
This issue is about much more than batteries or backup parts. It is about preserving a system that still works.
Preserving What Still Works
One point became particularly frustrating throughout these discussions.
My immediate priority is not revision surgery. My goal is to preserve a system that continues to work by maintaining access to batteries, chargers, and other essential components.
My cochlear implant team understood and respected that preference.
What frustrated me most was that conversations with the C1 CareConnect support team at AB seemed to be gradually steered toward revision surgery instead of focusing on helping recipients preserve equipment that still functions.
That does not mean I will never consider revision surgery.
Later this month, I will meet with a new cochlear implant surgeon because Dr. Paul Hammerschlag has since retired. My appointment is simply an opportunity to better understand what options may exist in the future, including whether my right ear could eventually be reimplanted and whether my left ear might someday receive an implant as well.
Those conversations are exploratory. They are not a decision.
My priority today remains preserving the implant system that has served me well for the past 28 years.
And I am far from alone. I was told that approximately 4,000 people are affected by this decision.
That may sound like a small number in business terms, but these are not just numbers. These are people who rely on their systems in different ways — to access sound, support communication, navigate daily life, work, and participate in society.
Many of us were among the first generation of C1 recipients. We lived through the earliest years of this technology, and our experiences helped shape what worked, what didn’t, and what future generations of cochlear implant technology could become.
In many ways, today’s technology was built on the experiences of those early recipients.
Transparency Is More Than a Slogan
This issue goes far beyond batteries, chargers, or backup parts.
It is about transparency, accountability, and trust.
In Advanced Bionics’ 2025 Reliability Report, President Alistair Simpson stated:
“TRANSPARENCY IS THE FOUNDATION OF TRUST.”
The report goes on to reaffirm the company’s commitment to quality, integrity, and its “valued patients.”
Those words resonated with me.
Unfortunately, my experience over the past month — and, more broadly, over the past 28 years — has made it difficult to reconcile those statements with what many long-term C1 recipients have experienced.
For me, trust did not erode simply because support suddenly ended without meaningful advance warning.
No technology lasts forever.
My trust had already begun to erode shortly after my implantation, when the promise that a BTE processor would be available “soon” turned into a three-year wait. That erosion continued through years of waiting for meaningful upgrades, repeated explanations about battery limitations, assurances that something was being explored but could not yet be shared, and finally the abrupt end of support.
The May announcement was not the beginning of that erosion.
It was the final blow.
Transparency is measured not only by publishing reliability reports. It is also measured by how companies communicate difficult decisions — especially decisions that affect people who have trusted their technology for decades.
Looking Ahead
Since receiving the May letter, I have exhausted every avenue available to me. I have spoken with my cochlear implant center, CIAF, and the C1 CareConnect support team at AB. I have searched for replacement parts and reached out to others in the cochlear implant community.
Despite those efforts, my primary concerns remain unresolved.
I still hope Advanced Bionics’ executive leadership will engage directly with long-term C1 recipients through a Zoom town hall or another open forum. We deserve the opportunity to hear directly from leadership, ask questions, better understand how these decisions were made, and discuss whether any practical solutions remain for preserving our current systems.
Without pioneering recipients who chose the original C1, Advanced Bionics would not be the company it is today. That is one reason it was especially upsetting to see the C1 effectively disappear from the company’s own legacy page, as though our generation of recipients had become a forgotten chapter rather than an important part of its history.
I recognize that every cochlear implant manufacturer faces different technological, engineering, regulatory, and business realities.
At the same time, I cannot help but notice that Cochlear and MED-EL have continued supporting many people with even older implants through long-term processor compatibility and legacy support.
That contrast inevitably raises the question of whether Advanced Bionics could have taken a different approach to long-term support for its pioneering C1 recipients — through stronger backward compatibility, better preservation of existing equipment, and, if support eventually had to end, a far more responsible transition.
That question deserves thoughtful discussion.
It deserves transparency.
And it deserves direct engagement between executive leadership and the people whose lives have been shaped by these decisions.
Twenty-eight years ago, Dr. Paul Hammerschlag implanted technology that has served me remarkably well.
The surgery succeeded.
The implant succeeded.
My gratitude to Dr. Hammerschlag has never changed.
What has changed is my confidence in the company behind that technology. Over the years, that confidence steadily eroded as I watched Advanced Bionics fall short of the level of long-term commitment I have seen other cochlear implant manufacturers demonstrate toward recipients with older implants.
As I reflect on this bittersweet anniversary, I find myself thinking about two very different legacies:
- One is the extraordinary achievement of medical engineering that has allowed a single implanted device to continue functioning for nearly three decades.
- The other is the responsibility companies have to support the people who place their trust in life-changing medical technology — not only on the day of implantation, but throughout the many years that follow.
I sincerely hope today’s and future cochlear implant recipients never find themselves celebrating a milestone like this while simultaneously wondering how much longer they will be able to use a perfectly functioning implant because the external components it depends on are no longer available.
