Disabled children
Discussion
Verboten said:
BlackVanDyke said:
Are you sure about that?
Firstly - it is the work - over millennia - of our species that enables people who need the support of others to survive, to do so. It's no more unnatural than is anything that humans do.
Secondly - what do you define as 'working'? Is my contribution to the world zero because I need additional support or resources that others don't to survive? If not me, how about Prof. Hawking? Would the world be better off if he'd been left to suffocate 30 years ago? Or Roosevelt? Beethoven?
I think my opinion was explained in my post. Nature decided five years ago I should die, without medical intervention I would've. I have since cost the taxpayer more than I've ever paid in my tax contributions and will continue to cost them until the day I die. I'm grateful don't get me wrong, but I can't naturally father kids now so I'm not going to have any as I have weak genes and it would be wrong of me to pass them on. If my medical problems get to the point where I find my quality of life affected substantially then I'll no longer be a burden to the taxpayer. Firstly - it is the work - over millennia - of our species that enables people who need the support of others to survive, to do so. It's no more unnatural than is anything that humans do.
Secondly - what do you define as 'working'? Is my contribution to the world zero because I need additional support or resources that others don't to survive? If not me, how about Prof. Hawking? Would the world be better off if he'd been left to suffocate 30 years ago? Or Roosevelt? Beethoven?
He wasn't expressing an opinion, was he?
I took as it he asked an obviously ridiculous question to highlight what he thought was a ridiculous situation, presumably to actually improve the situation for disabled children. Of course, out of context it he might as well have said they should be shot in front of their families on the One Show.
I took as it he asked an obviously ridiculous question to highlight what he thought was a ridiculous situation, presumably to actually improve the situation for disabled children. Of course, out of context it he might as well have said they should be shot in front of their families on the One Show.
Even an idiot has a right to say whatever he likes. Its up to us to either ignore or humiliate him. When Hitler was running Nazi Germany Ozwald Moslely was trying to get some traction here. In contrast to the Germans reaction to the Nazi salute our public laughed it them. That killed them off. If this man were to seriously try to promote extermination of the disabled. He would get no support. The reaction here is great and proof positive that humanity is alive and kicking. Its just a shame really that more nutters are not getting s
tcanned.
tcanned.Bill said:
It's probably less than putting the necessary resources into a non-specialist school.
Absolutely. Increased staff levels, specialist equipment, specialists such as physio, occupational and speech & language, special dietary requirements, courses for staff like manual handling, equipment operation. That's just the basics that spring to my mind.My sons education and development would be even worse were it not for the specialist school he goes to. Since being at school he has managed to learn a few 'words' and is showing increased signs of being aware of what is going on around him.
Is it expensive? Yes. Do I feel guilty? Hell yes.
He doesn't have a lot to be happy about - he can't sit up, he can't use his arms or legs, he can't talk and is fed through a tube. Changes in temperature or moving air cause him to have seizures. His outlook is poor and after his last hospital stay we were given a DNR. Despite all that he really is the happiest little man ever, always laughing and smiling and trying to make himself heard and he absolutely loves going to school.
So what is the alternative to save the burden of my sons costs? I can't believe putting him down would be a viable option - I have lost one son and I don't intend to give up on this one. Can I afford to foot the bill myself for everything he needs now and for the rest of his life? Not at what his school placement would actually cost and when his seat alone costs thousands and he needs two consultants for a couple of hours to set it up for him.
I'd give up my own life before I let them take his unnecessarily, but I don't think that is actually what this guy is suggesting. I hope!
Edited by SBDJ on Thursday 28th February 04:03
eric twinge said:
Well perhaps I have a vested interest, my 4 year old daughter is disabled and suffers from cerebral palsy, due to 20 minutes of oxygen starvation to the brain when being delivered.
She cannot talk, she cannot walk further than 20 metres without the danger of falling over, she cannot hold a pencil, she dribbles and makes an almighty mess when she is feeding herself (off sorts).
80% of the time she is happy and an inspiration to the family, the remaining 20% she is frustrated, shy and unhappy at not being able to do the things that others can, and being stared at by adults when she is walking with her key walker.
So according to this councillor she should have been terminated and is a drain to society.
She never asked for this to happen to her, it is not her fault.
People can say what they like, but as EricMc has said, it is worrying when someone who is in this position does not understand that what they said would cause offence.
Thanks for posting that. It came as a bit of a shock when reading the thread.She cannot talk, she cannot walk further than 20 metres without the danger of falling over, she cannot hold a pencil, she dribbles and makes an almighty mess when she is feeding herself (off sorts).
80% of the time she is happy and an inspiration to the family, the remaining 20% she is frustrated, shy and unhappy at not being able to do the things that others can, and being stared at by adults when she is walking with her key walker.
So according to this councillor she should have been terminated and is a drain to society.
She never asked for this to happen to her, it is not her fault.
People can say what they like, but as EricMc has said, it is worrying when someone who is in this position does not understand that what they said would cause offence.
Puts much into proportion.
All one can do is wish you and your family all the best. An empty gesture I suppose.
For me this argument is over.
mattnunn said:
SBDJ said:
Do I feel guilty? Hell yes.
You shouldn't. Really. I mean really, if the country needs to save money then there is other places to start before we start letting children die.Edited by SBDJ on Thursday 28th February 04:03
Despite what some would have you believe this is what society is about. I would live in a mud hut if the alternative was "putting down" children.I believe there are at least two topics here, one is the one that the chap in question raised, another is whether or not he should be allowed to say what he thinks.
If the answer to the latter is 'no', then I would like to ask who should make that decision, and at what point should the line be drawn? For instance, supposing he had simply complained about the cost, and not put forward the outrageous solution that he did, would just complaining about the cost have been OK?
If the answer to the latter is 'no', then I would like to ask who should make that decision, and at what point should the line be drawn? For instance, supposing he had simply complained about the cost, and not put forward the outrageous solution that he did, would just complaining about the cost have been OK?
Probably. But I suspect virtually no one would have taken notice.
Unfortunately the message that I think he was clumsily trying to get across that we should be looking to get more for our money in disabled childcare has been lost in the melee, when that seems a far more important issue than persecuting an individual for the literal interpretation of a single statement.
Unfortunately the message that I think he was clumsily trying to get across that we should be looking to get more for our money in disabled childcare has been lost in the melee, when that seems a far more important issue than persecuting an individual for the literal interpretation of a single statement.
People should be allowed to say almost anything that they like, including what this fkwit said. Only if speech causes an imminent risk of harm to others should it be restrained. In general, we should keep speech as free as possible. This guy is free to express his odious views, and the rest of us are free to say that this guy's views are odious. This does not, by the way, rule out having some sensible libel laws, but that raises a slightly different issue.
kwit said. Only if speech causes an imminent risk of harm to others should it be restrained. In general, we should keep speech as free as possible. This guy is free to express his odious views, and the rest of us are free to say that this guy's views are odious. This does not, by the way, rule out having some sensible libel laws, but that raises a slightly different issue. As much as the mentally and physically disalbed probably cost the tax payer, its a price that must be paid. These people didn't do this to themselves and on the whole would do anything to not have their condition.
He is placing negative opinions on the wrong people. I have no malice against any of those people, as uncomfy as it might be as someone who doesn't deal with the mentally handicapped having to deal with them on a random occasion i cant look back and feel anything nasty to them.
I do however think such a comment is more acceptable if it was about the able bodied who are lazy sloth-like scum.
He is placing negative opinions on the wrong people. I have no malice against any of those people, as uncomfy as it might be as someone who doesn't deal with the mentally handicapped having to deal with them on a random occasion i cant look back and feel anything nasty to them.
I do however think such a comment is more acceptable if it was about the able bodied who are lazy sloth-like scum.
0000 said:
I'll just leave these here.
Fine, he's backpedaling frantically, which doesn't really help because he's still a crass idiot. Collin Brewer said:
I did it to provoke a response and debate the issue of service costs provision.
Collin Brewer said:
I meant no offence. I would defend disabled children to the last.
There are ways to raise subjects and this is not one, not least because the subject gets drowned out in the furore.
aizvara said:
Hooli said:
To me it depends on how 'faulty' the kids are & if it's likely they'll ever improve. I can't see anything except cruelty in keeping someone alive when all they'll do is drool over themselves, st in a nappy & never have higher brain functions.
Doctors have been known to make mistakes along those lines, and in other cases have no idea at all how a brain damaged baby will turn out. There have also been cases reported where people presumed to have no higher brain function turn out to be far more aware. t in a nappy & never have higher brain functions. My girlfriend's niece suffered from near terminal oxygen starvation and was delivered in an emergency. She survived and thanks to her country of residence's health service and disability help (and awesome parents) she has been supported amazingly and is thriving. At birth they had little idea whether she'd be as you say. In the end, she may well end up little different from you or I, or she may never walk or talk properly. Even at nearly three years old it is hard to tell how much damage her developing brain will work around.
I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
mattnunn said:
Hooli said:
I can't argue with any of that. It'd be nice if doctors could get things right occasionally.
I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
It's in no ones best interests to die, ever. I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/94920...
Hooli said:
aizvara said:
Hooli said:
To me it depends on how 'faulty' the kids are & if it's likely they'll ever improve. I can't see anything except cruelty in keeping someone alive when all they'll do is drool over themselves, st in a nappy & never have higher brain functions.
Doctors have been known to make mistakes along those lines, and in other cases have no idea at all how a brain damaged baby will turn out. There have also been cases reported where people presumed to have no higher brain function turn out to be far more aware. t in a nappy & never have higher brain functions. My girlfriend's niece suffered from near terminal oxygen starvation and was delivered in an emergency. She survived and thanks to her country of residence's health service and disability help (and awesome parents) she has been supported amazingly and is thriving. At birth they had little idea whether she'd be as you say. In the end, she may well end up little different from you or I, or she may never walk or talk properly. Even at nearly three years old it is hard to tell how much damage her developing brain will work around.
I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
How can you 'improve' on someone who takes pride in working hard every day at school, melts into helpless giggles at the sound of a fart, is an insatiable adrenaline junkie who lives for the next karting trip and rewards a kind voice or touch with the biggest and best smile you've ever seen? Does it matter that that person can't walk or talk, or that their demonstrable intellectual skills (eg what can be assessed in testing) are signifcantly lower than those of the average typically developing two-year-old?
BliarOut said:
mattnunn said:
Hooli said:
I can't argue with any of that. It'd be nice if doctors could get things right occasionally.
I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
It's in no ones best interests to die, ever. I still feel it's cruel to keep some people alive just because we can, not because it's whats best for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/94920...
I don't think there's much wrong with my knowledge of the subject, and I disagree with Nicklinson, a lot. He was experiencing huge mental health problems which he refused assessment and treatment for, he spent his days incredibly isolated and without access to assistive tech which would have improved or resolved many of the things he cited as intolerable in his life. I regret his suicide, because there was so much that could have been better in his world and instead he left it believing the opposite.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff