PDA

View Full Version : Human rights, how far do you go?


mickjoebill
3rd Oct 2016, 04:00
Australian couple who have down syndrome are planning to have four children, but their parents want to stop them...

Couple with Down syndrome fights for parenting dream - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-03/down-syndrome-couple-fights-for-right-to-have-children/7843590)

One specialist state that it is "highly likely" another says their is a 50/50 chance that the couples children will be born with DS.

Surely there are more abhorrent folk in the community that we need to castrate?


Mickjoebill

parabellum
3rd Oct 2016, 05:08
Can we include women of child bearing age who smoke, drink, are covered in very expensive tattoos, don't seek employment and live on taxpayer funded benefits? (neuter rather than castrate!).

Pontius Navigator
3rd Oct 2016, 09:19
Sadly that was the norm in some countries in Europe 75 years ago.

bnt
3rd Oct 2016, 09:38
Coincidentally - or is it? - BBC2 is showing a documentary (5 Oct) made by actress Sally Phillps, whose son Olly (12) has DS. She's adamantly against any kind of pre-natal screening, and says (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/01/do-we-really-want-a-world-without-downs-syndrome-ds-prenatal-test) her experiences as a mother have been mostly positive. The Guardian has also published a response (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/01/downs-syndrome-screening-jane--fisher-expert-criticises-sally-phillips-bbc-documentary) from an antenatal specialist that calls the film "not at all helpful" to parents-to-be.

Personally, the way the world is going, I'm against having children in the best of circumstances, and those are far from the best of circumstances. I don't know if I would want to be born with a condition (let's call it that) which, while not necessarily making me unhappy, would make everything about living in this f-ed-up world that much more difficult.

radeng
3rd Oct 2016, 09:55
All the males in our family as far back as we can trace developed Type 2 diabetes. The specialist told me that being overweight, I got it a bit earlier, but I would have certainly got it by the age of 65 anyway, no matter what. So we chose not to have kids. Saved a lot of money!

Plus if there were fewer people, there would be less worry about global warming, using up natural resources and running out of food......

ORAC
3rd Oct 2016, 09:58
PN, look across the Pond as well.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

alwayzinit
3rd Oct 2016, 09:59
It is a hugely emotive subject and therefore no answer will satisfy everyone.

Much is made by Human Rights campaigners about an individuals' rights to have a child etc, as if a child is just some kind of possession.

The idea that a prospective parent can knowingly and willingly decide to condemn their child to a life defining disability, whilst at the same time prolonging the survival of a negative gene, is beyond me.

Wanting to be a parent is one thing, demanding to be one is quite another.
There are thousands of children who are in care and available for adoption.

The results of religions' influence on marriage choices have caused no end of avoidable birth defects.

As a species Homo Sapiens is the only one to actively promote the negative dilution of it's gene pool, mostly in the name of Human Rights.

As the saying goes, The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Oct 2016, 10:19
PN, look across the Pond as well....

Also Sweden in the not too distant past, which may come as a surprise to some who only think of the country as a left-leaning liberal democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

Mrs TTN was a midwife and for some years worked in a special care baby unit, dealing with prem babies and others with serious birth defects. In many cases they often worried that in fighting to save some severely handicapped baby's life they were only condemning it (and its parents) to a life of pain. On one occasion an overseas midwife of South American origin shocked the others by remarking that where she came from the baby they were nursing would have been quietly taken away and smothered. Shocked, but made them think about what they were doing.

onetrack
3rd Oct 2016, 10:35
Seem to recall that on all the old census forms, there was a section for the residents to list the number of village idiots. Could be quite a sizeable list if they brought the question back today. :)

As regards the Downs Syndrome couple, it's a difficult call. I wonder if they truly realise the enormity of the responsibilities related to bringing a child into the world and having to possibly care for it for its lifetime? - particularly if it is born with some form of disability?

This couple need some intensive counselling, that ensures they are capable of understanding what they plan to do.

VP959
3rd Oct 2016, 12:04
The problem is that we are deliberately advocating a policy of eugenics as a consequence of advances in medical treatment, and so are now faced with having to make decisions that nature would have made for us, by natural selection, in the past.

40 or 50 years ago it would have been unusual for a person with Down's Syndrome to live to child-bearing age. Natural selection ensured that the faulty gene that causes the syndrome couldn't become more prevalent in the general population

Nowadays we expect people with Down's Syndrome to live fairly independent lives, with a life expectancy that's been extended, by medical intervention, to at least middle age.

We may not have intended to use eugenics in this way, but that is inadvertently what we have done. By doing so, we have created a far worse eugenics question, as typified by the dilemma described in the individual post.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits all answer, as to whether we should intervene again in these people's lives. Sometimes I think it is desirable to intervene; some friends of my mother have a daughter with severe learning difficulties and when she reached puberty she had no understanding of any need for self-control, and sought out as many sexual partners as she could. They took the decision that she lacked the mental capacity to understand things like the risk of pregnancy, so initially put her on long-term contraception, and then made the decision when she was in her late 20's, that she should be sterilised. I can understand why they made the latter decision, for practical reasons associated with her welfare when they were no longer able to look after her, but morally I think it was wrong.

I'm on the fence when it comes to screening embryos for defects, but on balance I'm inclined to think it's the lesser of two evils. The danger is that misusing such procedures risks carrying out a deliberate policy of eugenics, rather than the accidental policy of eugenics we've created by advances in medical treatment.

I've worked with a young adult with Down's. She was easily capable of doing routine work with able people, in fact she was better than them at a lot of work. She was great fun, too, and universally liked for who she was, and I don't think anyone really thought of her as having a disability once they'd worked with her for a while. It seems wrong to me to deny someone like that the opportunity to have a child, but we do have to face the hard facts.

The chances of her living long enough to see a child through to adulthood probably weren't good, plus I can see there being significant problems with a non-Down's Syndrome child being raised by Down's Syndrome parents, so it seems likely that a great deal of support would be needed, probably 24/7, for life. If we, as a society, are OK with investing in that support, then that's fine, but how do we prioritise this sort of support? Is it right to deliberately create more people that need society's help to live?

Metro man
3rd Oct 2016, 12:15
Who's paying for all this ? I'd guess they expect the Aussie taxpayer to cough up. Ordinary hardworking people shouldn't be expected to finance this sort of nonsense. Unemployment handouts and medical cost will run into the millions.

So me people just shouldn't reproduce. If you can't feet them, don't breed them.

lomapaseo
3rd Oct 2016, 12:25
What would mother nature do?

The laws of nature should be considered as primary.

so the first thing to do is to strand the parents in the woods and see what happens

VP959
3rd Oct 2016, 12:25
Who's paying for all this ?

There lies the rub.

In the case of the young lady with Down's I knew from work years ago, I know that she was receiving far more in terms of the cost of her care than she was ever going to be able to earn, and had already cost the rest of us many tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of pounds in care costs from birth to the age she then was (early 20's)..

Society has made the decision to provide all the possible treatments that are available to allow children with Down's Syndrome to survive far, far, longer than they would without such medical intervention. The question is really how far are we prepared to extend that policy? Are we prepared to extend it to cover lifetime support of a couple with Down's Syndrome that go on to have children with Down's Syndrome, and then support those children through their lifetime, and their children's children?

It's harsh, but I think we do need to look at the hard economics and decide what we will and will not fund from our dwindling health and social care funds.

Gertrude the Wombat
3rd Oct 2016, 12:29
Society has made the decision to provide all the possible treatments that are available to allow children with Down's Syndrome to survive far, far, longer than they would without such medical intervention.
Just as we do for middle aged men with heart disease.

Metro man
3rd Oct 2016, 12:32
Starting to be done for smokers who may be denied an operation because of their habit. Why waste resources on someone who is slowly killing themselves anyway.

Peter-RB
3rd Oct 2016, 15:28
I am older than my wife, so when we started to plan a family that question came up, my wife is far more sensible that I am due to her being a Nurse, but I looked at this question from the prospect of me dying early leaving a child who may be affected like that, for he/she would then be a huge burden on the remaining family member parent...so we took early pregnancy tests to give us some indication....but the prospects/results are dreadful to contemplate.

VP959
3rd Oct 2016, 15:40
Just as we do for middle aged men with heart disease.
The difference is that middle aged men with heart disease are unlikely to create a long-lasting legacy for many generations to come, one that would increase in its impact on society more with every passing generation, as more and more children with Down's Syndrome were born.

Taken to an ultimate conclusion, we would end up with a society that couldn't generate enough revenue to cover the costs of looking after the less able, because the less able would outnumber the able.

KenV
3rd Oct 2016, 16:42
Everyone so far seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room. How would you propose preventing this couple from producing a child? Require every person to get a license prior to producing a child? If so, how would you propose enforcing this requirement? How about forcibly sterilizing individuals that the state deems "unfit" to have children? If so, who gets to decide who is "unfit"?

Maybe the real problem is not controlling procreation. Maybe the real problem is the socialist practice of providing unlimited state care of individuals.

DirtyProp
3rd Oct 2016, 17:08
Wanting to be a parent is one thing, demanding to be one is quite another.

Completely agree.
Unfortunately we live in an entitlement society: I want it, hence I have the right to have it.

VP959
3rd Oct 2016, 17:31
Simple economics, together with advances in medical treatment that we've already experienced, shows that it is simply not possible to meet the ideal of providing unlimited state care for every individual. Back at the dawn of socialism, where medical treatment was rudimentary and the number of those in poor social conditions was relatively small, meant that such an ideal seemed realistically achievable.

The hard facts are that such a model is not sustainable. If we intervene in natural selection, to the degree where those requiring care outnumber those able to fund it, then we are doomed as a society.

There has to be a compromise, where we accept some dilution of the extreme view of "human rights" we seem to have adopted, and temper the desire for a fair and equable society with a modicum of restrictions. Those restrictions will have to, however unpalatable it may seem, include limiting the "right to procreate".

I've always held the view that no one ever has the "right to procreate", rather they earn that right by virtue of working to achieve sufficient income to pay for it. My views are coloured by the experience of my youth, where it was relatively commonplace for young girls who were going through the usual teenage upsets with their parents, to deliberately get pregnant so they had the "right" to be housed by the local authority. I saw this happen several times with girls in my year at school, including the sister of a good friend who was quite open about "hating her parents" and so deliberately getting pregnant so the council had to give her a flat.

I always wondered about those poor children who weren't really wanted, they were just a way for their selfish mothers to satisfy their need to leave home, without having to earn an income to do so.

As it happens I don't have children, for the simple reason that I suspected that I might carry genes for a life-limiting condition (and now know that I do carry those genes). Having watched my father an aunt and two cousins suffer, I deliberately made the decision to remain childless. I've regretted it many, many, times, wondering if advancements in medicine would render my decision flawed. So far it hasn't, and as I'm now in my sixties I'm gradually coming to terms with having made the right decision, for me. No one should under-estimate the impact this has on a person, though, in some ways the easy course of action would have been to have children and not care about the consequences.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Oct 2016, 17:36
Just as we do for middle aged men with heart disease.

You are somewhat out of date if you think that heart disease is primarily a male problem

Women and Heart Disease Statistics and Facts (http://www.healthline.com/health/heart-disease/women-statistics-facts)

Krystal n chips
3rd Oct 2016, 18:20
" Taken to an ultimate conclusion, we would end up with a society that couldn't generate enough revenue to cover the costs of looking after the less able, because the less able would outnumber the able.

Now I understand why you took exception to my views on your "PC" stance.

To simply try to equate the status of those with an impairment to economics is callous to say the least. True, there are some poor souls whose quality of life is, and always will be, abysmal in comparison to those of us fortunate, and I emphasise fortunate, to enjoy good health and no impairments.

However, as has been alluded to, developments in medical science have allowed many to live a far more active and prolonged life than previously.

That can only be viewed as a positive benefit to a developing and caring society, one which does not seek to discriminate due to a perception that only healthy people should be permitted to occupy this society.


" Everyone so far seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room. How would you propose preventing this couple from producing a child? Require every person to get a license prior to producing a child? If so, how would you propose enforcing this requirement? How about forcibly sterilizing individuals that the state deems "unfit" to have children? If so, who gets to decide who is "unfit"?

Maybe the real problem is not controlling procreation. Maybe the real problem is the socialist practice of providing unlimited state care of individuals" .


I hate to shatter your right wing illusions about the state / socialist practices, but you couldn't be more wrong.

My mother has been ill for some considerable time and has now been diagnosed with Stage three dementia. She is currently in an NHS hospital receiving care and treatment. She will be 94 on Wednesday. She worked all her life.

Because she is physically "able",( and I use this term very reservedly in that she can eat without assistance and perform rudimentary ablutions ) but is far from mentally, the NHS are requesting her family, now take responsibility for her by locating her to a care home with special care for dementia sufferers.

The care home sector in the UK is one of the most profit orientated there is.

I visited her on Saturday, a 330 mile round trip, and she did actually recognise me. Thereafter, she became incoherent.

I am far from alone in this respect, there are many others with equally, if not more, profound conditions, but I do object, strongly, to the exploitation of circumstances for the care of the elderly in the UK.

Gertrude the Wombat
3rd Oct 2016, 19:54
The difference is that middle aged men with heart disease are unlikely to create a long-lasting legacy for many generations to come
I suspect you are wrong. Some heart disease is, surely, genetic, and some middle aged men father children.

G-CPTN
3rd Oct 2016, 20:09
I am older than my wife, so when we started to plan a family that question came up, my wife is far more sensible that I am due to her being a Nurse, but I looked at this question from the prospect of me dying early leaving a child who may be affected like that, for he/she would then be a huge burden on the remaining family member parent...so we took early pregnancy tests to give us some indication....but the prospects/results are dreadful to contemplate.
A near neighbour had a DS child.
Although the child attended a 'special school', her behaviour within the home lead to a divorce (husband couldn't cope and he 'left').
This lead to me deciding that, in the event of my wife giving birth to a DS child (there were no reliable tests available in the 1970s) I would have favoured 'adoption' (strictly, committing the child to a care home where there would be specialised care from people experienced in such matters).
I don't think that my opinion has altered (sadly).

Nearby our village is an establishment (that was Mencap) that operates as an educational facility for DS (and other special educational needs) young adults who cultivate garden produce and operate a restaurant in the nearby town (as well as selling their produce - including cakes - on market days).

Learners are supported to access person-centred learning programmes incorporating vocational learning, practical life skills development and therapeutic support.

I regularly encounter these happy young people (with their carer) in the village or on local buses. They seem to be remarkably well integrated with society.

radeng
3rd Oct 2016, 23:19
Metro Man,

it's more than likely that the long term smoker or heavy drinker has paid much more in duty over the years than his long term health care will cost. So he/she has very likely more than paid for it already.....

Another complication is that smokers and drinkers have not only probably more than paid for their care but will not be drawing a pension for as long, so society as whole has made a profit from their bad habits.....so refusing health care is a bit self defeating in the long run.

I stopped smoking 40 years ago......

VP959
4th Oct 2016, 08:38
I suspect you are wrong. Some heart disease is, surely, genetic, and some middle aged men father children.
I don't have any easy way of checking, but my doctor has repeatedly told me that just because both my grandfathers died early from heart disease (one aged 60, one aged 64) doesn't make me any more at risk from dying from it. There certainly are congenital heart conditions, but these seem to be only a small percentage of the overall causes of death from heart disease. Some (like me) and born with a propensity to have high blood pressure (what the doctor calls "essential hypertension). It's not life-limiting if treated, though, and I've been taking (very cheap - as in around 6 a month actual cost of the tablets) blood pressure medication since I was 34 years old.

My understanding is that the vast majority of heart disease that causes early death is related to diet and smoking, rather than anything else, together with people not seeing their doctor early enough to get a diagnosis that could save their life.

The latter point is, perhaps, key. I consider myself fortunate in that my high blood pressure was picked up on an annual aeromed, so I received treatment probably a decade or two earlier than most would. The probability is that this may well result in my life being extended for some years. Back in the 80's when my high BP was picked up it was rare for younger people (especially men, I think) to go and see a doctor unless they were really ill. It was my good fortune in having to have an annual medical that may well have made a life-changing difference.

Dont Hang Up
4th Oct 2016, 10:55
Just to be clear. Downs Syndrome is not caused by an inherited gene defect. It is a chromosome copying error and any parents even with the "healthiest" genes can have a Downs child. It is effectively random, but with an increasing probability with increasing age of the mother.

Of course if one or both of the parents is Downs then the situation is completely different.

VP959
4th Oct 2016, 11:10
Just to be clear. Downs Syndrome is not caused by an inherited gene defect. It is a chromosome copying error and any parents even with the "healthiest" genes can have a Downs child. It is effectively random, but with an increasing probability with increasing age of the mother.

Of course if one or both of the parents is Downs then the situation is completely different.

I understand that, but in this instance (and in the more general debate that's followed) the assumption has been that the parents would be more at risk of transmitting the faulty gene to their children. In the case of Down's Syndrome, with one, or both, parents already having the faulty gene (due to the chromosome copying error) then the risk of them passing that faulty gene to their offspring must be fairly high, I would have thought. I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware there is no natural ability for the human body to correct a faulty chromosome.

mickjoebill
4th Oct 2016, 12:23
Down Syndrome Australia - What is Down syndrome? (http://www.downsyndrome.org.au/what_is_down_syndrome.html)

A cousin has DS, she is 60 years of age and mostly unresponsive. Her mother became blind and deaf in the last decade of her life and recently died aged 101....

I don't think we have a clue sometimes...we could be prolonging hell on earth keeping brain dead folk alive at $200 a day and yet less than a days travel away kids are dying through poor sanitation.

Down or Down's?

Mickjoebill

DeltaV
4th Oct 2016, 12:52
Can we include women of child bearing age who smoke, drink, are covered in very expensive tattoos, don't seek employment and live on taxpayer funded benefits? (neuter rather than castrate!).
Were you to slightly modify your question thus "Can we include women of child bearing age who smoke or drink, or are covered in very expensive tattoos, or don't seek employment or live on taxpayer funded benefits?" that would bring into frame some 'interesting' people. ;)

Brian Abraham
5th Oct 2016, 03:29
Saw an interview with the lad and his father last night. Seems they have their heads screwed on, and marriage is only in the consideration phase at the moment, and may not happen for some years, if indeed they decide to go ahead. Given the high rates of infertility of those with DS, both male and female, they would probably need some sort of medical assistance to achieve a viable pregnancy (IVF).

Martin the Martian
5th Oct 2016, 14:02
I don't have any easy way of checking, but my doctor has repeatedly told me that just because both my grandfathers died early from heart disease (one aged 60, one aged 64) doesn't make me any more at risk from dying from it. There certainly are congenital heart conditions, but these seem to be only a small percentage of the overall causes of death from heart disease. Some (like me) and born with a propensity to have high blood pressure (what the doctor calls "essential hypertension). It's not life-limiting if treated, though, and I've been taking (very cheap - as in around 6 a month actual cost of the tablets) blood pressure medication since I was 34 years old.

My understanding is that the vast majority of heart disease that causes early death is related to diet and smoking, rather than anything else, together with people not seeing their doctor early enough to get a diagnosis that could save their life.

Not at more risk from dying from it certainly, but suffering from it is a different matter. When, many years ago, I was a student nurse I had the genetic element described to me as like trying to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

As an example, I once looked after a young man in his late twenties, a very fit, sporty type who didn't smoke, with minimal alcohol intake and who was a copper. He was rushed in with severe chest pains that came out of the blue and it was discovered that his arteries were akin to those of somebody who had smoked 40-a-day for a couple of decades. Heart disease was rampant in his family. Thankfully one lengthy session in the cath lab and the insertion of several stents and he was ready to go again, albeit with medication and regular check-ups.

However, you are right on the lifestyle factors, which is like running around on a golf course and hoping that you will not get struck by a golf ball. Sooner or later, you will.

Pace
5th Oct 2016, 14:58
Lifestyle factor )) I was in one of those drive through Zoos and me and my Partner were entertained by a family of Monkeys, Husband Wife and Little Baby who decided to jump onto the bonnet I presume to enjoy the heat.

They were so like us with the kid shooting all over the place and at one point being scolded by the Father.

But it got me thinking of our lifestyles and expectations. These creatures did not have to get up, put on clean clothes, Get into a car to sit in traffic jams fuming for hours.
They did not have to go to work, be expected to meet targets. They did not have to pay bills, fill in forms,arrange the family holidays or fit in with functions and dinners we don't really want to attend

They don't even make their beds in the morning or go bonkers because they have run out of shaving cream :ok:

But then I suppose nature would weed out the less than perfect

KNC I experienced something similar with my dad a highly respected man in his life who suffered dementia caused by falling on his head and a severe bleed unnoticed till too late. He survived for some time and ended up in a home. Sad to go there and see someone who looked straight through you, not the man I knew.
The worst was he was always highly respected locally and to see care attendants mocking him?? I would rather someone put a bullet through my head than end up like that with no quality of life.
We do not always do the best for people but maybe for ourselves ?

KenV
5th Oct 2016, 17:42
Maybe the real problem is not controlling procreation. Maybe the real problem is the socialist practice of providing unlimited state care of individuals" .

I hate to shatter your right wing illusions about the state / socialist practices, but you couldn't be more wrong.....I am far from alone in this respect, there are many others with equally, if not more, profound conditions, but I do object, strongly, to the exploitation of circumstances for the care of the elderly in the UK. I have no clue how the UK medical system treats the elderly. But that was not my point. My point simply was that if the social system of a government provides unlimited care to people with Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) so that they are encouraged/enabled to procreate without consequence, the solution is probably not introducing forced sterilization, but rather changing the policy of providing unlimited care.

Krystal n chips
5th Oct 2016, 18:26
" I have no clue how the UK medical system treats the elderly. But that was not my point. My point simply was that if the social system of a government provides unlimited care to people with Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) so that they are encouraged/enabled to procreate without consequence, the solution is probably not introducing forced sterilization, but rather changing the policy of providing unlimited care "

Unfortunately, or fortunately for those involved, the policy of basically condemning people with disabilities has not yet reached the stage where economics takes preference over being allowed to live.

Any particular reason why you feel the state should not contribute to their welfare and happiness........ other than a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life..... unless you can afford to pay personally that is ?

Lets get this straight Ken V, less I be accused of "mischaracterising " your statements.

My mother goes into a care home this week. Her savings will be required to pay for this care until such time as a threshold is reached and thereafter the state will contribute. The money is irrelevant therefore when her welfare is paramount.

The principle however, is far more pertinent and the growing aged population are, and have long been, the proverbial "time bomb" which no Gov't has sought to actively address here in the UK.

Brian Abraham
5th Oct 2016, 19:09
Any particular reason why you feel the state should not contribute to their welfare and happiness........ other than a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life..... unless you can afford to pay personally that is ?There is a limit to what any state can provide, there is just not the budget to support the welfare of all citizens, and it's not for any callous disregard. We need to get over the sanctity of human life as well. We currently have a campaign by one couple to kill all the sharks because their son got bit. If you want to surf you accept the risk of entering their dining room. Same if you want to fish in crocodile habitats.

VP959
5th Oct 2016, 19:29
Care of the elderly is, just like care of the young, primarily a family responsibility. It always has been and always should be. The state is not there to take over the responsibility of individuals, unless there is absolutely no alternative (such as there being no family left).

I may be in a position, with no children, where I become unable to look after myself. Like any reasonably sensible person I've made some sacrifices in my personal expenditure over the years so that I have pretty much covered the most likely scenarios, and can fund my own care if it comes to that.

By the same token, I've made a living will and made the provision for being able to end my own life at a time of my choosing.

None of these are state responsibilities, nor should they be. Normal common decency dictates that we should each make whatever provision we can for the whole of our life, including old age. Years ago (my grandparents generation) this was completely normal for everyone. I can well remember my grandmother telling everyone of the plans she had made, and where to find all the papers, including her already paid for, funeral arrangements. More recently, my father in law did the same, and we were all given strict instructions on where things were and who they were to go to on his death, together with a fully paid up funeral.

The state should only intervene in such matters when the family are genuinely unable to make the necessary sacrifices in order to accept their responsibilities. If my mother could sacrifice her career to look after my very ill father for 20 years, until his death, with no state aid, and keep four children fed and going to school, then I'm sure many more families could do the same.

The problem is that we have become selfish; we expect to have the "right" to do as we wish, and we don't see looking after our extended family as a part of our responsibility. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and is a symptom of a government years ago that fostered selfishness and encouraged people to go and get wanted they wanted, no matter what hardship that caused others.

State aid should be only a "safety net" for those with families genuinely unable to make the sacrifices necessary to provide care. It should not be there to support those that have chosen to be selfish and walk away from their family responsibilities.

KenV
5th Oct 2016, 19:33
Unfortunately, or fortunately for those involved, the policy of basically condemning people with disabilities has not yet reached the stage where economics takes preference over being allowed to live.....My mother goes into a care home this week. Her savings will be required to pay for this care until such time as a threshold is reached and thereafter the state will contribute.I believe there is a vast difference between the state "contributing" to someone's care and the state providing "unlimited care to people with Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) so that they are encouraged/enabled to procreate without consequence." Apparently you disagree. You are welcome to do so.


Any particular reason why you feel the state should not contribute to their welfare and happiness........ other than a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life..... I believe characterizing THIS statement:
"the state providing unlimited care to people with Downs Syndrome (and other disabilities) so that they are encouraged/enabled to procreate without consequence"

as the same as THIS statement:
"the state not contributing to such people's welfare"

is indeed what you labelled a "mischaracterisation." I further believe going further and declaring my position (which you mischaracterised) to be a "callous disregard for the sanctity of human life" is an egregious mischaracterisation and a personal attack. You clearly disagree. You are welcome to do so. I will not reciprocate.

The principle however, is far more pertinent and the growing aged population are, and have long been, the proverbial "time bomb" which no Gov't has sought to actively address here in the UK. We have a similar "baby boomer time bomb" here in the US that each succeeding Congress and Presidential Administration seems to be loath to address.

mickjoebill
5th Oct 2016, 23:46
My mother goes into a care home this week.
I am mindfull that the average life expectancy upon admittance to an aged care home is three years.
My mother who was ill lasted three years, she passed 18 months ago. But my father bless him also went into the home to support her and is now stuck there.
Without close family support he would have died there this year. There is a tremendous phsycological toll living in a community where a unnaturally high percentage pass away. Food prepared by the numbers and in general a over the top medical response to any problem takes its toll.

As much as aged care homes prolong the life of seriously ill old folk they also shorten the life of those whose illnesses are not terminal.

But intellectually or mentally handicapped, such as my elderly cousin seem to survive, probably because they are less tuned into the misery that surrounds them.

There is an extraordinary Louis Theroux documentary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2591559/Incredible-story-22-year-old-man-odds-MILLION-one-revealed-heart-warming-Louis-Theroux-film.htmlwhere he follows a family with strong religious beliefs as they pray and support their 22year old son who was in a Coma following a drug overdose. All the medical staff agreed his life support should be turned off as the best case scenario for him was to be in a vegatative state for life. The family disagreed. It was painful to watch as there was no logical or scientific reason the guy would make any kind of recovery. But still, week after week the family insisted there was hope.

The programm ended with the guy, four months later, walking back into hospital to thank the staff!

A one in a million recovery caught in camera. (or misdiagnosis if you are the litigious type!)

So at what odds is it acceptable to turn off life support?


Mickjoebill

Ancient Mariner
6th Oct 2016, 08:59
Our government,
Norway, provides for everyone. Not because they are nice and gentle, but because we, the citizens want it and pay for.
Simple, really.
Oh, your funeral will be at your own cost.
I'll settle for a non-religious ceremony, plenty of alcohol and Led Zeppelin at full blast, a cardboard coffin and ashes spread over the ocean.
One must save money for the important part, the party.
Per

pineridge
6th Oct 2016, 19:35
Ancient Mariner said...............


"Our government,
Norway, provides for everyone"


If you are can wait a while.

Ancient Mariner
6th Oct 2016, 21:23
Ancient Mariner said...............


"Our government,
Norway, provides for everyone"


If you are can wait a while.

Not that I use government services much, but when I have they have been efficient.
Have visited hospitals twice in 12 years and both times been pleasantly supriced by service level, competence and speed.
I'm not complaining, plenty others are. Then again, they're everywhere.
Per