Category: Let's talk
I was in the park today with my two year old son. And I saw a woman there who I briefly know, only really spoken to her in passing before but today she spoke to me a fair bit. she has three children, one is 4, one is 2 and a half, and the other is 17 months. I remember thinking at the time ... my god, the woman must be mad! lol. She then proceeded to tell me that her eldest daughter has cerebral palsy very severely. She had complications during her birth and the baby suffered very severe brain damage. She told me that this child, who is now 4, is quadroplegic, unable to move her arms or legs, and that she is being taught to use her mouth to do things like press buttons etc. She then said that she had come home from school the next day, and "we were so proud of her, because she can say 4 words now!"
It made me think of my own child, of how inteligent he is, how well he speaks, how well he runs around - even if he does hide from me now he realizes I can't see him, lol. and made me think of how we take the little things for granted, how we wait for that first time when a baby rolls over, sits up, smiles, starts to crawl, walk, says his first words ... and for that mother, those moments never came, and for that child, she will always be seen as being different.
I just think sometimes we take so much for granted, it's true that many on this site have visual impairments, possibly also other disabilities, but whatever our afliction, there is always someone worse off.
Consider this, is a person born blind worse off if he or she doesn't know what sight is? I went blind when I was 18 years old, for some that would have been the end. For me, it became a new beginning. This child has potenshal. She can do and be anything she wants to be. In life there is always suffering, out of that suffering the will to strive, the will to live is born. We, blind and sighted are challenged everyday, and we make the most of the situation. Though I am not a parent, and I don't know what it feels like to see the fruits of my labors, that mother still got to see her child say her first words, she will still get to see that child grow and acomplish great feets at least to that child. That child's life may never be quote normal, but what is normal. She still has feelings, a heart, a mind, and a sol, with those tools at her disposel her life is her own. She can still make a difference, and to say that she is worse off before she is even lived is taking away from her that which we hold most dear weather we choose to beleive it or not. That is hope. Give her a chance. My girlfriend has a cousin who is mentaly challenged, he is also on a feeding tube. He has two brothers and a mother and step father. They all think the world of him, and he is happy. He smiles and goes to school and lives the life that was given to him. These are my thoughts, because I live a life where people think I am worse off then they, sure it's not easy but who has it easy?
D-
What a load of cliched moralising nonsense....
This child also has to watch other children running jumping swimming climbing skating riding bikes ect getting jobs boyfriends getting engaged married being wanted treated like normal {whatever that is} being valued and listened to when all she can do is sit there while people treat her as if she's an imbecile.If Alasdair had been left like that we would have asked the hospital to do the decent thing and relieve his immediate suffering and that of years to come..
I am sorta in the middle on this one. I have a cousen with spinal bifita, and I feel for him sometimes, because he will get looked at differently. I know how that feels and it sucks, but I believe that when one thing is taken from you, u gain something else. For example, my cousen was given the gift to make others smile. I do agree though that we do take many things for granted, and should be happy with what hwe have.
Wow, we see quite opposing views here, have to say Goblin goes a bit far, but generally it's a totally valid point that he brings up. My mum, out of all people, thinks this too, that if a child is going to be that disabled things like abortion should be considered and morally availible. It's hard to say wht I think. With my R.B. I was not supposed to survive past the age of 2. Of course my parents did not know until I ws 3 months old and they did whatever they could to keep me alive, I remember tons of trips to London and lots of very hard time for the family. And for me it turned out amazing, sure I lost my sight completely at age 5 and it was very difficult, sometimes even now I miss having the abilities having sight gives you but I definitely never miss it to the point where I get depressed over it, just irritated at the lack of mobility and flexibility that sight gives you (driving, checking out new places, not having to plan things in so much detail).
But, generally speaking I'm doing great, good education, good job, good friends. This woman, I think Monday gave me some rather daft speech about may be one day experiencing a miracle and getting my sight back. That always makes me wonder why people always assume that's our # 1 goal in life. You know, I'd much rather get happily married, have a good job and have a healthy and happy kid or two than just getting my sight back (ok wildebrew, you are going off topic aren't you). ;)
But, basically, count your blessings folks, that's so important.
-B
Japan how does he feel about his condition
....................................
5 months ago I started hanging around with a group of lads who play wheelchair basketball and I have heard some real horror stories concerning their accidents,the reason I started doing this we were told my Brother Alistair might never walk again so I was trying, {in my own inpet way} To preapre myself for the shock..fortunately he has been given the all clear...for now.. we still face the very real prospect of Ally becoming paraplegic and I would do absolutely anything to change that for him and I know that I will be the 1st to jump down the throat of anyone who shows him any kind of pity no matter how well meaning or mistaken of course thats not what he wants and no doubt Ally will put me straight..the reason most of the so called able bodied cant and/or wont accept the disabled, is down to a fear of becoming disabled, I read somewhere that Americans fear going blind more than terrorisim that really surpised me
during some conversation we were having years ago, my mum told me that, if she'd have known that I was going to turn out blind, she would have never had me. She didn't in any way mean it the way it sounded, but it hurt me like hell. I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to this, as everyone's different. I could have turned out to be the kind of resentful person who said, "god mum, I wish you hadn't ever had me. How could you do this to me." But no. I love my life, I love my family and I love my friends. I meet new, different people every day and try new things. I'm greatful for every second. My sight has been gradually fading over the past ten years. I could never see that well, but I could walk down the street, and tell colours apart. Now, I can't even walk in a straight line, no matter where I am and although I can see the difference between colours in terms of contrast, I don't know the difference between the specific colour. We have a light on our door bell, only little, but I used to use it when it was dark so that I could see to walk in a straight line to my front door. I can't see that anymore. Things happen. In my oppinion, you should never become so consumed by something that it ruins your life. There are things that we take for granted and loosing them usually makes us realise that. But, it's up to us to adapt, and substitute or find ways around things, or life will be a very bitter affair.
Goblin, while I often find your views insightful, and they often inspire thought, that one you posted about abortion! People with disabilitys had their lives taken from them even before they had a chance. People were experamented on, used as lab rats, thought inferior, so what if she sits there and watches other children run and play, that is for her to choose to do. You would take his life? I cannot begin to believe that that is what you would do. The world is full of people with varing disabilitys and if we erratacated them just because they lacked in ability is ubserd. Sure there are going to be accidents there are accidents in American sports, sports in general. There are also accidents in goalball! I am not saying that the parent shouldn't have the option, but this child is here, and as you say you will seek to make alli's life the best it can be. You have no site, are you not a productive part of society? you do not drive, you cannot fly a plane, hell, you can't really even cross a street without the help of a cane or dog or sighted person. Or can you? To say that it cannot be done in my opinon is ignorant. As I said before, you have insite and intellect, however I think your view in this instance is without maret. Everyone has a role to play in this world.
D-
I think there is a definite issue about quality of life ... I personally am opposed to abortion for lots of reasons, however, if someone had told me that my unborn child would never walk, never talk, never feed himself, never grow up into a responsible adult, get married, have children, get a job ... I would have to ask some serious questions. Yeah of course a child like that is a person in his/her own right, but at what cost, not financially, although I'm sure there are some who would argue that there is a financial price to pay, but let's not go there for now, but emotionally. Having a child who is so severely disabled that he/she needs 24 hour care is very, very emotionally draining. a lot of couples seperate after the birth of such a child because of the emotional strain it puts on the relationship. Also it is not uncommon for parents of severely disabled children to suffer from depression, and for siblings of such children to grow up full of resentment for the child in their family who got all the attention that they didn't. True that is worse case senario, and by the same token, a lot of siblings grow up more tolerant people because of what they've seen their brother/sister have to go through. But what of that child. What kind of life does he/she have to endure, sitting, unable to walk, talk, eat, effectively an inanimate object, only able to see people staring at him/her, because people this is a cruel world, and as tolerant as some are, so some are not, and will stare at someone like that without even thinking about it. And what happens to that child, who will, effectively be a child for the next 50 years, when the parent dies and is therefore no longer there to take care of him/her. Is it fair, as the parent of such a child, to consciously bring a child like that into the world, knowing that you will not always be there to take care of them. I know I've gone way off topic now but ...
no, it's not fair.
SB, no it's not fair, there will be those who oppose this view, but I have to agree with you on this.
Dragonfire I do drive I have flown and I have also climbed some of the highest peaks in Scotland dont you dare assume what i can and cannot do.
................................
IF our beautiful son was going to spend his life immobile then yes...but hang on I'm forgetting 1 important fact with the advances in stem cell therapy being told you will never walk is not always the final opinion..all you need is the courage to use this treatment.And I can imagine a large percentage of you are throwing up your hands in horror, however this is the future and if this treatment could give this girl some kind of motor function then who could possibly deny her that right!.
Dragonfre she doesn't choose to sit there the cp chooses for her she is just a passenger ok.I find your patronising attitude really irritating
Sugar you make a valid point, if this person lives only inside their selves, I mean they are a prisoner of their bodies then questions should be asked. But this girl, is not a prisoner. She is learning to function, The chance we as blind people were given is the same chance she should be given. Tecnology gave Christoper Reves Hope that he might walk again. If people with varing parallisis are not given a chance to be productive parts of society, then the tecnology would have never been attempted. That must mean that those people want to live! They want to exsist! People have been in comas for days, weeks, months, and recovered had someone pulled the plug before it was time, well is all I can say. I guess my point is we never know what someone is capable of until they've lived.
D-
SugarBaby I agree with every subjecting a child to immobility frustration and anger because of her situation not to mention possible pain and complications that is not a life its an existence.
Christopher Reeve was never going to walk that was just a dream his legacy is stem cell therapy and right now in Japan, a Doctor is giving quadraplegic people movement in their hands ect they can grasp objects, feel their limbs and regain some control over paralysed muscles,Reeve possibly knew it was too late for him,but for others its just the beginning.
................
Productive parts of society!? We'er not talking about robots here pal man of course they want to live! I really have to take issue with the way to consistantly talk down to us as if we are retarded..and please dont use that phrase again its insulting and dehumanising
Goblin, I was not patranizing you. Those questions I asked were to inspire thought. I am the first to say that you can do whatever you choose to do.I am also saying that you were given that chance to do those things. All I am really asking is for people to give others that chance. i have been stared at, I know what that is, I have also driven a car, and while I have not climbed a mountain or flown a plane, I know if I want to I can. I might have to find other ways of doing it, but I can if I want to. I was being serious when I said that you inspire thought. I have spent time with people with disabilitys in varing degrees and you said that that is an existance I think it is living within the life they are given. What life might mean to you or me, or anyone might be what you called exsistance to someone else.
D-
ohh you definately were your talking to a damned expert on it pal and your doing it again futhermore there are 17 I's in your post after the 1st 3 I lost interest..
I agree with Dragonfire, that everyone should be given a chance to live. I have a friend who has a genetic
terminal condition and can't walk, speak, care for himself, and has severe seizures at times, and is mentally
challenged. (He lost his ability to talk and move around as a child, and was expected to only live up to 15.
But I worked with him when he was 19, and he's now in his mid-20's.) I had spent some of my time around
multiply challenged students during school or on the bus, and honestly felt sorry for them. Yet, this
friend that I'd worked with was the one who inspired me to study to become a teacher. He tought me that,
even though he couldn't speak or sign or anything, that he could still find a way to communicate with me,
and apparently he wasn't miserable because his teacher would let me know his facial expressions and he
was usually smiling. Later, I had a similar experience with a little girl who hardly had any control of her
body, but she would still laugh when she was happy and only once )when I was there) cried when she
didn't feel well. I've also had students with autism, who I made friends with. So, I personally think that
everyone has their place here, even though to some people, it might seem like just existing.
Leilani
I think it's a matter of perspective. I remember when I was living in my previous location, I had a neighbor with a hearing problem. He thought I was worse off than he was because I couldn't see. I tried to tell him I was really happy with who I was and my situation, but he just didn't want to hear that. He up and decided what his place and my place were in the universe. OK, being blind isn't easy or convenient, but that's how life is for everybody even if we don't see it. It's easy to try and judge somebody's quality of life based either on our own or what is considered normal, but it's not really being fair to that person. The person you see as miserable may be perfectly happy with their situation.
I don't believe in abortion except in extreme cases. I'm not sure if having a child with a severe disability is one. I think one of the reasons people are so terrified of disabilities is because they've never experienced it. I'm frankly terrified of being deaf, but I'm sure if I'd been deaf all of my life I wouldn't be as isturbed by the thought and would probably ask a blind person the same sort of thing. So even though some of these people have no control over their body, many have really amazing mental resources. I have read lots of books about people who were quadraplegic who were really intelligent people who had thoughts and opinions and wanted to share them. Which makes sense. So I think if people have the ability to think and communicate in some form, it's not fair to not give them a chance at life.
Here Here Labyrinth, and Goblin I used the I, because it was my own thoughts and what has happened to me personily. The offance is yours to take.
Thanks, Dragonfire. I honestly don't do much thinking about who has it better off or worse than I do, because I just don't rate people on such a scale. Everybody's got their own problems and things that make life worthwhile, and they're unique to that person. Besides, although I might not go climb mountains or such, there's better things I can do than wish I wasn't who I was.
Sugarbaby you're so right. People do take these things for granted. I think everyone should have a chance to live life the best they can, and I think that if people have the will and ability to carry on, they can and will, despite any disabilities. Also really agree with what Thrillseeker said about many severely disabled individuals having thoughts and opinions they want to share. This is a great discussion. Oh and, to add to what Sugar said, about her mom saying if she'd known Sugar was gonan be blind, she wouldnt' have had her? My sister says the same thing: if she was pregnant and knew the child would be blind, she'd abort it! And after living with me for my whole life, my sis still thinks this! I dont' get people sometimes lol. Caitlin
Dear me we have fallen back on the moralising when there is little left to say ..Thrillseeker of course people with quadraplgeia are intelligent you sound as though you were surprised by that fact of course they have thoughts and ideas Christ! Why did you find it necessary to add that insulting remark..hmm? if Iwas in that position I'd tell you to f.ck off!
I don't think anyone on here is trying to say that someone who has a certain type of disability is not capable of inteligent thought, but the reality is, that there are some people in this world who think that to be the case. How many of you have gone somewhere with a sighted person and people have talked to the sighted person you are with and not to you? It's a tipicle example of how people think that the disabled are not only disabled, but incapable.
Ohh that has happen far too often to the point where I speak slowly to them incase... they.. fail.. to.. understand..what.. I..mean and they become very annoyed at been patronised by a mere blind freak, but your right Sugar the message still doesnt penetrate through their ignorance....and how can you begin to educate those who refuse to learn..
I think trying to educate people who don't want to learn is a losing battle. Some people are happy being ignorant about anyone who isn't exactly like them, and this includes anyone with a disability. They're just too scared of it in principle and don't want to face it. Plus, and this is just a crackpot theory, I think some people feel threatened that a disabled person is as smart as they are or otherwise equal to them. Their view of the world has them at the top and the disabled either at the bottom or just invisible.
I agree that a lot of people are ignorant, but it also has to be said that not all disabled people are equally "able", and that can add to some peoples' attitudes. It is a sad fact that there are peopl out there with disabilities, who are perfectly capable of a lot of things, but they have either been babied by their families since birth and therefore are now incapable of taking care of themselves, or are happy for others to do everything for them. And while people like that in the world still exist, so-called able bodied people will continue to have such an attitude.
Labyrinth I agree with your crackpot theory the very fact that a disabled person can achieve a 1st in university, or speak 5 languages fluently,scares the life out of most people it forces them to admit their insecurity concerning their lack of achievement and that is something they would rather ignore...
............................................
SugarBaby your right there is nothing worse than repeatedly hearing I CANT! However, there are those who refuse all manner of help, in the belief that it demeans them in the eyes of non disabled people who reluctantly leave them to struggle on alone, you have to wonder who is the culprit
Hmm, Lab, I rather disagree with your theory though. All the people I've met seem to be happy about realizing that, yes, I am indeed a rather normal person, I've got my two bachellor degrees and got a good job. They seem to be rather impressed rather than scared of the fact and after answering their question when I am with a sighted person 90% of them pick up on the hint and start talking to me directly. I think, sadly the stsereo type for a disabled person in people's eyes is that of someone who can't really take care of him/herself and is on a different level from them, I don't think it's out of spite but rather out of culture somehow. People I've met seem to be happy being proved wrong on that count. And what SB said is also completely true, there is a lot of disabled peole who sadly are more than happy living of social security, not going to school and creating their own little community that they do not venture outside. It's demoralizing for them because they are not achieving or contributing and it's demoralizing for the rest of disabled people because society takes note of these things and I think it creates a bit of a negativity towards disabled people. Yes, those who surely can't work should be taken good care of through social wellfare programs, however those who are fully able to work or go to school but prefer to take their $600 to $1000 a month (depending where you live, Norway e.g. has excellent social security) directly out of tax payers' money are indeed taking resources from those who really need them and also are putting a negative slant on disabled folk's reputation. Of course this does not justify violence towards disabled people not stereo typing but we do stereo type (not just disabled folks) because, in my theory, that we need to simplify our view of the world and sadly stereo typin is prone to errors.
This being said, I'm not saying a big part of the disabled community does this but where I used to live and across Scandinavia I've seen too many cases of it.
Cheers
-B
it's true - I've very rarely come across people who are afraid of the fact that a disabled person might be equal to, or even better than them. I consider myself to be very normal - I've had good jobs, my last position being a managerial one, and I now have a two year old son, and I very, very rarely come across people who have thought I was incapable. Sure some do think it's different the way I do certain things - i.e. it is impossible to have a guide dog in one hand and steer a pushchair, so I carried nathan in a sling until he was 7 months old and then in a back carrier until he was nearly two. And a lot of people have marvelled at this fact and said "i could never do that! it'd do my back in!" but they haven't thought that I was less able than them, and I only ever get complemented on how confident, well-behaved, and well mannered nathan is, and how advanced his speech and communication skills are for his age.
I also believe however that there are some disabled people who are happy to be seen as incapable - some three years ago, a blind woman in the UK was awarded record compensation because she had become pregnant after a serilisation operation. The woman, who suffered from RP, had been sterilised because she felt that she would be unable to cope with a child because of her lack of sight. Subsequently she became pregnant and sued the hospital who carried out the operation. The case she put forward was tremendous! She said that she was unable to cope with the needs of the child, who by then was 5, and was being cared for primarily by her mother, and with the help of social services, that, as a blind mother, she found it difficult to do certain things, that she frequenly put the child's clothes on inside out and his shoes on the wrong feet, that she was unable to do certain things around the house such as cook etc because these activities are far too dangerous. I was absolutely outraged at the time and remember writing very strongly worded letters to the bbc etc, one of which was read out on 5 live, expressing my view that this woman had in effect, given a completely bad reputation for any blind mother. I mean if she was that incapable why didn't she have a termination or put the baby up for adoption ... but maybe that a topic for another day, grin. I am happy to say that on appeal the award of damages to the woman was overturned.
There are lots of non-disabled people people who play hte victim, too. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it happens.
Lab
Yes, but she used her blindness explicitly as her excuse and tht, sadly, will affect the rest of us blindies very negatively. That's the problem. SB, wow, what a sad sad woman, that's all I can say .. if cooking is too dangerous I should be dead granted I caught my oven mit on fire once when I accidentally touched the burner of the oven and I didn't realize it until I felt the heat from the flame on my face, but I managed to put it out without even getting burnt and that was my riskiest affair in the cooking world to date.
I'm sorry but I must correct a few things about the case concerning the blind woman which, I must say, was rightly decided. the case in question is Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital. I have the judgments in my possession and if anyone would like to read them I am happy to send them to you, although you can get them yourself from the parliamentary website, just go to the section containing the judicial committee of the House of Lords' judgments. Now, to the case, and the facts were these: Mrs Rees was sterilised, but then became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child. However, the reason that she was sterilised was because she specifically felt that she could not cope as a mother, and she wanted to prevent herself from becoming one. In short, hers was a responsible decision in her circumstances. When she gave birth to the child, she found that she really couldn't cope, and although she was determined to stand by her child, she suffered depression and other forms of psychiatric harm. She sued the hospital, as was her right because she believed she had suffered a loss. Now, the hospital argued that she had not suffered a loss, and that a healthy child born to a disabled mother was a blessing rather than a loss. contrast that with a disabled baby, whose disability is incurred through the negligence of the hospital at birth, in which case it is settled law that this is treated as a loss and the mother can claim damages (See Mcfarlen v. Tayside Area Health Authority). The issue, then, was whether a healthy child could be regarded as a loss, and as I have said, counsel for the hospital submitted that no, the mother had been blessed and had suffered no loss through giving birth to a healthy child. However, Their Lordships did not accept this argument, and rightly in my opinion. Yes, she had given birth to a healthy child, but she had not intended to have one because she didn't consider herself of sufficient fortitude to have a child and had taken the responsible decision not to have one. She had suffered physical harm i.e. psychiatric harm, and had not planned financially for a child too. Their Lordships awarded her £15000 in damages, which is not a lot of money but is enough to recognise that the hospital breached the duty that doctors owe to patients. Sugarbaby I can well understand your frowning upon a person using their blindness as an excuse; you are a mother after all and I have no doubt that you are a jolly good one at that. However, we are not all of the same fortitude: some people regard a road traffic accident as merely a terrible sight; some are traumatised by what they see. Some people can cope with the pressures of work or exams; others suffer depression under stress. Some people cope admirably with all sorts of disabilities; others crumble emotionally the moment they lose their sight. Similarly, some blind women don't see their blindness as a problem in motherhood; others a fearful at even contemplating the possibility, and Mrs Rees was of this disposition and took the responsible act to prevent her worst fears being realised. Doubtless she will do her best for the child, but that is really not the point. Note also that I am not trying to detract from the general point made in this discussion. But it is quite wrong to pour scorn on Mrs Rees for what she did.
PS: it is also quite wrong to talk of record compensation in a case like this. It was the first ever case of this nature to come before the courts, so the notion of record compensation for this type of case is ridiculous, even if it had been damages of one solitary penny it wuold have been record compensation! do not believe the media when they use phrases such as 'record compensation' for this is sensationalist journalistic claptrap mostly written by people who couldn't tell one legal dispute from another. This is not to criticise you, Sugarbaby, because there is no way you cuold have known that this was not record compensation, but I assure you that it was not and I hope that clarifies things. for the record, the trial court did award her a substantial sum but it was around £200000 I think, and as the appeal was launched straight away it was never paid to her. The court of appeal allowed the hospital's appeal and awarded Mrs Rees nothing. The House of Lords allowed Mrs Rees' appeal and awarded her £15000.
Wildebrew I agree and that I CANT! attitude is 1 I have tried so hard to disprove granted being a blind parent/uncle is bloody hard, frightening and quite daunting but Christ! She didn't even go that far I have a sneaking suspicion this stupid, selfish and altogether inept embarrassment of a woman, was really after the money.
goblin, read the commentary of the case that i have posted to this discussion, right above your post. she was, I repeat, entitled to sue, as she suffered loss due to a doctor's negligence. The law says that she may sue, and it is quite clear that she really thought she couldn't be a mother, she really feared the possibility, and yet she is a mother and that had psychiatric effects on her, as she doubtless envisaged it might when she took the decision to be sterilised. so Goblin, and wildebrew for that matter, and anyone else who is angry about this particular woman's attitude, I quite understand, but before you let loose the tide of wrath, read the summary of the case and my reasons why I think it was rightly decided, for I repeat, without prejudice to conquering the 'I can't attitude' as Goblin calls it, it is quite wrong to use this case as an example; it's a very bad example.
Hi Sugar baby,
This is atough one. Although I can understand why a parent might consider abortion if they think the child will never walk, talk, or move. But it is also taking a life, and in some cases, we don't know what a person can be capable of as he/she grows older. I have osteogenesis, a softbone disease, and can't walk without a walker, or at least holding on to something for support. When I was a child, it seemed almost every time I moved, I fell and broke a leg. Looking back on it, that's not much of a life, but I never even thought about wishing i was dead, or had never been born. I think we are more resilient as children, but we get less so as we get older. The doctors told my mom that there was no choice about putting rods in my legs, that if she didn't do it, I would die, because I couldn'tkeep on breaking legs, and having to be put in body casts so much.Well, it's probably true, I don't think I could take things at nearly 46, that I could take as a 5 or 6 year old could. Yet, after Ihad the rods put in, and wore leg braces for 9 years, I haven't broken a leg since I was a child, even though as it turned, they put the rods in backwards. I read a book by a woman who had cerebral palsy in a bad way. I think shehad muscle spasms or something, I can't think of the correct term for it, when their hands seem to reach out or slap out allon their own. Although she had it bad physically, her mind functioned perfectly, and she was probably more intelligent than some people who have no disability at all. I'm sure no one ever expected her to ever write a book, but she did.
There was a topicon Jonathan Mosens blind line show once, where this man had stated, that he feels, that if the parents of an unborn child knows the child will be born blind, they should be allowed to have an abortion. I was horrified, and so was my mom. She says she would've had me even if she had known I would be blind and had osteogenesis imperfecta. I think Jonathan had tried to get him on his show, but he declined, hmmm, wonder why? And I forgot now who asked the question about sighted people talking to the other sighted person who's with the blind person, instead of talking to the blind person directly, but yes, awaitress in a restaurant did that to me once. When she came to take our orders she said to the woman who was with me, "and what will she have? I actually used that experience in my blind halucinations story.
wonderwoman
Wonderwoman do you think that a blind person should be able to choose not to have a child if she feels that motherhood would be too much for her because of her blindness? I'd be interesed to know your views on this one. AS to abortion, it is the law that a phoetus who is shown to be certain to have multiple severe disabilities when he is born may be aborted over the usual time limit for abortions that we have in this country. I am not sure whether or not I agree with this approach, but it must be recognised that there are powerful arguments on both sides.
I totally understand that someone, in any position might feel that they would not be able to cope with having a child, and I think it is totally admirable that someone can admit that, and take the necessary steps for this not to happen. I sympathise with anyone who is sterilised and then falls pregnant, that is truely shocking, and of course there is some blame on the hospital's part in this case. however, if this woman was so sure she couldn't cope with a child, why did she not have an abortion.
well lawlord, why couldn't she just put the child up for an adoption? I admire her honesty in admitting she might not be able to handle raising a sighted child, but why couldn't she just put him or her up for adoption? that way, the child might have a chance for getting put with 2 parents who would love and care for the child, and give it a good home.
wonderwoman
Okay, the abortion matter first: whether she had an abortion or not would not have any bearing on her right to sue in negligence. The loss is the same, whichever way you look at it. Wonderwoman, as far as adoption is concerned, again this would have no bearing on whether she suffered a loss, in fact it probably would have increased the damages. The loss, remember, was not the birth of the child, but the psychiatric harm that flowed from the pregnancy and subsequent birth and motherhood. That psychiatric harm would have, in the case of Mrs Rees, been increased by adoption as it appeared to her that she was denying her responsibilities as a mother. Returning to abortion, I believe that there was some health-related reason preventing her from having an abortion, but as I say it doesn't affect her cause of action. remember, what she was awarded was a very small sum in terms of damages.
LL.You mention that this woman sufered mental trauma after becoming pregnant..but felt unable to relinquish the child for adoption, surely that is a clear case of double standards and hypocrisy.
Well obviously not that clear, as I don't see the double standards. One can love a child born to one, but still suffer trauma and mental distress when one finds out one's pregnant after one has taken preventative steps against such an eventuality. I repeat, she only got £15000. Take away from that the third deducaable for the fees of solicitors and counsel, and you don't exactly have a sum to set her up for life, do you?
LawLord
Your case summary does, in fact, change that scenario quite a bit. Any woman has the right to decide she is not able to deal with having a baby and can take subsequent actions. Of course were she to be very responsible she should not have engaged in activities that would get her pregnant in any case, but the hospital should have had some process in place to verify the success of the operation they provided. OUt of curiousity, did the woman pay to have this operation performed (I'm not sure what's involved in steralization surely but I would imagine it requires a doctor and an hour or two of surgery time so this should be a notable sum of money), or was that paid for by the state. If so, would that be any different for sighted women who make the same decission? I don't think it should be but I find this question interesting.
Cheers
-B
actually b you raise a very good point. Most GP's would not reccommend a woman under the age of 35 for having a sterilisation operation on the NHS, and therefore it is likely that, in the case of most sighted, or actually able-bodied women that this operation would have needed to be carried out privately. However, having put forward her case for sterilisation as not being able to cope with a child should she give birth to one, I would imagine she would have had this operation performed under the NHS and it would therefore have been paid for by the state. It is a fairly straightforward procedure, but does involve a general anesthetic, and most likely a stay in hospital.
I must correct you there Sugarbaby I'm afraid: sterilisation treatment is generally not recommended, but if a woman is insistent that she does not want to have any more children, then it may be performed and it will be performed on the NHS unless the patient chooses to go private. such operations, however, are not treated as NHS priorities in the absence of some special consideration relating to the health and well-being of the patient.
And what were the terms in the document she signed, regarding responsibility, compensations and checking up procedures? I would imagine she had to sign statements regarding her will to do this and in most cases, at least in the law suite paranoid USA those would specify exactly who was responsible for this operation being carried out correctly and successfully (not sussexfully certainly).
I think that plays a very large role in whether she could demand compensation or not in fact.
Cheers
-B
No Wildebrew I'm afraid our law of negligence does not depend on any agreements or anything like that. Even if she had signed an agreement saying that the hospital excluded their liability if the operation went wrong, that agreement would have been unenforceable. section 2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 states in paraphrase that where a person's negligence causes personal injury or death to another person, then that liability cannot be excluded or limited. Any attempt to do so is unenforceable. so you see, hospitals cannot exclude liability for injuries caused to patients in their care, so documents make no difference. She would have had to sign a consent yes, but that is only connected with exonerating doctors from any liability in for assault and battery at common law. When a doctor operates on you, he commits a common law battery, for which he would be liable in the tort of trespass to the person if you did not consent. This is subject to the exceptions to cater, for instance, for doctors giving life-saving or emergency treatment where the consent cannot be obtained.
i agree with the majority of you. people just dont give people with disabilities a chance, which's very unfortunate. we're just like anyone else, the only difference is our disability. we may have to do things a little bit differently than someone whos sighted, but that shouldnt make a difference as to how they treat us. i had my femur broken a few years ago for surgery, and i was totaly bed-ridden, and not only that, i had to depend on people to do everything for me. do you think that made me stop doing the things i loved to do? no, it didnt, cause i knew that i could do anything i set my mind to. there was a time when everyone stepped back, and let me do everything on my own, and here i am, better than ever! my point of sharing that with you all, is so that you can understand that, yes, we take things for granted, but with help, we can get through the trials and tribulations.
Call me a pedant if you will, but how is one totally bedridden? I mean, you can't be partially bedridden, can you? You're either bedridden or you aren't! So, how can one have degrees of a status that someone either has, or has not? As for the rest, like I've said on numerous occasions here, there are some who patronize those with disabilities, but some disabled people do tend to have a serious victim complex as far as that's concerned.
i was totally bed-ridden for six weeks. i couldnt walk, cause if i did, i would've broken my bone.
Then you were bedridden, pure and simple. You weren't totally bedridden, because in order to be totally bedridden you have to be able to be partially bedridden, and you can't be partially bedridden. You are either bedridden or you're not. It's like saying you're quite unique: one cannot have degrees of uniqueness; one either is, or is not, unique. Thus, one cannot have degrees of bedriddenness if that's a word; one either is, or is not, bedridden.
What type of sterylization was used on the woman? I ask because I have notes around here on how effective certain processes are, and in my opinion a hospital shouldn't be held responsible if (1) the person knows up front the effectiveness of the procedure and agree to go ahead, and, (2) the hospital performed the procedure to the best of their ability. In other words, how can we hold them responsible because no procedure is "perfect". For example, when I had my last eye surgeries there was a 95% chance I'd be able to see better then what I currently do. However, I lost a good portion of my sight, but I knew that was possible going in, and the hospital performed the surgery to the best of their ability, and both parties went into it knowing the procedure was not either "perfect" or 100% successful. How can any procedure be 100% effective? I have an uncle who has had a visectomy, however, he still runs like a .5% chance of getting a woman pregnant. Or, at least he did directly after the surgery. I believe the percentage has lowered as time has gone on. I think another difference, and I'm guilty of this, but in America, sadly, people are all to willing to jump and sew for money. And that's all they're interested in too... When I say I'm guilty of this I mean that I'm guilty of assuming the rest of the world is like this too. It's disgusting, but it's the way it is. Hope to think not all parts are like this though. Next, I have had other sighted people try to talk to a sighted person who is with me instead of to me. However, I simply answer them instead, and find most don't respond with fear or anything like that. Though there are always the acceptions. Next, I have to admit that I've thought many times that if the problem that caused my blindness was hereditary I wouldn't want to get pregnant. On the other hand, if I get pregnant and am told my child runs a good chance of being blind, deaf or something like that I wouldn't prevent their birth. I'd welcome my child into the world with all the love I have; just like I would a "normal" child. However, a child that could never truly live? I'd have to think seriously about this. I've been around people with multiple and mental disabilities all my life, I've talked to them, and I'd have to consider the potential problem, and think about what would be best for the future. After all, a parent isn't going to be there to love a person whom is going to be baby like all their lives. So, what then? Lastly, I definitely have a hire goal then regaining my sight, and that's having me a baby or 6. *smile*
Happily, witchcraft, our courts and judges are far mor robust in relation to frivolous claims. the landmark decision on this subject where you'll see the approach exemplified is the case of tomlinson v. Congleton Borough council, available from the parliamentary website. Further, it should be noted that the english law of clinical negligence never operates on the premmice that any procedure guarantees a result. The hospital in this case had admitted negligence liability, but their argument was, as I have set out above, that the claimant had suffered no loss. Now, the cause of action in negligence only accrues if you suffer a loss: hence if I negligently throw a book across the room and it narrowly misses your left ear, I have been negligent in that I have breached my duty of care that I owe to others. However, you cannot sue as you have suffered no loss, quo sequitur that the cause of action has not accrued.
I have been blind since my birth but I've always been told that there are worse things, and there really are. We can communicate. We can write, speak, walk. Some blind people like to think they're the most important people in the world, at least that's the case in my school. They don't think it's necessary to say "I'm sorry" whene they run against someone. They like being treated as poor blind children, but I think we are still quite lucky.
yes, I believe that people, especially those who do not have any disability, take things for granted. Also, another slant to put on this is that, people who arn't disabled in any way, don't understand when someone who is disabled in some way, but lives a life in which they can walk, talk, write, and are able to have opinions and are as independent as their disability will allow them to be would want their sight for example. I've been blind all my life, and I wouldn't want my sight, simply because I perciev the world in a certain way, and if I see, I believe that'll be a grate shock both psychologically and physically, because I won't be able to appreciate the "supposed advantages" if I don't know how to use my sight, and also not knowing how to distinguish accurately what things are. When I was born, I was given too much oxygen, hence my disability. But, if I had been given too little oxygen, I most likely would've been brain damaged, of course I'd rather be blind than have that, and I would understand my parents reasoning if they'd known for sure that I'd be brain damaged, and so therefore wouldn't be able to think for myself and express cohearent opinions, I would understand if they would have wanted an abortion in that sircomstance. I think the key to life, is not whether you're disabled or not, it is whether you have the ability to either live independently, or achieve something that anyone without a disability can do, such as get a job, or write a book and things like, anything that won't make people look down on you and say: "oh, what a shame they're in a wheel chair or blind or whatever", sadly if they're lacking in education and can't prove their inteligence, that seems to me to be the opinion of people.. If I found out that I was pregnant and my child would need 24 hours a day care,I would have to ask myself some serious questions. The child in that sircomstance, would be ignorent, so therefore as long as they didn't have to suffer constant pain, their life would I suppose be ok for them, if they didn't know any better, however it's the people around them who have to suffer, the people who wish they could achieve what they themselves had achieved in their lifetime.
Another question is where do you draw the line between a "normal life" and a life that is not I quote: "not normal". Some people with no disabilities who have got previous experience of people with a disability not achieving what they'd consider to be a big thing may say: "If I have a child and their blind or in a wheel chair or def, I might consider having an abortion" but of course not considering that this childwith the for-mentioned disability may actually be extremely inteligent and willing to help themselves and let themselves be helped by others, I ask, where do we draw the line?
well, i hear so many complaints about oh, i want this and that, i want this nice looking mp3 player or I want this pretty blouse. heheh.
but some ask for so much material stuff and think less on more important stuff like having a better life. I mean, only some people at my college are like that.
I heard a dispute between 2 of my fellow class mates. one of them asked the other one "what would you do if your parents were kidnaped because of war, would you go to war and fight for them and leave school behind?
The girl said no, because sometimes mom always pisses me off and dad annoys me the hell of a lot according to the girl in my ethics class.
and the other students got mad aat her and started an argument about the situation.
This really made me realize that we take somthings for granted like the time we spend with our parents.
To me, my parents mean everything for me because they teach me stuff that really helps me be more independent and successful so that I don't suffer later in life.
they also support me when I was put down by people.
see, like for example, I had a very bad injury on my right hand due to a car door slamming on me.
I was in such excruciating pain that i couldn't move my hand when i tiped. I only had to hold my laptop on 1 hand to put it away and needed more help than i used to because of that.
this was a struggle for me because, it came at the wrong time during my first year of college.
it happened during the time I had midterms.
it sure was a challenge for me to do things but I faced that.
so, i think that everyone should feel good about themselves.
"you never know when somthing worse can strike in life."