To think a lot of MN are ableist?

@SlowlyFalling
again we’re perhaps talking cultural differences. (See another example above re the Netherlands.)

What are the specific things that you’d reproach the Chinese here - rather than blanket assumptions? Again different countries do things differently than the Uk, and not necessarily worse in all respects.

Yanbu. Some peoples views on MN and in general society about disabled people (adults and children) and their parents are disgusting. Even some people with SEN relatives hold these disgusting views, I've met a couple of them.

Fucking hell. Would you like us to have the attitude towards disabled people, including children that is so prevalent in China? I really wouldn’t.

Fucking hell. Would you like us to have the attitude towards disabled people, including children that is so prevalent in China? I really wouldn’t.

@usedtobeaylis
I’m not saying that they have a lesser proportion of kids with non-physical disabilities, just that they don’t cost the state anywhere as much as in the UK, nor do they impact other children in school anywhere as much as it happens in the Uk (disruption, violence, etc.)
Asking any Chinese person who has a foot in the Uk and in China (as a foreigner I’ve a few friends like that) and they’ll tell you that.

@MumChp
apologies as I’d said upthread it’s actually the Netherlands.
See article about paediatric euthanasia, the creation of the Groningen protocol etc:
https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/5/397

Had you looked into it or just assume that because you personally weren't aware, that there are no issues? You're so far off the mark.

If I was going to blame the mothers I would have. I would like a welfare state with more teeth. Taxpayers should be the last resort when it comes to absent parents - father and mothers.

I think a lot of parents will want to do it themselves and accept this, but it is a ‘favour’ to the state when they do it for less cost than another carer would cost.

But yes, I, and many others help pay for the welfare state to be available for those who need it. People need to be able to care for there disabled children and afford to live and therefore be paid by the state to care for their child (which costs less so does do the state a favour) OR go out to work in another job and therefore have a carer for their child. That is the welfare state that we pay for! They can’t care for their child and live on nothing!

Who lets absent and non paying fathers of the hook. It's not the mothers but the state! what do you want mothers in such situations to do?

Fair point

Where is the father? Too many are let off the hook.

I understand your point but I believe that you assume that the care is automatically the state's responsibility. Lots of people care for their loved ones. They have done since the dawn of time.

The welfare state is there to support but ultimately it relies on us all caring as much as possible for our loved ones still. It simply couldn't cope with the alternative.

I am not being a 'sahm' who chooses to not to work. I'm a Carer.

Judging and virtue signaling does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Does looking after you own children in your home only have value if the child is disabled?

Being an ableist is wrong but ableism isn't?

A disabled child that needs caring for, not just parenting, needs a carer. Taking the emotion out of it, it is a job that needs doing. It is extra to parenting. Therefore in a society like ours with an established welfare state, a parent caring for their child, not just parenting them, is a job. Someone else would need to do it if they didn’t and that’s what they mean by favour.

I believe that primary responsibility should reside with the parents. One parent takes full time care of their child the other goes out to work. The welfare state provides support. There is no doing a favour for the state.

I think most people would support the state stepping in in situations like this to help the parent care for their own child. It's why we have a welfare state for families to fall back on and I think we should all be grateful for that as we all could need it one day.

This is slightly different though than suggesting the parent is doing the state a favour caring for their own children. This is a form of a blackmail that basically suggests that ultimately the child is the state's responsibility more than the child is the parent's responsibility. I think this is wrong! We all roll the dice when we have children and I believe we are all ultimately responsible for the children we bring into this world. Obviously there are times when we can't meet all our children's needs and we require help but I don't think that absolves us of having the ultimate responsibility to our children. It is a very dangerous precedent to set to suggest otherwise as really what's to stop all parents that are finding it difficult and tough playing that card and blackmailing the state?

That comes in because if i chose not to do it, they'd be in care, or they'd need a full time carer who would need to be paid for. Which would be a LOT more expense to the council/taxpayer/nhs.

As neither of those options were right in my mind, there was never any question of my not doing it.

I agree its my job as his parent to do the caring, but in doing so, i'm saving the government money that would otherwise need to pay for his care, therefore, saving the government money. I am not being a 'sahm' who chooses to not to work. I'm a Carer.

I don't understand your stance of disagreeing with that view.

Parents can’t work full time and look after their disabled child full time. If parents didn’t do it, the state would have to. Or do you have another suggestion?

My point is that the Task Force are working with the relatively newly expanded criteria and finding shock horror that lots of people fall within it and don't have a diagnosis. Does that mean that the criteria is correct and all these people are actually disabled by their ADHD traits to the point where they should be considered disabled? That's the bit that is controversial.

Again, drawing on the sight analogy. There are lots of people with what would widely be considered as having uncorrectable bad eyesight that wouldn't be considered disabled. This could absolutely hamper their day to day activities. They have to meet a certain threshold before they're considered disabled. It's not like everyone one side of the threshold can see perfectly and everyone the other side has no sight whatsoever. There is a pretty massive grey area as there is with most conditions and ADHD will be even more suceptible to this kind of non-binary presentation.

Where we draw the threshold is often largely subjective and to a certain extent has to be based on what's practical and distinct enough from the general population to be an actual disability. This is a subject of much debate in the scientific community. It's completely right that this is factored into any discussions regarding ADHD and also that the fact that it's not a binary, black and white condition is recognised. There is a hell of a lot of grey and it's doing lots of people a great disservice to deny this.

That parents who look after disabled children at home are doing the state a favour.

Statistics aren't relevant.

I believe that when we a child we have a life long parental responsibility to love, care and support that child. As such it is the parents responsibility to look after / support disabled children, first and foremost. Parents have a right to support from the welfare state to do this. This means that looking after a 16 old who cannot and will never be able to dress themselves independently is not doing the State a favour. It's part of what we sign up for when we decide to become parents. It isn't fair that some children are disabled and may need life long care, but that it is a risk every pregnant woman or parent faces - it may not be obvious a child is disabled at birth or they may become disabled due to an accident at some point in their life.

TLDR: I have a different view to those posters. It's neither right or wrong, just different. Hence we should agree to disagree.

Holy fuckballs batman.

Yes, i know.

If you follow the quote history i was talking to someone who was talking about a post made upthread where someone said they knew a child with ADHD who had been told they couldn't do something because of their ADHD and was sitting around on benefits because of it.

I even said that was either bad practice or bullshit because you shouldn't tell anyone that.

I have no idea why you're coming at me so aggressively for saying i don't think its right to tell anyone with a disability that they CANT do something because i firmly believe everyone should be encouraged to challenge themselves, rather than being kneecapped before they've even tried.