what ever happened to the This Is my child campaign?

Ah yes as PP's have said it is a correct medical term I've just Googled it.

Bishop, this is the problem I have with logic like yours.

The boy is in a vegetative state. That might be hard to hard to hear, acknowledge or think about, but is fact, agreed by many medical experts.

And no it is not swapping in another "offensive" term, because it is the definition that is important. Can you genuinely not understand that or are you just choosing to not get it because I'm posting with a different view to you?

Vegetative is a medical term. It's widely used.

Retarded used to be a medical term.
So did moron.

Anne, yes, that is why we have a legal system. And those who work in it feel the terrible grinding pressure of responsibilty every day.

I dunno, 'vegetative' is mainstream medical discourse and is used, for example, all over the NHS website. I think it's not fair to label posters as disablist for using it, particularly in reference to this specific case.

'The did you read the post about the term vegetative?'

Wasnt that the term was used once by a hcp?

It is a recognised medical term although clearly it shouldn't be used insensitively by those not medically trained.

And again.
Where's a brick wall so I can bump my head against it?

"It's not offensive, it's about insert offensive term "

Okay. But whatever the correct term for vegetative is, the poor baby is that. It doesn't change the facts surrounding it and it doesn't change the fact that the thread is not disablist.

The did you read the post about the term vegetative?

Charlie is not disabled. He is terminally ill. He' s obviously in pain, and his vital organs look like they'e failing. I'm astonished that anyone thinks that keeping him alive is anything other than cruel and inhuman.

If I had a child who was brain damaged to this extent I would want them to be taken off life support. As painful as this would be, it would be the right thing to do for them.

But meh. I agree with Myrtle and I also think this thread should be deleted as it is more of a "look at those horrible posters on the other thread" OP rather than a discussion focused on the relevant topic.

But have you actually read the threads, can someone show me an example of offenice disablist comments?

I haven't read all the posts here but has anyone addressed the fact that being brain damaged to the point of having no physical sensations or signs of consciousness is very different to having brain damage, and that paediatric medical experts all around the world are pretty much unanimously in agreement that the poor baby would have no quality of life whatsoever regardless of any treatment offered?

It's not a case of debating whether his life would be worth living if he was disabled or not. It is a case of deciding whether there is any possible chance at all that any treatment in the world could bring him out of anything other than a vegetative state, which lots of people do have opinions about?

I am genuinely struggling to see what is so horrible about them expressing these views and am truly struggling to see (am flicking through them) that there is a general tone of disablism on the thread.

A few of the earlier threads were deleted, I'm sure mnhq can confirm that.

'I am a judge. It's a terrible terrible situation for all to be in. People take sides yet forget that.'

A judge. Right . Anyway yes it is terrible situation however like everything high profile it will be discussed at length whether people here approve or not. It isn't voyeuristic, rubbernecking, obsessive etc etc... If there are any attacks on the parents mnhq delete, ditto any offensive comments

Cherries no they wouldn't. That's the problem.

Anne it was to Rina. You've been epic x
FWIW I'm disabled and have disabled children and friends who have children with PMLD and multiple complex disabilities.

I don't think so from what I've seen, the only comments I've personally seen with that response are the ones that say something along the lines of "why are you talking about this so much".

It is an emotive case and I do find they have gone out of their way to keep the threads sensible and balanced and offer support to other posters where needed.

If it were truly as awful as the OP suggests, the threads would have been deleted.

Again, Cherries, people who disagree or question anyone on the threads about Charlie are all but told to sod off.

It's fine Rina I'm disabled and so are a couple of my children.

I have never posted on those threads but I have followed them from the very beginning.

I have to say, that while I have seen the odd distasteful comment, I have never come across a disablist comment.

The posters on there also do not have to justify their willingness to have a conversation about the case surrounding poor Charlie, it has huge potential far reaching consequences in terms of law and societal perception of a variety of medical ethical issues, and many posters are effected personally by similar issues.

Blindly calling the entire thread disablist is beyond ignorant. Starting a bitchy TAAT is also very

Starting a bitchy thread about it is also not a debate. It's pathetic and purile. If you have opposing views, why don't you express them on the threads, or start your own about the actual case (rather than the thread) which offers your own perspective?

I think this thread should be deleted and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself. This is a case about a poorly little boy and many women on that thread have ill or disabled children too and just because they have different opinions to you you feel the need to start a thread personally attacking their views?

Oh Anne

Me too Hazey - I'm going off to have a cry