to think that if those care workers had done what they did to NT kids rather than learning disabled adults the sentences would have been more severe?

[Greensleeves]

I watched the documentary about Winterbourne View and it was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I think the sentences are a joke. Wayne Rogers in particular delighted in torturing powerless people who couldn't defend themselves.

I can't help wondering whether the sense of public outrage, and the severity of the sentences, would have been greater if the victims had not been SN adults?

and

Actually "wellbeing" not the right word - more "status" of disabled people is less than that of non-disabled.

I couldn't bring myself to watch that Panorama. I'm an older mum and I worry enough about the future of my boys, both of whom have ASD, one quite severe. I can't even watch the clips or that infernal BBC trailer without feeling sick and welling up.

I was pressurised to have the screening with DS2 and I took it, purely on the grounds of wanting to be forwarned so i could prepare in that particular event. If DS2 had Downs, rather than the ASD and co-morbid disabilities that he has, he would most likely be less disabled. So yes, i do find it hard to process the societal fear of Downs syndrome, apart from considering that it's probably the most outwardly visible disability which affects intellect, which puts it higher in people's imaginations (with the expected mixture of truth, fallacy and downright fear of that which has never been experienced). While I accepted the tests on the grounds that it gave me the opportunity to educate myself so i could be the best mum possible (iirc, the tests also screen for likelihood of spina bifida) I appreciate that my experience isn't universal. And that makes me terrified at the push for pre-natal screening for autism.

You certainly can't prepare much in advance for autism. DS1 and DS2 are chalk and cheese in pretty much every way. DS2's autism is more severe, but DS1 is more difficult to parent. I love both boys to bits. DN has ASD, too and was a non-verbal 3 year old. At 11, he's in mainstream secondary, in top set for maths, running for his county's under 14s team, has a load of bowling trophies, has published a book on Kindle and been interviewed on local radio about it and is pretty successfully selling 2nd hand jewellery on ebay.

But, not only is society in general ignorant about the sheer range and depth of the autistic spectrum and of disability in general, there are charities (thankfully not in this country) which spread the message that autism is only ever a problem which needs eradicating.

So yes, societal attitudes to disability are pretty ignorant. The sentences handed out to the Winterbourne View staff were shockingly lenient. I don't agree that they would have been greater had the residents not been vulnerable or disabled, though. If that was the case, Justin Lee Collins would have got far more than a community sentence for the abuse of his partner.

no surprise at the lack of interest on mn in this.
I do hope all the people who don't care never have the worry of a disabled child/adult.
it can happen to anyones child at any time.

I know this is an aside to the topic being discussed, but do people REALLY think that at 39+6, a foetus has no awareness?(funny that, all the pregnancy books I have read state the age they recognise their mother's voice as vein far far earlier in pregnancy than that, which to me means awareness)

And that suddenly at midnight that night, when you turn 40 weeks, that foetus magically is aware?

Do you think that Preemies feel no pain? When stuck with a needle, how come my DD born at 34+5 cried then?

I had a 3-D scan with DS3 when I was 21 weeks. He picked his nose and stuck his tongue out not much has changed and he's 21mo now!. He was aware enough to know where his nose was and to stuff his finger up it.

If Society valued people with disabilities, it wouldn't say that they were less worthy if being born than an NT baby. If the limit for termination of a n apparently NT baby isn't allowed at all after 24 weeks, then if we valued those with disabilities equally, there would be no difference, and the limit for termination of a baby with disabilities would not be allowed after 24 weeks for any reason.

The fact that you can terminate a pregnancy where the baby has a disability at 39 weeks, when the baby will quite easily be able to live once born, is legalised murder of people deemed 'less worthy' IMO.

And that is where disability discrimination starts. At the point of just 24 weeks into your pregnancy.

And it ends up at the point where these scumbags are physically abusing some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Change one, and the other will slowly start to change, I feel.

You can't pay lip service to equality for people with disabilities when you start discriminating against them just 24 weeks after their conception.

I am in full agreement with Cailin.

FWIW - I turned down blood tests even when pg with my first DC at 16. Because it wouldn't have changed my intentions to continue with the pregnancy. Which is good that I was mentally prepared like that - as DD ended up having more than one disability, none of which could be tested for prenatally 15 years ago, and only one if that can even now (her cardiac problems would be picked up by the vastly improved quality of ultrasound scanning now).

I just can't understand how these people only got a maximum of two years. It just shows the lack of shits given about the most vulnerable disabled people. And as for those who got unpaid work - PLEASE tell me it isn't in another care home, of any sort.

Because I might just have to poke myself in the eyes with a pencil 1000 times. Because it would be more sensible than making an abusive care worker do unpaid care work...

mrsdevere I don't think that was aimed at you. Sorry you've had a crappy day - hope you have a good night's sleep and tomorrow is better

mrsdv, definitely not aimed at you at all in any way. Hope by the time you read this you had a good night's sleep.

Oh and saying "I would terminate a child with Down syndrome, but I believe those already alive deserve the best of care" is pretty fucked up IMO

I think it is you who is fucked up.

Some people will terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy, that has nothing to do with treating people with SN badly.

Some people will terminate a pregnancy if it is the 'wrong' sex, that has nothing to do with treating people with SN badly.

Surely anybody saying anybody is "fucked up" on this issue is wrong. Its so sensitive and everyone has their own sorrows. It's quite hard to say " I would" or "I wouldnt" because you don't know untl you're faced with it. When you read about the experiences of children and adults who are vulnerable it's understandable that some people feel they don't want to continue a pregnancy. Or you may think that way with your head but when it comes to it your heart is torn out. So on a mothers forum this should not be a fight between the parents whose children are treated poorly and other parents who think that is deplorable, because of differences over screening and termination.

Threesocks I agree, I was pleased this thread had been started because I couldn't really believe the lack of protest from spokesmen and women for vulnerable adults.

Pagwatch did you say something to the people sitting behind you. Going from what is on this thread it must feel a constant battle against that sort of thing. Are there times it becomes to frustrating to respond to.

"too" frustrating

MrsDeVere, I think the things that upset you were directed at me. There's no point in engaging with that kind of stuff, it's not worth getting upset over. Posters who inflate what you say or put words in your mouth in order to avoid addressing an uncomfortable issue are best ignored IMO. It's too hard to have a reasonable debate when posters try to imagine you're saying something you're not.

I don't think the thread has been derailed at all. What other direction could it have gone? More than likely all that would have happened is that we would have had 10 or so posters saying "Oh yes it's a disgrace, those poor people." and that's it. What else is there to say on the topic? Well, we could look at why we have a society where such awful things happen, which IMO is more constructive than just wringing our hands and lamenting. And pointing the finger and saying "those people are evil" is naive behaviour IMO. Things like this don't happen in a vacuum, they are shaped in some way by the society in which they happen, of which we are all a part. And it's worth understanding what in our society might have shaped this behaviour. It's worth taking a hard look at ourselves too. Instead of assuming we're 100% blameless in all this, it is more sensible IMO to see where our ideas need to be challenged.

It is my opinion that prenatal testing and the availability of abortion for children with disabilities up to term contributes to the generally shit attitude society has towards people with disabilities. As Couthy put it, discrimination begins at 24 weeks gestation, sanctioned by the good old NHS who protects the "worthy" (non-disabled) life while being totally ok with getting rid of the "unworthy" (disabled) life. If our own health system discriminates before birth, what hope do the people who survive to adulthood have?

couthymow who mentioned the age of the foetus being full term?

legally it can be aborted at full term for a disability

I can see where the availability of abortion for disabled babies right up to term does give the impression that disabled children are less valuable to society. I've always felt it was given more time because sometimes a life threatening or limiting disability may not be discovered until later in the pregnancy. I can honestly say that I don't know if I could terminate based on a disability - but you do see the stories where the baby has severe disabilities that mean it will only live a few hours in horrendous pain, and I waver a bit. It's hard to say what you'd do unless you're in that situation, but I certainly would never criticise someone who had to make that choice.

We did have the screening for DS when pregnant with both DS2 and DS3, which was recommended as we were slightly older parents (I was 39 and 42 when pregnant with them). I was willing to have the testing, mainly because if there was a high probability of a disability, I simply wanted to be prepared. Interestingly enough, the ratio was very very high that DS3 might have DS. So much so that the midwife met with us in person with a view to helping us schedule an amniocentesis right away. She did seem quite shocked that we refused the amnio, and not only pushed us quite hard to get it, but literally rang us back within 24 hours again asking if we were certain that we didn't want the amnio so we could then discuss options based on the results. We pointed out that we had the screening simply so we could be prepared if there were any disabilities (which is our option obviously), and she seemed exasperated that we had the screening but were unwilling to take the assessment any further.

While it was a bit odd, I think it was more her personal views that she was pushing, rather than the NHS's policies.

I do think, however, the subjects are related to some extent after thinking about it for awhile. I think it is pretty obvious that society does value disabled people much lower than NT people, sadly, to the point of dehumanising them.

Just for clarification, we refused the amnio mainly because we had already had 4 m/c's and were unwilling to risk losing the baby simply for a diagnostic test that wouldn't affect our decision to carry the baby full term.

Brycie

No. If you re read the post, saying something would have drawn attention to it which would have upset the otherwise oblivious parents around me.

In my head I punched them repeatedly in the face

But of course

I have found this thread very interesting and while I don't agree with everything said, it's really made me think. I didn't have DS screening but hadn't thought very much about it. But pp talking about in utero autism screening - looking at my DS sitting next to me - chills me to the bone.

HOWEVER we can't and mustn't judge women making difficult decisions and as to the point about people saying they 'couldn't cope with a disabled child' - it is bloody petrifying. And cases like this care home don't help dispel that fear. As long as disabled people are treated like that, small wonder people are scared to give birth to disabled children.

It's a chicken and egg situation though Wilson. For a lot of women, the first time they have to consider dealing with someone with a disability is when they face the possibility that their own child might be disabled. If the NHS is giving the message that it is necessary to test for a disability such as DS (and others that are picked up in scans) and then "consider your options" - the only "option" being abortion - of course women are going to feel that keeping a baby with such disabilities is a tough and scary decision. The "norm" is to abort and it's tough to go against the norm. You then get the situation where, when a child with DS is born, people wonder why that happened - why is this child here? Why didn't you find out he/she had it in utero? Why didn't you abort? As soon as you get a situation where people actually question why a child was allowed to live, you get a situation where the value of that person is also questioned.

I get that people abort because they can't afford a child, they can't deal with becoming parents etc etc. But it's a different situation where a couple say "we want a child, but not a child with disabilities," and where they would abort that child, solely because it has a disability. They would want the child if it weren't disabled, but because it is, they will terminate it. That amounts to making to a value judgement on the life of the child, and I am against the fact that the NHS encourages these value judgements. My worry is that in the future with cheaper and more accurate genetic testing, the net will be thrown wider and a greater number of value judgements will be made. Potential for ASD? Abort. Potential for bipolar/schizophrenia? Abort. Potential not to be pretty, not to be tall, not to be intelligent? Abort.

In my book you either want a child or you don't. You don't get to decide whether a particular child is good enough. If you want to abort, abort, but don't do it on the basis that that child doesn't meet your expectations.

Interestingly, my Asian friend told me that the NHS are very reluctant to tell Asian families at scans what sex their baby is in case they might want to abort on that basis. Yet, they tell you if your baby has Down syndrome with the assumption that you might want to abort on that basis. Why is the life of a "normal" girl more worth guarding than the life of a child with Down syndrome? Why should families be prevented from aborting because the child is a girl, but encouraged to abort because the child has Down syndrome?

I think this thread is very interesting and hasn't been derailed at all. It is societies attitude to disabilities and its treatment of such people that is at the heart of this terrible event.

Yes I think it's very legitimate to bring abortion into this even though for me personally I totally believe in a woman's right to choose to abort up to full term if she chooses to on grounds of disability.

I had an amino with my third child as she and the dd born after her were afterthoughts in my family and they had 2 older brothers who I didn't want ' burdened' with the care of younger siblings in the future.

I felt that I would abort dd3 if the results were bad, I don't know if I would have done in reality but who knows.

However societies attitudes to disabilities have always been harsh much before abortion was legal or even practised. Look at Victorian mad houses.

I do however see the points made by Cailaina and they are valid.

I cried the entire way through the documentary, what those poor adults went through was horrendous, I do hope they are in a decent home now where they are being cared for properly with people who care and will help them and treat them right, the sentences are far to lenient for those bullies, they should have been given ten years each and not be allowed to care for even there own children ever again. I cannot get over the fact that this was an entire group of arseholes, who abused these vulnerable adults day in and day out for years, I'm sickened by it absolutely sickened.

SoleSource, your comment on Fri 26-Oct-12 13:52:45, has chilled me to the bone. It shouldn't have to be like that.

Crashdoll, from one social worker to another, you might be interested in a book called the Politics of Downs Syndrome. It looks at this argument around screening in a more academic way but also includes the personal/ anecdotal as its written by the parents if a young girl with DS.

I watched this and it broke my heart

I've seen abuse in homes ive worked it, but that was purely down to short staff, lack of resources and poorly trained staff. And young staff at that.

But this was on a whole new level, what these people have done was sadistic.