DNR order on kids with disabilities

[2021s]

Sorry about the daily mail link but this is too shocking not to share. DNR orders placed on teenagers with learning disabilities during pandemic in England.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346479/GPs-offered-teenage-patients-learning-disabilities-not-resuscitate-orders.html?fbclid=IwAR2Moljqum74qgnOkCbldVPCng0tUA9IWfUs6loTQQXdZBX_x9wGNk844jo

This is terrifying that it would ever be considered.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346479/GPs-offered-teenage-patients-learning-disabilities-not-resuscitate-orders.html?fbclid=IwAR2Moljqum74qgnOkCbldVPCng0tUA9IWfUs6loTQQXdZBX_x9wGNk844jo

I remember this happening. Shocking.

Disgusting, but pretty reflective of a society that places no value on anyone older or weaker. And also reflective of the lack of equal access to healthcare that those with learning disabilities experience, leading to them dying on average 20 years younger than they should.

It is utterly appalling. To be honest, I’m not wholly surprised though. As a mum of two severely disabled children, I realise daily how underfunded and inadequate social care is in the UK.

I heard about this earlier on. Doesnt surprise me either as a parent to sen children. My LA treats disabled children with contempt

Yes. This is true. I remember it happening.

They believe a child with disabilities isn't worth saving apparently. It's disgusting and needs investigating throughly and people need punishing!

Has it been reported anywhere other than the Daily Mail?

Does it not say they were offered. Not 'placed' on them?

Does it not say they were offered

WTF? Was every teenager in the country offered one?

Has it been reported anywhere other than the Daily Mail

Yes the telegraph have an article but it’s behind a paywall

Does it not say they were offered. Not 'placed' on them?

First of all why would this make it anymore acceptable, typical teenagers were not offered, the general public was not offered, and secondly some teenagers with learning disabilities would not understand the question enough to give an informed answer, and in some cases they were automatically applied so I believe.

@Notimeforaname

Being offered a DNR order just because you have a learning disability is bad enough. They wouldn't have offered a teenager without learning disabilities this.

Did these teenagers have a parent or trusted adult with them at the time? Did they have capacity to make that type of decision themselves? It is scary to think that some of them could have been manipulated into signing something like this.

Sadly disabled are treated like crap in this country, this is outrageous but sadly not surprising :(

I refuse to open a link from the daily mail, but I think the question I would ask is whether it was really this black and white.

I.e. are we talking about a child who only had a learning disability, or are we talking about children who, as well as having severe learning disabilities, also had serious disabilities which e.g. might impact on their heart/respiration for whom resuscitation would be a deeply traumatic process resulting in further compromise to their already failing health.

If the former and it’s actually true then it is shocking. If the latter then sadly many of these children already have serious life-limiting disabilities which will at some point result in their deterioration, and where resuscitation isn’t always in their best interests.

But the attitude towards disability is societal not just within the system. People express shock when it’s an existing child, but nobody bats an eyelid if it’s a pregnancy with the potential for being terminated at 40 weeks when that baby would be viable. If it’s got a disability then it’s perfectly acceptable to terminate…

AlternativePerspective

Children with autism and Down’s syndrome.

I agree that the daily mail link is unappealing

Here’s is another
www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/half-of-deaths-among-people-with-learning-disabilities-in-2020-were-avoidable/

And another
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/26/children-learning-disabilities-offered-do-not-resuscitate-orders/

@AlternativePerspective

I refuse to open a link from the daily mail, but I think the question I would ask is whether it was really this black and white.

I.e. are we talking about a child who only had a learning disability, or are we talking about children who, as well as having severe learning disabilities, also had serious disabilities which e.g. might impact on their heart/respiration for whom resuscitation would be a deeply traumatic process resulting in further compromise to their already failing health.

If the former and it’s actually true then it is shocking. If the latter then sadly many of these children already have serious life-limiting disabilities which will at some point result in their deterioration, and where resuscitation isn’t always in their best interests.

But the attitude towards disability is societal not just within the system. People express shock when it’s an existing child, but nobody bats an eyelid if it’s a pregnancy with the potential for being terminated at 40 weeks when that baby would be viable. If it’s got a disability then it’s perfectly acceptable to terminate…

During covid it was primarily because they were concerned about having to ration care, the risk/benefit balance of invasive life saving procedures on an individual level wasn't part of the thought behind it. I think the argument about abortion laws are more complex than that.

twnews.co.uk/amp/uk-news/gps-offered-teenage-patients-with-learning-disabilities-do-not-resuscitate-orders

Google it, it’s widely reported

is the issue that they were offered to the teenager, rather than the parent?

@MrsLargeEmbodied

is the issue that they were offered to the teenager, rather than the parent?

No

i am sure there is more to this, and if a child who happens to have learning disability also has a life limiting disability i imagine these were the ones who were offered the dnr

I was shocked by this. I recall Dominic Lawson speaking about it last year as his daughter has downs syndrome.

I have an autistic son. His life is as valuable as anyone elses, thank you. But what has shocked me to my core is that alot of people do not think this. I have said before but on some of the corona threads on MN when i have expressed concern about him being vulnerable I have had some strident and agressive responses about how essentially children like mine should drop off the planet so others can get on with their lives. I have heard the same IRL as well. There is a child who lives near us who has become quite famous for raising funds for his particular disability. I was saying to a friend how great it was and her response was 'Let's be real. That's a child that should have been left out in the snow at birth'.

This person is no longer a friend clearly. But there is a real callousness out there. And the article referenced terrifies me, because what happens when I have died and gone and can no longer advocate for my son?

@MrsLargeEmbodied

i am sure there is more to this, and if a child who happens to have learning disability also has a life limiting disability i imagine these were the ones who were offered the dnr

It just wasn't life limiting disabilities. It's autism, downs, etc. too!

@AlternativePerspective

I refuse to open a link from the daily mail, but I think the question I would ask is whether it was really this black and white.

I.e. are we talking about a child who only had a learning disability, or are we talking about children who, as well as having severe learning disabilities, also had serious disabilities which e.g. might impact on their heart/respiration for whom resuscitation would be a deeply traumatic process resulting in further compromise to their already failing health.

If the former and it’s actually true then it is shocking. If the latter then sadly many of these children already have serious life-limiting disabilities which will at some point result in their deterioration, and where resuscitation isn’t always in their best interests.

But the attitude towards disability is societal not just within the system. People express shock when it’s an existing child, but nobody bats an eyelid if it’s a pregnancy with the potential for being terminated at 40 weeks when that baby would be viable. If it’s got a disability then it’s perfectly acceptable to terminate…

^^ this A few years ago there was a similar report about children with DS not being offered heart transplants.

It sounds terrible but isn't the actual case.

DS often affects the heart.

If you have a heart transplant you need to take ant rejection drugs, these work by lowering your immune system.

People with DS usually already have an impaired immune system already.

This means that a heart transplant can actually shorten life. And that life will be centred around hospital visits, medication and medical investigations.

But that doesn't make good headlines, 'DS children denied life saving op' does.

Re placed v offered
It doesn't make it more acceptable.
It makes it accurate.
They weren't given a DNR, they were offered one.

Being accurate is important because by saying placed you get people saying no they weren't, they were offered... And the actual point is missed or more accurately, ignored.

Whereas when you say teens with disabilities were offered DNR whereas teens without were not - there is nothing for the 'don't be stupid, there's no systemic disability discrimination, you're misreporting' people to latch onto to discredit your argument and move the focus from the actual issue - some lives matter more than others.

yes, the telegraph article is about the teenager himself being offered a DNR, rather than the parent