To think a lot of MN are ableist?

[Sweetlifeofyours]

So I wasn’t going to post but as a mum with a disabled child myself I feel like I have to get things off my chest. I have read a couple of threads over the past week or so regarding mothers who are looking for advice and support for their disabled child/children (2 that stick out to me)

I was very sad to see that there were only a few posters who actually gave support and advice to the OP’s. The rest were in my opinion, downright rude and nasty and clearly just wanted to upset the OP’s even more for whatever reason.

As a mum with a SEN child, it is incredibly difficult and I myself don’t always get the correct help and support I need so to come on here and see that other women/parents show their (somewhat) true opinions of disabled children upset me.

I am completely 100% on board that autism shouldn’t be an excuse for everything, but surely some compassion wouldn’t go amiss to a struggling parent.

One of the worst things I read was a poster saying to the OP that they should make sure their child doesn’t turn into a sex offender because he enjoys hugs. Says more to me about the poster rather than the OP and their child.

I guess my AIBU is, do you think people (maybe especially on here) should have more compassion for the disabled community or have you read threads where you agree with the majority of comments (especially where we are talking about young children)?

Look, i am a believer in the merits of AD for consenting adults with Terminal Illness.

However, what you're talking about is not that. You're talking about what the AD movement is strongly trying to prevent, and putting legal measures in to make sure it doesn't and cannot happen.. that being OTHER PEOPLE making the decision to KILL someone because they think they don't deserve to live/shouldn't be here.

Its the difference between assisted SUICIDE and assisted MURDER.

What don't you get about that?

AM of medically unwell people is eugenics.

DNR is a form of passive euthanasia
AD is active euthanasia

They are both forms of euthanasia and potentially life shortening. They are absolutely not the opposite of each other.

DNR is NOT passive euthanasia, that person is dead/ in the process of natural death.

I also suggest you do some research on the the stats on how much physical harm is done during CPR, and how many people it actually brings back to life, and the age of the people it's successful for.

What you see on TV shows is not the reality.

It absolutely is a form of passive euthanasia. We have to remain factual here.

Yes I know the damage that resuscitation can cause.

DNR = not wanting granny's ribs splintered to matchsticks whilst medics attempt to restart her heart

AD = ending the suffering of terminally ill people with the ability to consent, and with appropriate safeguards, when there is no hope of improvement and no quality of life

Ending a disabled person's life without their consent = the kind of criminal act that (rightly) puts people in jail for a very long time

Christ.

Applying the duck hypothesis, I am comfortable with the eugenicist accusation and will not be withdrawing it. Even in this post, you admit that you are in favor of the killing of, not just terminally ill babies, but also ones with a 'poor quality of life'. Again, I ask, who gets to decide on the threshhold for a life being considered worth living? Most sensible and caring people would be horrified about the idea of the law allowing for such arbitrary and subjective life and death decisions being made about disabled babies.

If there's no hope for a child to survive and have a quality of life, hospitals already have the authority to take a child's parents to court if they disagree about withdrawing treatment such as the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Doctors will act in the best interests of the child to minimise any unnecessary suffering.

I was told a number of times when my son was in intensive care and he took a few turns for the worse that some difficult conversations may need to start happening soon. Thankfully it never came to that but they were very clear it was very likely because of how critically unwell he was at the time that at some point, they would reach a line and it would be ''Is this really in his best interests? Or is this just going to cause him more suffering?''.

No, I didn't say that. You have interpreted a comma to mean 'or' rather than 'and'. My posts upthread clarify that I have only ever advocated it for cases of terminal illness where there is a very poor quality of life and very poor prognosis.

It's not about whether a life is worth living. The life is ending anyway and it's about managing death at that point.

I think some posters on this thread feel like they have complete impunity to insult other posters and accuse them of whatever they like. Then in the same breath will look to report and delete any post that they find upsetting and accuse MN of ableism if they don't comply. I'm afraid what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want a respectful forum then you have to be part of that.

DNR is not any kind of euthanasia,
Let alone passive , its an inaction to try and save a life
Whereas Assisted Dying ,is actively helping a person to die..

Exactly its always in the child's best interest ,s .

Passive euthanasia is the act of allowing a patient to die naturally by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatments,

This is ridiculous! Of course it is.

While its 'considered a type of passive euthanasia' to quote some sources in regards to the laws around DNR, it's a nothing phrase, and what it's doing is ascribing a reactive behaviour to a natural process.

The fact that medically we have the ability to interfere in the natural process of death to attempt resuscitation doesn't mean it deserves to be given a name that makes it sound like we're actively helping someone to die. We aren't.

Eta: removing life sustaining treatment by choice probably is 'passive euthanasia, however that is an entirely different scenario than someone sick or elderly (or both) having a DNR that means when their body naturally dies, that we don't interfere. I don't think the latter deserves to be labelled as 'passive euthanasia'

Perhaps they should live a while in our shoes.

They don't need to have walked in your shoes to have a valid opinion. This is AIBU.

Don't bother responding. It's clear that this thread was supposed to be an echo chamber.

It is a form of passive euthanasia.

Consent or no consent, you are deliberately withholding medical, potentially life extending treatment because of the DNR. If in the normal run of things, a person would ordinarily be offered this treatment then it is a divergence from the normal way we would treat someone and therefore is a form of euthanasia.

The fact you don't want it to be recognised as such is not relevant. DNRs are a form of euthanasia as they rebut the assumption that life extending treatment will be offered.

Whatever way you look at it, DNRs are not the opposite to AD. They are both forms of euthanasia. The opposite of both DNR and AD is providing additional life extending treatment beyond what is ordinarily available to people.