To think there is a definite surge in annoyance towards the disabled?

[WarySwan]

I have seen it in real life. Not just social media forums and news outlets where every other post seems to be about 'free money this for disabled' and 'free cars'.

My 2 children have autism. They get highest rate DLA. About £800 a month. We get respite care funded that costs the tax payer about £700 a month.

Just had an extension on our new build house, housing association, brand new bedroom and ensuite installed. Free of charge through the council.

Motability 7 seater car. 25 plate.

People seem to just see this and see the money. They do not see the costs that are present because of disability. The amount of time and resources it takes to keep 2 profoundly children at home.

They do not see that my children will need 24/7 care for life. 2-1 support in public. The constant cleaning and caring. Waking up at the crack of dawn, years on end. Cleaning smearing and endless washing. Endless marks on your body from a child who doesn't get that taking a chunk out of you will hurt that much and scar

Watching your eldest almost die as he can't speak a word or use a communication device. Meaning appendicitis went undetected until he was almost dying. The constant battle of keeping a cannula in his arm with hospital staff just not getting why a play therapist does not bloody cut it and he needs constant supervision that I cannot possibly do 24/7 without moving from the bedside. The weeks spend in recovery because of this.

If we do not or cannot provide this care, residential placements are about £40,000+ per month. Yes. Per month. It is eye watering in cost. That won't change anytime soon because social care is beyond shot to bits.

My children deserve the best life possible. And a dignified society should surely want to ensure this happens? Children who are not disabled and their parents have options. They have chances and doorways. Mine will never work. Never have a marriage or children, they won't even be able to cook a basic meal.

There is no overtime or upskilling for me. No situation where they fly the nest and I can focus on my career again. Unless they become some dangerous through no fault of their own that a 40k plus a month placement goes ahead as the alternative means I could die or be seriously injured, and that would mean they'd be at risk if I am literally unconscious on the floor.

They still deserve dignity and compassion. The chance of a good life. They are very happy currently. Good routines that are followed to a T. Safe at home because I have the resources to do it.

Care placement does not save money. Unfortunately. It would cost over ten times what I get in benefits.

I have seen so many mentions of people saying those on benefits should have no savings at all. Nothing. Really? You think my life isn't hard enough? You think I shouldn't be allowed a small nest of savings too?

When I finally drop down from caring, I will have next to no pension. After spending a lifetime ensuring the state doesn't have to take full responsibility for 2 adult men that will mean at least 4 paid members of staff are present at all times.

I am not just talking about MN. It is everywhere. Even 'funny' reels on Instagram targeted about how the disabled get this and that. How they should all drive a basic tiny car that has something written in bold to make sure everyone knows its a free car, as if they're really disabled, they'll use. That'll stop the chancers eh!

This is NOT about criticism towards PIP and DLA for things people deem questionable... even though they almost certainly dont have all the facts. This is about the blatant and not hidden disgust and begrudge of help to those with lifelong and profound disability

PEOPLE keep saying in black and white, no room for confusion in their words, that the disabled get too much. That it isn't fair.

I suppose this thread will get deleted. But a lot of views seem to be going unchallenged about the disabled that wouldn't be allowed if it was about something else that's suppose to be a protected characteristic. Seems to have quite a few comparisons with a certain country in Europe 80 or so years ago. When the hatred and deceit was being thrown around and brain washing people before not many years later, the public became okay with euthanasia of them.

Hell, I am sure we are already there for some. As I have seen with my own eyes, people commenting on MN and the likes of social media where their bloody name and pictures of themselves and their work can be traced, that euthanasia could be an option, ideally.

Ok, well in terms of philosophy and how a culture can drift let’s look at suicide.

i have a significant personal interest in this as I was in an accident and suffer significantly.

the Christian position (and this is very uncompromisingly) is that life is a gift and under pretty much no circumstances should it be cut short or ended.

so people who are suffering in a massive amount of pain were traditionally told to “offer the suffering to Jesus who suffered on the cross for humanity”.

you also get debates in palliative care about whether it is ok to give drugs that will reduce pain but may cut the lifespan slightly short - ie a dying person should endure more suffering simply because they might live a few days longer without the pain relief.

attitudes to palliative care have changed. Mostly these days people accept that it is ok to give drugs as long as these are medically needed for pain or other stuff.

some countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada) now permit euthanasia in specific cases. If the person is definitely dying as certified by medical professionals they can take this option.

this is strictly totally against Christian belief.

but most people can see that if you are dying anyway the healthcare system is not set up to stop suffering and can understand why someone might not want to endure six months of painful dying.

that there is the change from Christian beliefs. Because people don’t want to suffer and they don’t want to see others suffer.

it is very common for people who acquire a disability to feel very depressed and low about it. Many consider suicide. Most are able to rebuild some kind of quality of life but for some they make the choice not to be alive.

in our society, we do in general think that’s a valid choice. You don’t get people saying disapprovingly that they should have valued the life god sent to them and suffered as god intended.

once it is conceded that people can choose for themselves whether they want to be alive then it becomes possible to conceive that they can choose for others, and the most emotionally simple extension is to members of their family.

we already have this in a way as family will be asked to make a dnr (do not recusitate) decision in hospital for a family member who is not able to make it for themselves (unconscious or lack of capacity). My mum was asked to make the decision for my dad when he was very ill.

a parent will be asked to make that decision for a child if the child is ill.

also, I used to work in a school for students with special needs.

it was very noticeable year on year that there were fewer children with Down’s

the vast majority of pregnancies where the mother knows the child has downs are aborted.

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/nearly-90-of-babies-prenatally-diagnosed-with-downs-syndrome-were-aborted-in-2021

attitudes to disability can be deduced from this.

It's a bit rich to pitch this as a right/left issue. Eugenics has always had a home on the left and still does today.

It's not at all clear that she's lied on the application. The most likely criteria for her to have qualified for Enhanced Mobility would be that she "Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid."

It's notable that @Pricelessadvice said that "she very happily takes the train and bus with friends". None of us have any way of knowing how much support and guidance she needs from those friends. If she'd been described as regularly going out and about on her own, you might have a point.

When I was pregnant with DC4 , my lastborn, I was an older Mother .
I was offered amnio and took up the offer .
IF my DS had had DS I would probably, to be totally honest, have had an abortion.

I would have taken the outlook of I am not getting any younger and when I am dead, then my older children would need to step in and that's not right either.
If DS had DS and was my first pregnancy I think I would probably not abort but nor would I judge those who do/did

If we put aside the inherently unpalatable idea of euthanasia....

The logical reason for it would be, I think, that's the disbenefit to one or more people versus the benefit to one. Pushing it to extremes because it's easier to see the working, let's say that this child consumes the entire waking hours of 2 loving parents and 2 siblings and will likely do for their entire lives.

That means that 4 lives are not lived (except in the most basic manner) and the little joy gained by the boy is far outweighed by the loss of joy and participation of the others.

And do we have the right to effectively demand the slavery of the siblings in support of the child? (I would argue not)

Moreover those 5 people also will require the charity of others for housing food etc. That's presumably at least another 10 people whose lives would be negatively affected. Do we have the right to coerce them? And particularly how can we coerce them if we don't choose to coerce family?

This doesn't really depend on the specific characteristics of the child, but more about the impact on others.

Are the parents and siblings doomed to slavery in support of this one child. On what planet would we argue that someone able would be entitled to the slavery of others?

As you can see, I don't know where to draw the line but I do instinctively feel that there must be a line.

You are very condescending for someone who made all kinds of accusations because of your own repeated misreadings. Which are what have propelled this discussion, btw.

I'd be interested to know what you think it is that makes parents differernt today than they have been in the past, or are in other places. It's natural for all parents to love their children, in all times and places. So why are parents today somehow differernt?

Of course it's reasonable to consider how resources should be distributed to children with disabilities, and how society cares for them.

It's also reasonable to consider how resources are distributed to children without disabilities, who are equally entitled to a good life, education, and so on.

One set of children isn't more important than another. Most people see their own children in front of them and concentrate on their needs, as you are with your own kids. That does not make the concerns of other parents illegitimate, or an attack.

It's reasonable to think about the best way to manage needs, how to do so efficiently but also what is most effective. It's reasonable to consider how many resources there are. It's reasonable to think about and discuss causes of needs, and how they might be mitigated. It's good to think about different models of distribution. It's important to think about different ways to do things, even if they might seem out of the box.

Is it appropriate to "begrudge" - well that depends on what you mean. There is no guarantee the government always gets things right. There is nothing wrong with people talking about how policies are working, if they are fair, and things like that.

Is it ok to begrudge those you think are taking the piss? Yeah, of course it is.

Where most people are saying the opposite view - trans women are men. So again, there isn’t a parroted discourse from left wing media on mumsnet that trans women are women. There is a lot of discourse about people “scrounging” benefits, faking adhd, too many people being disabled we can’t keep going like this etc, etc. Circling back to my original point - those are right wing soundbites.

Unless something changes the assisted dying bill is going to end up like canada, with disabled people, who aren't even terminally ill, being coerced into dying to save the state money. It's a disgrace. 😢

I believe you are arguing for a robust welfare state with plenty of support including respite care and a guarantee that the family carers of disabled people would never live in poverty.

There's no other reason to portray disabled people as a burden, especially when you do so on behalf of others.

Are the parents and siblings doomed to slavery in support of this one child. On what planet would we argue that someone able would be entitled to the slavery of others?

What do you suggest should happen to this hypothetical child, if we agree as a society that he entitled to ‘doom his family to slavery?’ Would it make a difference if his parents and siblings didn’t view things in this way at all but rather saw him as a beloved family member?

I don’t see much of that but I do see poster insisting men can use women’s spaces. Or that anyone who disagrees with certain points are ‘right wing’ rather than engaging with their argument.

If I look at your last points particularly - it’s my belief that the parents certainly signed up for the parenting of that child, whatever that looked like, when they chose to have it.

Disabled children don’t ask to be born, and they didn’t choose disability. I think that anyone who is fortunate to plan their child, should consider that they may end up with a disabled one when it arrives.

I appreciate not everyone does plan their children, however as others have pointed out - abortion is available. Whilst I personally wouldn’t abort a foetus on the basis of it being disabled, that does remain an option.

Not all disability is visible pre-birth, but then that goes back to my first point - if you are not prepared to have a disabled child, don’t have one, because that child may either be born with or develop a disability, and it’s your responsibility to manage that.

I also wonder if the answer would change depending on state cost. So if a family could largely self fund their disabled children, does that make them more entitled to keep them, in a world where they could be euthanised? There are many, many problems with that IMO.

And this is a really common line of thought, in fact I would say the most common line of thought.

And if you really look at it - philosophically you might say - it is about resources. Is it reasonable/good to put the burden of care for this child on others. In this case, the siblings, but that could absolutely extend to the rest of society. It takes time and money.

We sometimes feel that because we have a relatively prosperous society, we can shift the burden from the family to society and that makes that thinking go away. And it can work that way. But it won't if many people are feeling close to the edge, like resources are scarce, like they can't get enough for their own families to do well.

So it's an argument of an economic burden, and most people seem on board with that.

Now, with Down's syndrome, we have the ability to test ahead, with most disabilities we don't. And DS is hardly the most serious disability, yes, there are challenges, but most have a very good quality of life, and in fact are more likely to rate themselves as having a good quality of life compared to a random sample of the population. Still, most think it is either too much of a burden, or the qol is too poor, so choose to abort.

With most disabilities we don't have the chance to test ahead, but if we did, it seems unlikely that the attitude would be differernt. I suspect we'd find there were almost no disabled people born into the population in that case.

So yes - I don't think we really need to "get there" we already are there as far as the attitude to disability.

I'm heartily sick of reading your pathetic little posts in this thread, constantly hinting at atrocities but too cowardly to ever state them plainly without all the “oh I didn’t really say it, I was just posing the question” crap.

Not all disabled children are born disabled. Many suffer birth injuries or illness later, some people develop disabilities in adulthood. If SleeplessInWherever breaks a leg, can we euthanise them?

I’m not condescending, I can see through you and you’re evidently not a fan of that.

Before I had a disabled child, I was quite aware that their needs were higher and therefore they required more financial input. It is not unfair to able children to not receive support that they don’t need.

Most of what you said there was “disability costs too much and is unfair on those of us who don’t have one, we should look for reasons to change that.” Straight from the ableist guidebook.

We may be tired love, but we’re not stupid.

Hearing and sight loss aren't invisible medical conditions, neither are brain injuries.

Anxiety, depression, bad backs, etc, are invisible conditions that rely upon self reported symptoms and are massively open to abuse.

And if we are considering people’s worth, we have seen how people are judged for incorrect political beliefs and justifications for action against them ‘for the greater good’. Already we have police rounding up people for ‘offensive’ tweets and from others that it is ok for the BBC to manipulate the public as they are doing it for ‘good reasons’. We see the government introducing euthanasia and trials without juries. How long before they decide those without the correct beliefs are not to have worth living and need dispatching?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Who is talking about needs someone doesn't have?

All children have needs. Not only your children, or disabled children.

One of the #1 issues that upsets parents around disability is behavioural issues in schools.

Why - because their children also need an education. Are you willing to allow that, or do you think that the need for the disabled child to be educated takes precedence over the need of other child in the classroom?

If the behavioural issues of the first child mean that the others aren't being educated properly, , or are spending their days in a space that feels unsafe and traumatic, is that a problem for you?

The other major issue is the massive spike in certain diagnoses that means resources, like teachers, are being diverted to a degree that is increasingly having an effect on other students. Is it wrong for parents of the other students to worry that those children are not having their educational needs met? Or if they ask what is behind this spike in the first place - if perhaps it is not what it seems?

Because it seems like you are saying that those kids don't have needs, or if they do, they come behind the needs of kids identified as having disabilities.

And that in a nutshell the answer to the question of the OP.

Posts like the one you quoted make shocking reading. For anyone to believe that as a 'normal' person they should presume to be the arbiter of whether other people are worthy of life - whether they should be killed 'allowed to die' because letting them live is too much of a burden on the State - means that they have a Nazi mentality.

I am not exaggerating one bit. The Nazis killed the disabled, for identical reasons to those on here, before they even started on any other groups. Didn't even bother persecuting them; just killed them.

I am so depressed at having to go around all over again with this. Btw my DS had a really bad prognosis after his premature birth. Many years later he is, despite his disabilities, by a long way the happiest person he knows. So don't even try to come up with a formula for measuring joy. I hope for their own sake that nobody ever says to my face any of the frankly wicked sentiments expressed on this thread.

Please, do continue showing your true colours.

At least your actual opinions are finally coming out.

All ears, honestly!

With MRIs, cts and xrays backache arent just self reported. They can see all sorts of inflammation, disc abnormalities, bone deformities,etc. The reporting of level of pain might contain an element of subjectivity but you can see an objective reason for it. They can also assess nerve damage. Do tests to check nerves work using electricity and thats before more subjective physio assessments.

Literally just making stuff up now.
I'm starting to doubt your chances of ever being in charge of the DWP. Was it ever on the cards?