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.

Exactly. Whilst I find some posters attitudes to people with disabilities - visible AND invisible - abhorrent, and people with disabilities (visible and invisible!) deserve to be treated with respect, I have to say, people should not be lambasted for choosing to not want to keep a baby/child that has DS, or anything else that could be/would be life changing. Having a child with DS or any other type of SN would give the child AND the parents a very different (and more stressful and difficult life) compared to the life they'd have if the baby/child was not SN.

As someone said further back, it's good that women have the choice, because it is ultimately, going to be the woman who will do the lion's share of the childcare/parenting, and whose life will very likely be changed beyond recognition. And like with lots of SN children, they will need care right into, and throughout their adulthood, which will completely change the landscape of someone's life.

I don't know whether the people who are 'disgusted' by someone who would abort a baby with DS, have children with DS themselves, (or siblings or nieces/nephews with it,) and are feeling hurt and angry as it's hitting a raw nerve, or whether they are just angry because they think they should be, because THEY would never abort a baby with DS.

Either way, it has NOTHING to do with ANYone if someone chooses to abort if a baby has DS, or has some other kind of SN. THEY aren't going to be the ones looking after this child often 24/7, for the next 40-50 years. I have seen people do this, and it has absolutely floored them, and changed their life immeasureably. Many thought they could do it, many did, but it was/is inexplicably diffcult, and demanding, and wearing, and tiring, and its aged them beyond their years ...

I'm pretty disgusted by posters saying they are disgusted by a woman making a choice that she is entitled to make, because they don't like it, and they would not do it (allegedly!) You don't have to. Other peoples life choices are not your concern.

I also think it's important, just for the sake of debate, for us all to discuss the conditions under which we might decide that one of your children was enough of an arsehole that we would subject them to some kind of lethal injection.

Ok. I know you're trying to be facetious but the truth is that we have already discussed this.

There are many situations where people are.deemed to be unworthy of life by virtue of their actions and beliefs. It's codified in statutes and changes from time to time as politicians pander to public opinion.

It doesn't matter that it's your child - the law dictates.

Though again, people have got squeamish about executions (and not.just for fear of miscarriage of justice) so we.institutionalise them at great expense and for little benefit.since we don't accept that people 10 years on and are not all recidivists.

But it becomes interesting when you add the points you have made about genetic predisposition toward awful behaviour.

Do we excuse those people because that's how they're born... you seem to think differently for fascists and the disabled, no?

I have invisible disabilities. Autism and several mental health diagnoses. Sometimes they become very visible when I have things like meltdowns. I work hard to keep them invisible. I fake being well.

Well of course as everyone knows, behavioural issues in school are overwhelmingly caused by disabled children - the scourge of the classroom - rather than 'normal' badly behaved children. And I quite understand that some people resent the needs of disabled children being 'unreasonably' prioritised alongside the non-disabled and some resources being diverted there - what do the former want with an education after all?

I am sure you have a lot of empirical evidence supporting your case that meeting disabled children's needs is damaging 'normal' children's education.

Couldn’t agree more. As far as I’m concerned some people deserve to be permanently banned from MN for the things that have been said so far this week.

There you go then. That type of bad back wouldn't be an invisible illnesses, would it.

If the doctors can actually see it on a scan, then a PIP payment might be appropriate.

If the doctors can't see anything wrong, then a PIP payment wouldn't be appropriate.

No. I'm not arguing for that at all.

I'm not sure how you got there from what I wrote.

Kidding. I knew you weren't.

An invisible disability isn't one that can't be detected and relies on self-reporting. It's one that isn't immediately visible to the casual observer. Like autism, bowel disease or a stoma, say.

Then don't read them.

But if you actually had done you'll see i have constantly said i am not for euthanasia. I am also not for making topics taboo so they cannot be discussed.

And I'm against hypocrisy that says I can abort a disabled child (perfectly acceptable apparently) for convenience but can't euthanise one no matter how much they're suffering, when people can't articulate why they can hold these two opposing thoughts.

A true anxiety and panic disorder is completely debilitating.

I’m not referring to people who feel sweaty in a crowd, or don’t like using the phone, I mean a real intrusive thought, depersonalisation, incoherent, suicidal bitch of an illness.

There brain is needed for every function of the body, if that’s fucked, then may god help you.

Whst about schizophrenia? You can’t see than on imaging, or psychosis.

I feel like people forget this a lot.

Everyone's child is one accident or illness away from becoming disabled and it might be worth some people thinking about that on these threads.

Surely it's the same thing as someone would abort a healthy foetus due to say financial reasons but wouldn't kill their healthy 2 year old due to financial reasons?

Using your logic, we should be able to kill anyone. For convenience.

It was all the disingenuous 'I'm just asking the question' stuff that got to me. There's mums on this thread who have said they think about killing themselves and their children so for people to be having philosophical musings about where to draw the line in how much of a 'burden' disabled children are, or asking us to rationally prove why we shouldn't consider euthanasia for our beloved children because people in Ancient Rome used to do it is just completely obscene.

When some of us bit back and mistook (not even certain it was a mistake though) them advocating killing disabled children versus them supposedly 'just' posing the question (apparently to help us be on our guard), they called us 'manipulative' and said we should 'apologise'. They gaslit us by saying that their intentions were entirely innocent with no agenda and told us we shouldn't engage with the thread if we were too 'emotional'. If they were truly genuine in their beliefs there are so many ways they could have phrased it to very quickly get that view across, but they didn't, they doubled down and then started posting about the apparent disadvantages that non-disabled children have in classrooms as a direct result of their burdensome disabled peers.

The thread is about disability benefits and yet somehow descended into some posters expecting people to defend their children against eugenicist rhetoric without resorting to any emotional (only 'rational') arguments. Then they claimed it was still entirely relevant as apparently debating the worth of disabled lives is important (and very clearly linked to their ability to contribute economically apparently).

Just so inappropriate and deeply upsetting in every way.

The point that I was making seems to have gone completely over your head.

This was a thread started by the parent of disabled children who was looking for support. You could have posted your half-baked musings anywhere but you chose to do it here. Dozens of parents have posted in reply to comments like yours, telling you how distressed and depressed they are making them. Many such comments have been deleted as hate speech. Yet you've chosen to persist.

You don't seem very clever, and you don't seem very nice. In fact, it seems like you're imposing a net cost on the people around you.

Now obviously I'm not advocating euthanasia, but I do think it might be time to discuss the withdrawal of oxygen.

Exactly this. I can't believe some people are having to have this seriously obvious point explained.

I can help you here.

A foetus is in the body of the mother and therefore she has the right to complete control. It is her body. The alternative is to restrict that and have forced birth. Women should not be forced to carry and give birth to a baby they do not want to carry and give birth to. The reason they may make that choice is irrelevant.

a child is an independent person living and breathing in the world with a life and a set of rights of their own, independent of the parent.

And please don't turn to the next tired argument of what about full term babies what about killing them during delivery cos you've changed your mind blah blah because that simply does not happen and it's a tiresome attempt at manipulation.

1. unborn foetus - woman's body, woman's choice
2. living breathing child, same rights as any other living breathing person on the planet, including the right not to be killed because other people decide their life is not worth living.

😂😂😂 love this so much

Whilst the Nazis put eugenics into action in a horrific way, the ideas of eugenics wasn’t restricted to the Nazis: Eugenics was popular in the UK too in the 1930s across the political establishment and some, at least initially, welcomed the ‘German experiment’. Though mostly in the UK it sought to achieve its aims through sterilisation. The uk never had legislation to allow this but US and Canada had legislation to forcibly sterilise women for eugenics purposes.

Explained this so much better than I could. Thank you.

Where would it stop? If someones life is allowed on the basis of what somebody else feels is worthy and contribute?

Do we euthanise people at the point of retirement, since they no longer contribute?

Do we euthanise all the unemployed?

Do we look at kids in school who aren't academic?

What about criminals? Traffic offences or murder, where is the cut off?

Can wealthy people buy their way out or is it just those who require state support?

Immigrants altbough i don't think many would want to come here with these rules?

What about political representation, if you don't support the party in power are you euthanised?

Ethical basis? Unmarried mums? Gays?people of colour? (Not my views)

This is a really dark path that some are advocating for.

A woman with a foetus in the second or third trimester is forced to give birth regardless of whether the foetus is killed first. Claiming otherwise is nonsense. There is very little difference between the induced birth of a term pregnancy of a live baby versus one that has just been killed. Suggesting only a pregnant woman of a live baby has to give birth is tiresome manipulation.

My apologies. I assumed you were intelligent enough to know the point I was making.