to think that if a couple are both very disabled that they are very selfish to have children

[selfishIMHO]

who end up being their carers?
I understand that some people become ill/disabled or have accidents. But if I had a dibilitating disease and my husband had something chronic too I would npt have children that I could not give a good life to. A life that would mean from a young age they do most if not all of the housework and help me get dressed, wash etc. It's just wrong. Those poor children with the weight of the world on their shoulders.
Having children is not a right.

It frustrates me that people shout Nazi, or Eugenics in the hope that they can do as they please. I DO NOT believe choice should be removed, but I DO think people should make an appropriate rather than selfish choice.

Riven, I am sorry I do not think your dd should have a child.

Wannabe, I completely agree, we shouldn't chose to have a child that will definately be a burden on the state.

Welfare support is for those people who find themselves in an unexpected situation.

As a side line...I have fostered children whos parents most definately SHOULD be sterilized. But of course that would be wrong. It's bad enough that the state has to support these feeble minded women who keep popping out children that they then F%#K up, without intelligent men and women having children, they know they cannot support.

sadly although I don't agrree with the op(feild to wide) I do feel that a seveley disabled person who cannot even care for them selves should not have children, it is sad as it cuts down my chances of being a grandparent.

oooohhhh Now I am 'non disabled' LOL must mean I have not idea what it would mean for a child to grow up missing out because of a parents selfish choice to have a kid (pet) cos they 'have the right'. In most other discussions when the taboo of "disability" isn't in the equation, you lot all shout "rights of the child".

I prefer differently abled thank you

I am still haunted by a girl I used to support at a school I worked at.

She needed help with lessons because she missed a lot of school.

She missed a lot of school because she was the oldest child of several and her mother was an alcoholic.

If one of the younger ones was ill, their big sister would stay off to look after them as the mother was incapable. So her own education was largely buggered.

I have no idea whether the family had any SS support. I wonder if they tried to keep below the SS's radar, as it may well have resulted in the family being broken up.

I would guess that this sort of situation is many times more common than the disabled parents one, yet would presumably not feature on comic relief because the family would not be seen as "deserving" enough.

A disabilty doesn't stop somebody from ebign a good parent. Plenty of people have children when they aren't in a position to be able to care for them, disabled and non disabled.

You can't prioritise physical care over emotional care, they are equally important. THere are so many cases where parents aren't able to emotionally parent their children, and it does serious damage.

I knew two mothers with severe MS. One sucessfully rtaised her son to be a well adjusted individual with a good career, the other had her children taken from her. It was nothing to do with their disabilities, and everything to do with their parenting skills (or lack of).

I think if anything needs to change in this country, maybe some people need to learn better parenting skills, then children would be better off.

disabled does not mean one necessarily a poorer parent.

it all depends on the people
and the impact of their illness
support/carer package available
some illnesses have different progressions eg MS

the experience of an ill parent isnt necessarily detrimental, and doesnt always equate to child carer being put upon

did you know there was a research paper which showed children who had experienced illness/disabilities in family positively used this experience to seek out caring vocational careers.this experience shaped their career choices

your sweeeping generalisations homogenise all ill/disabled people as burdens to their children- wrong

having children is not a right,it is a privelege for all

Riven, no-one has said that there should be no support for any parents. What I have said is that when you decide to have children, you do so after considering whether it is right for you/whether you can provide those children with a stable upbringing/whether you are able to care for those children both physically and emotionally. And if you are unable to care for those children then going ahead and having those children anyway is irresponsible, whether you are disabled or not.

No-one has said that the choices should be removed for the disabled to have children. But if you are a responsible parent then you consider whether having children is the best for everyone concerned, and that includes the children.

Not everything is about the big bad world being against the defenceless disabled people and wanting to take away their rights.

Sometimes it is necessary to accept that sometimes, disability does bring with it some limitations. I am blind, should I be allowed to argue that I am being discriminated against because I cannot have a driving licence?

There are many disabled parents who are good parents. But there are also many disabled people who are unable to care for themselves, and therefore would be unable to care for a child. A good parent would recognize this and make the appropriate decision.

Having children is not a right.

but I still don't get who is doing the housework/personal care for these people before their children are old enough to be their carers.......

and WannaBe

"I am fully independent and my child has never, and will never be my carer."

wow - I think that's a very bold statement for anyone to say - I certainly don't know what tomorrow brings (or this afternoon for that matter).

faq ok perhaps I should reword and say that he will never be my carer in the current circumstances. iyswim?

IMO there is a difference between a parent who has children and then falls ill/becomes disabled thus meaning the children end up in a caring role, and a parent who is already unable to care for themselves, yet makes a conscious decision to have children knowing that they A, are unable to care for them, and B, that those children will, at some point, be expect to take on a caring role.

If a child has to care for a parent, all cooking cleaning, general household tasks, then who did that before the child was old enough? Surely even the most mature child can't be expected to do any of that effectively before the age of about 6 or 7? My bet is no-one, and in the cases where this is an issue it is because the parent(s) conditions have deteriorated. Which would imply that when they decided to have a baby they were 'capable' of looking after it.
Or do SS do it all until they're 7 and then leave them to it?

and - perhaps a rather vulgar thought - and I'm sorry if I offend anyone. But surely if both partners are so severely disabled that they need help with all their personal care and housework, erm - how do they manage the sex?

It would be interesting to see figures on how many "very disabled" (to use the words of the OP) couples who are parents were in a position where both of them were "very" disabled when they concieved, and how many found themselves in that position after giving birth.....

x post FAQ

"B, that those children will, at some point, be expect to take on a caring role"

and therein lies the problem - if the parents were getting the proper care before they had children, presumably this doesn't just "stop" when the child reaches a certain age? So if carers were already in place before children even came into the equation them the children would never been expected to take on the caring role............(IMO)

I do wonder whether some parents put upon their children more than they should.

I watched the comic relief clip and iirc the mother was just blind, although the father had additional issues. And I did wonder at the time why the child needed to be a carer for a blind mother - why doesn't she do the housework/look after her child? Being blind doesn't mean incapable, and unless she had other disabillities which were not shown at the time I do think she should have been capable of doing the caring, as opposed to her child.

FAQ I think people are playing with scenarios here.

There is a clear point about making a choice KNOWING that you are unable to fulfil the parenting role.

Degenerative diseases are the obvious one here MD, huntingtons and MS come to mind

Um, ahem, cough cough. I partly agree with OP.
I personally would choose to not have a child if I knew they would become my carer at a young age. The idea that I will probably go senile eventually and DC may have to regularly wipe my bum for a few years is pretty awful as it is -- but at least DC would be mature adults by then (and I might be too out of it to care ).

It's all very well saying there "should" already be a good support system in place so that the child doesn't have to take on a big carer's role -- but reality is, the child often does end up with such a role.

OTOH, I don't like the idea that therefore severely disabled people should rarely or never have children. In Alison Lapper's autobiography, the joy that her son brought to her life was wonderful to read about.

There should be a middle ground, somehow.

I grew up as a carer to both my parents. My mum has MS and my dad is a diabetic and has had severe depression since I was about eight. We had some support and I was part of a Young Carers project. Having grown up with that, I always said (and still do) that if I had a disability I would not have chidlren.

also though, there is surely a difference in a senario where one partner is not disabled, and the senario where both partners are so severely disabled that neither is capable of fulfilling a caring role in the child's life.

Herbietea in your case for instance your dh does, I assume, not have any severe disabilities, and therefore he is able to do the majority of tasks that you find difficult? And any role your children have in helping you would presumably enhance their realization that not everyone is the same and lead them to become more caring individuals.

But say a couple were both very severely physically disabled, to the point that neither could care for themselves, that role would automatically fall to the children when they were old enough.

I agree with WannaBe, and I think Jeffa's experience is very important.

of course the support packages now aren't good enough - I know my mum fought long enough just to get 2hrs a day help once her Parkinsons had worsened.

And what about degenerative diseases that someone just mentioned. My mum was diagnosed with early onset Parkinsons in her early 40's - the symptoms had been there for much longer but hadn't been "pieced" together to make the diagnosis. My great-grandmother (on my mum's side) and one of my grandad's sisters (also mum's side) also had early onset Parkisons - again diagnosed in their 40's.

SO, there is a chance that I could get it, there's still much debate about whether it can be genetic or not but swaying strongly towards "yes it can". I would love to have a 4th child (highly unlikely now DH and I are seeing each other again however). If it were ever to happen I would be mid 30's (probably) by that time.

What if I was showing the same symptoms as my mum did in her 30's and pushed for a diagnosis (as I would knowing what I do now) ? Should I then not have a 4th child because it's a degenerative disease.

What if I did (with diagnosis already made) and I was one of the unfortunate ones who's symptoms got worse more quickly. What if I didn't and then, like my mum, had another good 15yrs before I was unable to carry out simply tasks?

Is very complicated.................

"But say a couple were both very severely physically disabled, to the point that neither could care for themselves, that role would automatically fall to the children when they were old enough."

So who was doing it before the children were old enough? Why does that care stop?