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.

the OP was clumsy and I really think name changing to post it was shameful, BUT, there is an interesting and thought provoking debate to be had about how young carers and families with additional chronic needs are not being adequately supported.

i think it is an interesting and worthwhile conversation to have

yes of course that should apply to everyone.

The difference though is that alcoholics (for instance) are not usually in a position to make those kinds of rational decisions, whereas a person with a physical disability (ld's are a different matter entirely imho) is able to make that decision.

Also it is considered acceptable to judge an alcoholic whose behavior leads to their children becoming their carers, whereas we must not judge a severely disabled person for having a child in the knowledge they cannot care for that child, because judging them apparently makes us disablist.

Have not bothered to read through the thread. I don't quite care for the name change OP did to write this (very offensive) post.

People with all sorts of problems- physical, mental, financial, etc- have children. FACT. That's not disputed. The thing is, how does society help them if/when they need help.

This whole accusation of 'selfishness' about having children (under all sorts of circumstances) is one of my pet hates. Hey, OP, you know what: people don't have children out of some kind of altruistic selflessness. They have children because they want to. Who are you to say who can & who cannot care well for children?

Should we then ban people who drink from having children?
How about gay people?
How about single mothers?
How about working mothers (they're often accused of selfishness too)
How about people who become disabled when already a parent?
How about people with a genetic condition in their family (e.g. history of breast cancer)?
How about, come to think of it, people we don't like?

Come on then. Lets ban them all.

(just so there's not any misunderstanding, I think all the above can be perfectly good parents, as good as any other).

oh Riven dodn't mention that, now someone will post saying no one should have disabled children

Thank you such much OP.

For wishing my DH and his DB out of existence. They would very much disagree with you. Unless you have been in that situation I suggest you don't comment on it.

YABVVVVVVVVVVVVVU

FWIW My FIL worked for most of his life despite his diability and MIL did a fantastic job having and raising 2 strapping boys.

How do you know that God forbid, your parents or yourself/partner became disabled in later life? Should you then have your kids taken off you?

I don't remember anyone ever advocating BANNING someone from having children.

I think the OP is terrible

But I did watch a bit of children in need ad it made me so angry I had to turn it off. That little boy who was being 'given a break' from looking after his parents - why does this still happen? I mean that kids have to do all that stuff for their parents? What about care packages? My grandmother gets a care package, why don't these people?

There should be government provision. I don't think it is fair if disabled people were to be discouraged from having children because of a huge basic lack of support for them.

And fwiw some of the things the mother said made me really furious. Did anyone notice at one point she said 'well we don't resent him, because God gave him sight, so we teach him to be thankful' WTF????

Sorry I have been fuming about it for days. It was a disgusting thing to say if it meant what I think it did. Poor, poor child.

I think wannaBe is writing a lot of sense - though as a parent of 2 disabled children I understand and applaud Rivens passion - and I do agree that young carers need help / but at the end of the day there are limited SS resources and we all have a certain amount of personal responsibility whatever our circumstances .

Should my( very) disabled child - who has to be honest had a huge amount of resources spent on him , have a child who will also then take up a huge amount of resources for 18 years ? Over and above an elderly person who has paid tax all their loves and are now living in poverty and depravation/ new drugs for cancer patients/ money for education all that sort of stuff?

These decisions are uncomfortable but have to be made - it?s not an infinite pot of money that disabled people are being denied access to on ground of discrimination, ii is a dwindling pot that every interest group is scrabbling for.

If this sound a bit like I donnt want your /my very disabled child to have a child, because I donnt want to pay for it them I?m sorry, it should sound like I don?t want my very disabled child to have a child because I donnt want everyone to pay for it.

As for the right to have a child what about the rights of the child - children are not therapy

Riven, we were in one of the isolation cubicles and not exactly encouraged to make friends

Back at BCH again this morning at CIU....

as usual people are reading into this what they want to see and not reading what is actually there.

No-one has said that no disabled people should be allowed to have children. No-one has said that if a person becomes disabled the children should be taken away from them. What people are debating is whether it is right to have children, knowing before they are even conceived, that you will be unable to care for them, and knowing that at some point they will most likely assume a caring role in your life.

There is not an unlimited pot of money. Would people be prepared to pay extra income tax to fund the increase in care? or where do you think the money should be taken from?

There is already not enough care in place for people with severe disabilities, to expect that care to be extended because those people feel they have a right to have children they are unable to care for is unreasonable.

If you want to have children, you should have the means to care for them, disabled or not. And if you cannot physically care for the children you have chosen to have, then you should take personal responsibility for that and employ someone who can care for them. It is not the state's responsibility to care for the children of people who have them through their own choice.

What WannaBe says with nobs ;)

nods sorry !!!!! I am dyslexic

"And if you cannot physically care for the children you have chosen to have, then you should take personal responsibility"

(is feeling mischievous and can see a whole new slant to this thread if we replace "physically" with "financially" - ala people on benefits )

well that's a whole different argument FAQ and probably one that is worthy of its own thread . Although a lot of people do make the decision about whether to have children based on their financial situation at the time...

I do also agree that a lot of people are probably reluctant to get social services involved because of fear the children will be taken away. I also think that in some cases this would be best for the children...

My parents were not in any way disabled (unless you count terminal self-absorption as a disability) but they still expected to do things that I no way ready for- such as look after all my younger siblings when I was 5 or 6, packing for my baby brother when we were going on holiday (I was 8) etc... I think children should do chores, but they should be age appropriate ones and should be part of a child's learning curve of growing towards independence. I don't see any reason why disabled should be any less entitled than anyone else to have children- the very idea is nudging eugenics which to my mind very rarely favours people who ought to have children (unless you judge that the inability to tolerate difference is a trait worth passing down to the next generation...)

Message withdrawn

duchesse I don't think it's about entitlement, or even about someone else making the decision. Imho it's about taking personal responsibility before you have children. The argument that those children will be loved simply isn't enough. You cannot raise children on love alone, and if your disability is such that you cannot look after that child from the instant it is born then IMO you should consider whether having those children is really the right thing to do, especially for the sake of those children.

People make that decision based on other factors, money, career, ability to cope with say, two children close together, so why should disability be any different?

IMO people are becoming scared to voice any opinion that could be perceived as being against disability in the same way as people are scared of being seen to be racist.

The fact is, when we have children we no longer have just ourselves to think about. We have to think about the wellbeing of those children. And for a 7 year old to be missing out on an education so they can do the cleaning/cooking/care for their parents' physical needs is not in the best interests of any child. And I would say that if the parent was ill/an alcoholic/drug addict/had a disability.

The problem is, if you had two children in the same situation, and one was the child of an alcoholic and the other the child if a severely disabled parent, people would happily say the child of the alcoholic should be taken into care, whereas people would be afraid to say the same of the child of the disabled person.

as I said above, I am disabled. My child is not my carer. And I have always been very, very careful not to exploit the fact that he can see and I cannot. He is the child. The job of parent/carer is mine, not his.

The responsibility to have a child was mine, not the state's.

And if I had not been 100% certain I could care for my child I would not have had one. Again, my responsibility.

Obviously though no one is suggesting here that a 7 year old should be cleaning, cooking etc and not be going to school. It's society's responsibility to help those in need. It is not the children's responsibility to care (on their own- or at all, while they're children- & without help) for their parents.

Can I ask those who say there's not an unlimited pot of money? What pot are you referring to exactly? Which is this pre-determined pot that pays for these things? Is it unrealistic to campaign for much more taxation (taken from the very wealthy), and for more resources going towards those who most need them? Why does not anyone ever say to those who earn the most- 'you know, there's no unlimited amount you can earn'?

"Is it unrealistic to campaign for much more taxation (taken from the very wealthy)" yes it is unrealistic.

Who exactly do you determine as "the very wealthy"? Only 10% of the population are in the 40% tax bracket, and only 5% earn upwards of £100000. It is unrealistic to expect the higher earners to pay an unlimited amount of tax, because in doing so you will scare a lot of them away to other countries with better tax systems and thus will decrease your income rather than the other way around.

Plus, where do you draw the line? If you start taxing a certain element of the population more in order to fund social care, should you tax a bit more in order to improve schools? the nhs? research into genetic conditions/cancer/degenerative illnesses?

Even if you're a high earner you should have a limit as to how much you should pay.

To the OP, AllThreeWays and WannaBe - where is the evidence that severely disabled parents are having children in order to get carers/housekeepers for themselves?

Clearly children do end up caring for their parents, whether that be because of a disability or illness or because of something like alchoholism - but that's not what I am asking. I'm asking for concrete evidence of intent - because I just don't think it exists.

I agree that it is dreadful that children's lives are being blighted because of the unneccessary burdens being placed upon them, and clearly there needs to be a lot more support and help out there for families. But that's not to say that children must be free of all responsibilities - as a previous poster said, it is important to teach children life skills, and giving them appropriate chores is part of doing that.