what ever happened to the This Is my child campaign?

[Samcro]

i thought it was done to educate people on children with disabilities...
yet here we are with thread 13 about CG full of rubberneckers making disablist comments about brain damage Or should I say ignorant comments.
why is mn hq not saying hang on a minute this isn't in the spirit of the site and reminding posters of the TIMC Campaign .

You must have tried to talk about something important in a nuanced and thoughtful way and been repeatedly interrupted? It's more that.

There is a difference between being interrupted and ignored and talked over
and being asked questions about your views

"the GC threads are really bad" "how so?" "this isn't about the CG threads, stop derailing TIMC"

Yes that seems to be the general gist of things..

Have to agree with Tinsels on this.

Part of the problem is that disablism isn't well understood and disablist attitudes permeate society, even among people who would never knowingly or intentionally be disablist.

'Part of the problem is that disablism isn't well understood and disablist attitudes permeate society, even among people who would never knowingly or intentionally be disablist'

Yes I agree. However that hasn't got anything to do with the ops massive gneralisation and rather goady 'yet here we are with thread 13 about CG full of rubberneckers making disablist comments about brain damage Or should I say ignorant comments'

How do we, as a society, decide what is disablist? Is it in the eye of the beholder(s)? What if not everyone agrees?

Some of the comments do read as extremely general. A life not worth living etc. They really, really are. Can't people see just how wrong that generalisation is?

'A life not worth living etc. They really, really are. Can't people see just how wrong that generalisation is?'
It isn't a generalisation though, people were referring to that one very specific tragic case. I don't think anyone applied it to all disabled people because that would of course be totally wrong and deleted anyway

I've been following the CG threads and I've not seen disabilist posts. The case is about a terminally ill child and whether parents should have ultimate rights over their child's care even if medics disagree. Talking about quality of life is part of that. No one has suggested that disabled children have a poor quality of live just that in this case many feel CG isn't living a life they would like to. Talking about one individual is not the same as extending that view to all.
I think it's a case that could ultimately effect any of us whether we have a child with a disability or not.

" A life not worth living" is singular and refers to an individual.
It's fundamentally different from the plural, which would be "lives not worth living"
HTH

As I said upthread (and I'm sure anyone who knows me knows!!) if I thought the discussion in general was disabilist, I wouldn't be part of it. I've been on enough 'disabilism on mn' threads!!

If I have posted or agreed with anything contentious on any thread, I'd hope to be directly pulled up on it (similar thing, I posted about CB "committing suicide" earlier, not knowing that the "committing" comes from when it was a crime. Apologised and got it amended asap. Every day is a school day). Nobody has done that, so now I don't know if I've said something hurtful unintentionally, or if my posts have been fine. And I'll probably obsess/panic about that for a while now (cause I seriously hate being on the 'wrong' side of a disagreement with people I like and respect)

Cause yes polter, disabilist attitudes permeate even amongst people who wouldn't do it purposely.

Yes I agree. However that hasn't got anything to do with the ops massive gneralisation and rather goady 'yet here we are with thread 13 about CG full of rubberneckers making disablist comments about brain damage Or should I say ignorant comments'

Agree. If you want to ask about TIMC then do so. But when you directly and negatively reference another thread in your opening gambit you have to accept that this will become a topic on this thread.

For what it's worth I have followed and commented on the CG threads. They are fast moving and I haven't honestly read every single post but in the hundreds of comments I have read I haven't honestly seen anything I would consider disablist.
The vast majority of comments have been a discussion about this complex case and how it is playing out in the modern age of social media etc. They have also been contributed to by brave parents sharing their own difficult stories. Are their experiences deemed to be inappropriate?
To accuse it of voyeurism is, I think unfair. Particularly when it must of been the parents who chose to make this case public, GOSH would not have been able to do so due to patient confidentiality and other members of Charlie's Family have been whipping up Charlie's Army.
Also it is important that as a society we talk about and debate these complex ethical issues, which will only get more frequent as medical science makes further advances. Sometimes these discussions will be uncomfortable and emotive; it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

I had to search for the 'This is my life' campaign - so yes, Samcro, it certainly needs to be brought to the fore.
(here is the link - www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/this-is-my-child )
How can we rubberneckers help?
You obviously don't like the Charlie Gard threads, but they have brought up so many ethical questions and have prompted people to support GOSH. What positive outcome would you like from this thread?

Exactly Beyond

Charlie's situation is complex, and the legal proceedings are interesting and important, but taking the piss out of people less clever (ie Charlie's Army) or discussing the value of life in the context of a baby, leaves a horrible taste.

That's true, zzzz.

And obviously directly discriminating against people with disabilities is wrong. As are posts that say 'disabled people are x, y, z', or other generalisations.

But a post upthread suggested that it was disablist to say that you wouldn't want your child to have brain damage. That's where it gets woolly for me.

An example of disablism coming from the CG case, to me, was the BBC report last week, where a mother was talking about her DD who has severe additional needs. I tried to get my head round the point they were trying to make, as in my opinion the two children were not in any way similar.
Charlie has a terminal illness, the other girl does not. It was a clumsy attempt to conflate the two.
It's a contrast to the CG threads on here where there has been a distinct lack of disablist posts, just ones recognising that he is terminally ill.
They are not saying that any damage to cognitive function isn't worth treating and that he would be better off dead because of that.

What Polter and zzzz said

I saw that saucery and was shocked that the other dcs case was even mentioned. They were completely different. Discussing removing nutrional therapy, rather than respiratory/life support. It was disturbing.

However yes you're right, that bears no resemblance to the posts on any of the threads I've seen here discussing CG.

nutritional*

Well there are ways you could say "I wouldn't want my child to be gay" that would be unbelievably offensive and ways you could say it that might be more understandable. Context and audience are surely important

I don't believe that anybody ever in the history of ever would disagree with anyone who said that they wouldn't want their child to be terminally ill

Charlie is terminally ill and nobody ever ever would want that for their child

Not even vaguely in the same ballpark as saying "I wouldn't want a disabled child"

There's a thread to talk about Charlie, is this one to talk about TIMC, or just an attempt to round up those you assume have a single stance and harass them about it because it's easier than reading what they actually say?

zzzzz, my posts have specifically been in response to posts on this thread, including OP's, therefore they are directly on topic. On what basis do you seek to dictate what posts people can answer? And your own post reveals that you haven't read mine properly.