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 .

Anne it was to Rina. You've been epic x
FWIW I'm disabled and have disabled children and friends who have children with PMLD and multiple complex disabilities.

Cherries no they wouldn't. That's the problem.

A few of the earlier threads were deleted, I'm sure mnhq can confirm that.

'I am a judge. It's a terrible terrible situation for all to be in. People take sides yet forget that.'

A judge. Right . Anyway yes it is terrible situation however like everything high profile it will be discussed at length whether people here approve or not. It isn't voyeuristic, rubbernecking, obsessive etc etc... If there are any attacks on the parents mnhq delete, ditto any offensive comments

But have you actually read the threads, can someone show me an example of offenice disablist comments?

I haven't read all the posts here but has anyone addressed the fact that being brain damaged to the point of having no physical sensations or signs of consciousness is very different to having brain damage, and that paediatric medical experts all around the world are pretty much unanimously in agreement that the poor baby would have no quality of life whatsoever regardless of any treatment offered?

It's not a case of debating whether his life would be worth living if he was disabled or not. It is a case of deciding whether there is any possible chance at all that any treatment in the world could bring him out of anything other than a vegetative state, which lots of people do have opinions about?

I am genuinely struggling to see what is so horrible about them expressing these views and am truly struggling to see (am flicking through them) that there is a general tone of disablism on the thread.

But meh. I agree with Myrtle and I also think this thread should be deleted as it is more of a "look at those horrible posters on the other thread" OP rather than a discussion focused on the relevant topic.

Charlie is not disabled. He is terminally ill. He' s obviously in pain, and his vital organs look like they'e failing. I'm astonished that anyone thinks that keeping him alive is anything other than cruel and inhuman.

If I had a child who was brain damaged to this extent I would want them to be taken off life support. As painful as this would be, it would be the right thing to do for them.

The did you read the post about the term vegetative?

Okay. But whatever the correct term for vegetative is, the poor baby is that. It doesn't change the facts surrounding it and it doesn't change the fact that the thread is not disablist.

And again.
Where's a brick wall so I can bump my head against it?

"It's not offensive, it's about insert offensive term "

'The did you read the post about the term vegetative?'

Wasnt that the term was used once by a hcp?

It is a recognised medical term although clearly it shouldn't be used insensitively by those not medically trained.

I dunno, 'vegetative' is mainstream medical discourse and is used, for example, all over the NHS website. I think it's not fair to label posters as disablist for using it, particularly in reference to this specific case.

Anne, yes, that is why we have a legal system. And those who work in it feel the terrible grinding pressure of responsibilty every day.

Retarded used to be a medical term.
So did moron.

Vegetative is a medical term. It's widely used.

Bishop, this is the problem I have with logic like yours.

The boy is in a vegetative state. That might be hard to hard to hear, acknowledge or think about, but is fact, agreed by many medical experts.

And no it is not swapping in another "offensive" term, because it is the definition that is important. Can you genuinely not understand that or are you just choosing to not get it because I'm posting with a different view to you?

Ah yes as PP's have said it is a correct medical term I've just Googled it.

'Retarded used to be a medical term.So did moron.'

Yes but they aren't now . It's a bit of a stretch to disapprove of someone 'using the term vegetative' when it's a current recognised medical term. It was not used insensitively either if it's the post I saw regarding a carers experience, or was there another offensive post?

It's a bit of a leap to compare "vegetative" a current and correct medical term, to completely different outdated terms wit different meanings which can be applied offensively in social context? I hate to tell you this but just because you find something "offensive" doesn't make you right and doesn't invite censorship to make you feel better...

Rerarded is widely used in the US still.

using phrases to the effect of 'what kind of life is it if you can't hear, see or communicate"

A classic example of misrepresentation. That isn't what's being said. The concerns that are being expressed are about a terminally ill child with irreversible catastrophic brain damage who can't hear, see, communicate, move or breathe, who is having air forced into his lungs through ventilation which we know will damage them, who clearly has oedema, and who is being kept alive purely because his parents want to subject him to a long and painful journey to have treatment that will cause more pain and which is at best purely experimental. If you think that's disablist, knock yourselves out.

Yeah, I believe IUGR is still known over there as retardation, whereas nowadays we refer to it as restriction.

Cherry, you say you know he is vegetative.

There are two arguments before the court at the moment - one that he is and one that he is not.

The court will decide which is correct