Disturbing Disability Comment in The TImes Yesterday

[Davros]

Did anyone see an article yesterday in the Times called 'I Never Thought I'd Adopt'
www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2966-877950,00.html

It contains a deeply disturbing and upsetting passage relating to autism. The arcitle is about a woman and the process of adopting a baby. At one point her Social Worker recommended she get more experience of childcare. She did some work in a nursery and said:

"This proved to be an invaluable experience. Not only did it teach me numerous ingenious means of keeping tiny minds and hands occupied, but I
discovered that of all the 35 or so children attending, only one seemed difficult to love - and he had some form of autism. "

If you want to complain to The Times, send an email to [email protected]

Err, your ds, I mean, I haven't met your dh, honest!

JimJams what a lovely photo. Just wanted to tell you that my ds just ran up to the computer and said "What's that?" (he doesn't seem to use the word "who" yet), I said "It's a little boy" and he asked "What's he called?"

He doesn't often take much interest in pictures of strangers, child or not, so he must have been quite taken

Easy, I think that is is possible that you read the original quote in the way you describe because YOU have the nouse, understanding and sensitivity to fill in the gaps and make it reasonable...you assumed that she was being as reasonable as you describe. But she DIDN'T fill in those gaps, and she let a bloody great assumption loose on the more ignorant public as a result, that's why i have described it as 'lazy' further down.

Easy

No you didn't say didn't say that this or any other child can't be loved, what you said was:

"I can see it is very difficult to feel affection towards them." and "surely you don't expect outsiders to love them?"

I can't / don't agree with that at all.

Can you not see how that comment would be hurtful?

Oh and yes Easy, life is tough, extremely sometimes.

Easy: Cross-posting.

(As in 'simultaneously'...not as in 'cross'

JimJams, what a tinkerpot! What a cheeky smile. GORGEOUS, and I love him!

This thread has really saddened me. What most parents want for their children is to see them grow up to lead happy, fullfilled and independent lives. Some parents whose children have special needs may have real fears that their hopes for thier children may not be achievable. Imagine for one moment how that would make you feel. Then heaped upon those fears, that must haunt arround in the minds of these parents, is the idea that somehow 'their' children are less lovable than 'our' children - which no matter what backtracking people may now be doing is the jist of some of the posts here. How awful do you think that would make you feel.

Jimjams I loved the photo - you have a very lovable boy there!

and that icon snook in somehow, was meant to be a bracket

No thomcat, honestly I don't see why that is so hurtful.

Special needs or not, I don't expect everyone to love my child, I don't expect to love everyone elses children, and I don't expect everyone to love me (even before I started this thread).

In many (note: MANY) cases of autism, the childs' behaviour is outside the experience (and comfort zone) of people with whom they come in contact. That is why I make my statement in this case.

And I know it's a generalisation, but we all generalise a great deal of the time

I'm digging this hole deeper aren't I.

JMG, thanx, you've got it.
I actually think this thread should be under 'parenting', lots of conversations about SN kids are so relevant to the way we view all our kids and their individual needs, and in the long run, supportive, clued in parents of NT (er Jimjams, what does that actually stand for?)kids can be our greates allies. WE certainly need them to understand so that their kids are brought up not to discriminate.

Yes, Easy, cos it's the generalisation that so often leads to prejudice against SN kids....

What a gorgeous boy Jimjams. Sorry I've been off line for a lot of today and then had to delay posting as my (ASD) son wouldn't get off my lap! I just think that printing something so badly expressed in a national newspaper is not acceptable, her personal opinion is up for critiscism when it appears in The TImes. I don't think its right to perpetuate the stereotype of the unaffectionate and unloveable autistic child whcih is SO wrong. Just as I hate to hear, typically of DS children for some reason, "but they're so sweet and affectionate", that's just as bad and I'm sorry but its an insulting attitude. Also, this issue is not only a question of picking apart the language and deciding if its OK on a technical level, we're talking about people's feelings here, feelings that are often and repeatedly hurt by prejudice, ignorance or just a little lack of understanding. If the people affected by an issue are upset then its offensive, whatever anyone else thinks.

OK Easy, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you so if you can't understand how that comment might be hurtful then we should just leave it there - OK? A mothers love is a fierce love Easy and people are bound to be very defensive on this subject.

Perhaps though for a minute you should consider how it would feel if anything ever happened to your son and a group or an individual commented that they didn't understand how outsiders could love him because of .... the fact that he was in a wheelchair (as, if I remeber correctly, you yourself are at the moment).

I hope that your child is never singled out for being different and have throwaway comments about them branded around, I hope you never have to experience that pain.

Oh btw - REALLY lovely picture JimJams - he's gorgeous isn't he.

neurologically typical Blu.

Perhaps time to post this again:

isnt.autistics.org/

I hope so too, ThomCat, just like I have in the past been singled out for being disabled. It happens, It's horrible but .....

I am concerned that some people thought that the original article quoted (remember that), should have been edited regarding the comment about the child with autism. I am very pro free speech. I was trying to explain why the author may have made that statement, and why I feel she should be allowed to make the statement.

No slanging, just adult debate.

Not edited, challenged, cos of her lazy assumptions and/or the way it is written.

Oooer, lots of "cros" posting going on so I'm missing good things while I type . jmg, I like your post, I think it gets to the heart of the issue. Maybe we should send a link to this discussion to the Times?

Easy "the childs' behaviour is outside the experience (and comfort zone) of people with whom they come in contact"

Well my friend's dd is very very different from my ds1. Both exhibit behaviours that I'm sure are outside the experience of people with MT kids. But I don't see why insiting that someone hold a hoover whilst doing the ironing (my ds1) or insisting that someone wears shoes and socks, but never just shoes or just socks is unloveable. I think its funny.

When I took ds1 to the homeopath recently I said something about him being damaged and she said something along the lines of - if he's damaged then I don't know what you call lots of so called- normal kids- and she went onto say that she had never seen such love coming from a child. Now he can still be difficult (quite frequently) but to assume that being autistic equates with being unloveable ansd unaffectionate is ignorant and predjudiced.

Dh hates telling people ds1 is autistic- he says things like "oh he doesn't talk much" (as if he has a choice) which infuriates me as it leaves everyone confused. He says he hates telling people becuase they then get some erronious idea in their heads about ds1 and what he is like. I'm beginning to see his point. Tamum-

This has just made me SO sad. It frightens me that people think it's OK to say that just becasue a child is autistic that they can understand how people wouldn't love them.
I am a big softie and a sensitive soul - very much so - but it kills to to think people think that's acceptable. I don't want to toughen up and deal with it - I want to fight it all the way.

In the original comment from woman quoted in Times she seems, very much, to be saying that there was only one child that she couldn't love and that was because he was autistic. That is what she is saying - right. Well how wrong is that?! Perhaps he was a difficult child and not a very easy child to bond with fair enough - but she didn't say that. She said she couldn't love him and that was because he had some form of autism. Not nice, not fair.

Would it have been Ok for her to say there was a group of women who were all lovely. There was one I just didn't like at all - but then she was in a wheelchair.

Tomorrow afternoon I will be teaching a class of 18 year 9 children chemistry. THeir behaviour in class is generally poor, as it is last two lessons of the day.

However there is one boy in the class who I can guarentee will be bright, interested, involved in the work and happy to be in my class. He is the best student in the class, week in, week out. He is a delight to work with, and I wish the rest of the kids in the class were half as much fun to be with.

He has ASD. What sort of fool would I be to make the generalisation that all children with ASD would be the best in my class? Similarly what sort of idiot would I be to make any sweeping generalisations about the lovability of any child SN or otherwise? Children are children, whatever their needs.

In think the other thing -responding to easy here- that people say ignorant stupid predjudiced things all the time about various minority groups- but I wouldn't expect The Times to print something ignorant without comment about say homosexuals.

Easy, I am not trying to get at you here, but when you say

"I am concerned that some people thought that the original article quoted (remember that), should have been edited regarding the comment about the child with autism. I am very pro free speech"

where do you draw the line? I mean, honestly? Would it be OK to have said that "one seemed difficult to love, but then he was black, so it's perfectly understandable"? That's free speech, so should the Times not edit a remark like that? Or anything else that would deeply hurt people? Would it be fine to describe a child with Down's as a mongol? If you really defend her remark on the basis of being pro free speech then surely anything goes?

Davros, I like you idea of sending this thread to the Times

Yep - I think this should be sent to The Times - Davros - are you the girl for the job?

Right I've got to go home and have fireworks with the PIL so I won't be back until the morning, but I will be back. This thread has given me a right stomach ache!