DF and I were chatting yesterday about DD1 being taken advantage of by 'friends' already, and I said that I dread her coming to an age where she can be taken advantage of by a boy/man. I said 'I can see me ending up bring up her baby...' He said 'you may need to get her sorted so she doesn't have that risk.'
It's a long time away, yet so soon. She's 7.4 now, just 8.6 years before age of consent. I know lots can change, but her deficits are more pronounced in the social sense. She is utterly naive, everyone's best friend, no stranger danger at all and that hasn't improved one bit with age. In fact, I'd say that part of her is 'broken'. She can learn the 'rules' and repeat them to you, but not apply them. In terms of parenting skills, I think, if she continues as she is, developing as she is, she wouldn't be able to parent.
What's moral/ethical? Should our children (those who will still be significantly impaired in those skills as adults - I know that many of the children on this board will be able to lead independent lives with the right input as children) be able to reproduce? Would it be ethical to insist on contraception?
I think I struggle because DD1 will be able to have an opinion, and may quite like the idea of having a baby, but she won't necessarily have any insight into what that means....
Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.
SN children
I got to thinking about reproduction yesterday...any thoughts?
lougle · 03/04/2013 22:17
Consent is interesting. Permitting and refusing treatment have different rules. The law usually assumes that an under-16 requires a parent to consent or refuse treatment on their behalf. In contentious cases (JW and blood, separating conjoined twins, even withdrawing intensive care) with parents and medics disagreeing, the courts tend to get involved.
Doctors and nurses are required to put the child's 'best interests' first: the parent is unavailable, and no high court judge is handy 
they weigh these interests up, then start any urgent or emergency treatment. So a conscious-but-unaccompanied dc is treated rather like a comatose adult.
In a non-emergency, a 'competent' under-16 can 'consent' for themself, by demonstrating they can retain, believe in and balance the pros and cons, eg the Mrs Gillick / Judge Fraser case. An over-16 is assumed to be capable of this lot until proved otherwise (and if they aren't competent, but can 'seem ok', a guardianship order is a useful bit of paperwork).
However a competent under-16, or even a competent 16-18y old cannot necessarily refuse treatment which parents and doctors consider essential, and in their best interests. Though again, it might involve a judge.
No proof that exposing teenage dc to toddlers might prevent under-18 pregnancy despite some promising other results (but those of us with toddlers and primary age must be doing early intervention )
Barnardo's have done a useful literature review
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
raising the baby is not the end of the story, either.
what if dd1 grows up, gets preganat, sails thorugh it all, breeze of a labour (apparently it happens 
). and I step in to 'help' (read raise the baby).
what's to stop it happening again? and again? how many babies later do i stop 'helping'? or find another way of managing it all?
god it's jsut a flipping nightmare.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Outcomes article, a research summary and a proper review. Although ASD / impaired executive function isn't synonymous with LD, there are commonalities.
This is a subject I did a dissertation on nearly 20y ago but nothing much seems to have changed: consensus is that families are usually ok with good support, but most support isn't good, so many children are taken into care 
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.