now I know there is no way I would vote for this man

[2shoes]

dipstick that he is

Agree with MannyMoeandJack.

We'd have his head on a stake if he got up and said "people shouldn't terminate disabled kids. It's fine having one - look, I manage just fine." We'd have said 'yeah, mate, it's easier for you with all your money etc. and I bet you access services just fine, what with being an MP and all.'

Don't like the photo op thing though.

I agree with the sentiment which is that people should be able to choose, but don't like the idea that people can choose for crap reasons and choose late. But I guess if you keep the element of choice, you can't really stop people choosing for bad reasons (or reasons we judge as bad) BUT we should make the time limit lower than 24 weeks.

Agree - he can only answer the question in the way he did. If he said 'oh no there should never be termination' then he'd get all the privileged stuff thrown at him. Personally I think that money makes the day to say stuff far easier but it doesn't touch the emotional side. Even old Etonians (they are human - honestly- I know quite a few) are going to to be floored by a disability as severe as Ivan's.

He did vote to lower the limit to 20 weeks.

Personally I would like to see the same limit for all foetuses (so I'd probably go for 24 weeks for all), but you know if I was a politician I couldn't say that. Just like I can't say what I think in purely NT circles. If you said on the main boards here that people shouldn't terminate for reasons of disability post 24 weeks it would end up bloody - really bloody.

Make people more accepting of disability in general (especially learning disabilities - no-one scared of Clara from Heidi). Make them realise that people with LD's are every bit as human as they are and you'll get somewhere. But insisting that people have disabled children? They're not ready for it. Unfortunately and more fool them.

btw, there are conditions that you can test for but can only test for v late.

DD2 and I were squeezed (only just, they had to lower the table) into an MRI chamber to try to detect whether she had one of DD1's conditions. At 34 weeks. They said they just couldn't tell any earlier. There was a strong assumption if they had detected it, that I should terminate, just a few weeks before term and definitely at a viable age.

As it goes, I wouldn't have, but my point is really it does happen like that with some detectable brain abnormalities, even the very serious ones (this is one where 70% of affected kids have half their brain removed in infancy so I think it counts as fairly serious). It's not just a question of feckless teenagers not fancying a baby with an extra toe or something.

I don't know if that affects what I think about the Cameron quotes - I just mean the "it's easy to lower it to 24 weeks because obviously if it's serious you'll know by then" argument is incorrect.

oh I know r3, but I think there are times when the termination becomes more awful than the giving birth and the (short) life.

I should make clear I was talking about conditions compatible with life though. And although I wouldn't personally see something like trisomy 13 as incompatible with life I think for the purposes of law it would have to be.

Does that make sense?

I think it's very difficult. And I think the law (and therefore politicians) have to be liberal rather than conservative about this issue, or you end up somewhere awful.

I think the termination up to birth law should be revisited as the definition of 'severe disability' doesn't exist.

you know what confuses me.
that it is called a termination.
so you terminate at say 12 weeks, yet still call it a termination ant 34 weeks when the chances are the baby would survive the birth(hope that makes sense)
tbh I cannot imagine that anyone would choose to have such a lare "termination" unless they felt the had no choice. so maybe it all goes back to education and support.

I think the reason they don't revisit it is that the law is incapable of defining "severe disability" - for a whole raft of reasons. I don't think statute is the best place for it. What I think needs doing is the medical folks (NICE or whoever) should write some better guidelines so that doctors think a bit more when they are giving advice.

It's sodding impossible to get a maternal choice section on the NHS, or bottle feed your baby from the off - purely down to the culture of what the medical establishment have been told is politically correct this week. Giving doctors some guidance about the validity of disabled children would not just address the late terminations, it would change the culture of pressure and assumption around terminating for eg Downs' relatively early on. Without criminalising people who, despite advice, feel they just can't cope.

i think education does bugger all tbh - unfortunately I think people are very very scared of any disability.

I would go through it for a condition incompatible with life as really you have no choice (and some conditions will risk your life- anenecephaly for example).

Obviously everyone differs in their 'tolerance'. I pesonally think that terminations for reaosn of LD's are more likely that for reasons of health (eg some sort of awful muscular dystrophy). Yet myself I would see MD as having a greater element of 'suffering'.

It's really hard to write laws about this. Peronsally I think that termination for say DS after 24 weeks should be outlawed, but it's hard to write laws that would allow sufficient shades of grey for those truly awful conditions to be humane. And really if you ask Joe Public they're not going to like their options for (say) DS to be cut off at 24 weeks. Therein lies the problem.

X posted- but yes I agree R3.

I wasn't really thinking about doctors educating as imo it wouldn't work.
support is very thin on the ground when you have a disabled baby. I was offered counseling once and that was it.
I do think all the test don't help as they lull people in to a false sense of security. you think oh good I ahve had the scans and the tests so my baby will be nt. then wham bam a person cocks up somewhere at the birth and you end up with a severly disabled child.
so why is there never a mention of sorting that out. It costs millions every year in payouts, yet I have never heard a politician saying they are going to do something about the negligence.

good point about "if you said that on the main board"
this thread is kind of hidden(thank goodness) but having seen the sick stuff that was written on the thread a while back about abortion, I think no politician will ever try to stop the culling of disabled babies as it will be a vote looser.

I think there is a problem with definition. For example 95% of people I've met if asked would say that ds1 is less affecgted than your average child with DS (who they would be testing in order to terminate). In fact he is more severely disabled than any child I've met with DS so far.

There's a lot of prejudice tied up in what can be tested for, what's visible etc etc.

It would be political suicide 2shoes. David Cameron knows that.

I have a suspicion his personal views might be different from his public (as indeed mine are tbh).

I hope that if he does get in, he'll use his experience to improve the lot of carers and disabled children.

He has said he'll put a halt on the closure of special schools to allow a review (which is enough for me- ds1's school is under threat!)

"He has said he'll put a halt on the closure of special schools to allow a review (which is enough for me- ds1's school is under threat!) "
ok he has my vote

Well precisely! I'm a bit of a one issue voter!

'btw, there are conditions that you can test for but can only test for v late.'

In which case, how could the late (39wk) abortion law ever be changed? Other than itemising all the known late-detectable severe disabilities, I'm not sure how else it could be done and would such a level of specificity be possible anyway?

I also think that, by definition, abortion is a form of culling whatever the reason. Teenagers abort unwanted babies, others abort disabled babies. Don't forget that many people find out they are expecting a disabled baby yet proceed with the pregnancy, even if the baby will die at, or soon after, birth.

well, thank goodness I didn't go into politics, I would be a complete looser.
I could never hide my views on abortion for the sake of getting votes.

2shoes - periodically they do try to 'sort out' the negligence issue.
but only because it costs a lot of money in litigation.
and by 'sort out' i mean that they propose to offer a compensation package when a birth injury/ disability occurs (without recourse to litigation) without burden of proof of negligence.
obviously not preventing negligence in the first place...
and something, although it's been proposed a few times, it never quite gets enough backing...
not sure, but i think it was a tory policy... must dig around later...

oh I don't think it will survive in the form it currently is Fio. There are 2 SLD/PMLD schools in the city a new 'inclusive' outreach unit is being built on a mainstream school to take children from the secondary deparoments of both schools. Then a '21st century special school' (LEA's words) will be built to accomodate the non-included children (like ds1).

However, the other school is sat on prime redevelopment land - worth more than our school's land so the parents at the other school seem to have been told that it is their school that will be closing.

DS1's school does take more complex cases and goes up to 19 (rather than 16) - but I'm really not sure how combining the schools will work. They are very different indeed.

So anyway David Cameron and his pledge to halt the closure of special schools will get me voting Tory - I realy am a single issue voter (also our labour MP is a chocolate teapot- the other labour MP in the city is quite good - ours doesn't give a stuff so I'm not voting for her).

agree with r3

but 39 weeks is not an abortion it is killing a viable baby

'but 39 weeks is not an abortion it is killing a viable baby'

But if you want to keep parental choice (yes), then what else can you do if some severe conditions are not detectable until 35wks or so? If 39wks is too late, then you have to take away parental choice for those late onset disabilities.

Even with a 'legal' list, you still cannot get around the fact that it would be a very late abortion.

I am still pro-choice.

I am pro choice(if I was to get pregnat again I know what I would do)
but a baby can survive after 35 weeks, so I do think the limit is way too high.

'but a baby can survive after 35 weeks, so I do think the limit is way too high.'

So what is your solution to the conundrum of severe disabilities that are only detectable at 35wks and parental choice?

you have the baby

I am 100% sure this will come out wrong.

I don't see what he has done that you are all so about.

As far as I can see, he is saying that people should have a choice. He knows how hard it is to bring up a child with different needs and is saying no one should be forced in to it.

Feel free to explain what I must be missing.