Monday, February 1, 2010
She just goes on and on...
The most dangerous little tidbit in this rationalization for growth attenuation by Ashley's father is this: No amount of state funding or resources would replace these direct benefits. What is being said, in effect, is that helping families with kids with severe disabilities via supports for daily living is a lesser choice than G.A.
It's pretty easy to predict a number of things that can and will likely follow if G.A. becomes a legitimate "treatment option".
* since it is likely that the full cost of G.A. is cheaper in the long run than daily living supports for fully grown severely disabled individuals, no state (or province, or whatever government) will seriously invest in the care and assistance of the severely disabled.
* since no government will seriously invest in supports for the severely disabled, what is likely to happen with supports for any disabled population? (Think along the lines of "very little").
* if proper supports are not in place, parents who might have otherwise considered leaving their child intact will opt for G.A.
* since attenuated individuals are perceived to be easier to care for, there will even be greater expectations of parents to care for these individuals for their (the parents') entire lifetime. There will, therefore, be no inducement to provide more and higher quality housing options for the severely disabled.
* can you see that governments and insurance companies might consider paying for or subsidizing G.A. because it is perceived to be cheaper in the long run?
* young severely disabled children who are given up to the state for care (abandoned...and I use that term with great delicacy), will likely be first in line for G.A. because it will be perceived as cheaper and easier to care for them in the long term in institutionalized settings.
* without proper supports, more children with severe disabilities will be abandoned to the state.
* if G.A. becomes considered as a legitimate treatment, it will be "offered" to parents of severely disabled children before rigorous testing and assessment of these children's cognitive abilities are ascertained...or allowed to develop. This would save alot of money on the develoment and procurement of assitve communication devices for this population. These devices fall under the category of "assisted living"...and proper supports.
Why I have been yammering away at this of late is because the whole G.A. thing is at a turning point. What bothers me is that there is alot going on in the background to sneak this past an ususpecting public. Had Ashley's parents made this decision for their child and then SHUT UP ABOUT IT, I would be hard pressed to criticize. We all have to make some awful decisions when it comes to our kids. What is patently wrong here, is that there is an agenda to make this a viable treatment option for all parents of kids with severe disabilities. All of you know just how much pressure the doctors can apply when they decide a treatment is "best" for your child. How many kids...more specifically GIRLS...are going to be mutilated in this way before someone says something?
My blog is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. I consider it very important, however, to influence people as much as I can in this regard. My little world map shows that people from around the globe read my blog from time to time. If one family opts out of G.A. because of these posts, then I will have succeeded. If more and more people get off the fence and stand in opposition to this, whether or not they have a child with disabilities, the better off all of our kids are. The world will be that much safer for the disabled.
Posted by king at 12:12 PM