Ind. parents told drop disabled kids at shelters

Originally posted by Rhadamanthus
I have a child with autism. He is only 6 years old but I can tell you that the past 6 years of my life have been total chaos. Trying to keep a family together when tension is high is very difficult to do. Frustration levels reach an all time high every day. It is a constant struggle to deal with a child that totally refuses to touch you or show you any kind of affection but me and my wife do it everyday all the time. I have a son that does not know the alphabet but can tell you the birth/death date of every president thus far. He can't tie his shoes but he can do algebra in his head.

Every day we struggle with him but love him more everyday.

After all the stuff we have put up with, their is no way in hell I would take him to DFACS or some other place to drop him off. This kind of stuff chaps my arse. The people that suggested that are complete and total morons that lack morality.

You are a better person than I, my tribe doesn't have time/space for a liability like that... I would have dropped him off the moment i discoverd the autism....

reply to post by toolstarr

More than 4 1/2 years ago, I wrote a letter to the Indiana Attorney General informing him of the research I was doing which demonstrated that BILLIONS of dollars 'worth' of not merely unnecessary, but HARMFUL drugs were being charged to the Medicare and the Medicaid systems:

irisnutritioncognitionresearch.blogspot.com...

(scroll down to the second to last and last paragraph of my letter to the Attorney General.)

He was uninterested.

So, when people become angry at all of the services that Indiana can no longer pay for, I would suggest that they remember where the money for Medicaid and Medicare WENT to: the pharmaceutical companies.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
So, when people become angry at all of the services that Indiana can no longer pay for, I would suggest that they remember where the money for Medicaid and Medicare WENT to: the pharmaceutical companies.

I think a lot of those drugs do more harm than good, but I am no medical professional. But the money has to be going somewhere.

From your letter:

IX) “I told him that I had a Masters Degree in Nursing. He then told me that he had never known a Masters degree person so stupid.”

I gleefully admit that this statement is true

I know nothing about nursing or your research, but I heard a saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I don't necessarily think you can catch flies with honey or vinegar, but fresh manure seems to work pretty well, but the point is insulting the person won't get you anywhere, but you should know that since you studies psychology.

A point I don't see made much in this thread, is, don't parents, when deciding to have a child, need to consider the possibility the child might be disabled? And if this possibility comes to pass, shouldn't the parents be able to afford the child? Or if they can't afford to have a disabled child, perhaps they should consider delaying having the child until such time as they can afford the child? Not every child is born completely free of any disability and we all know that. While I'm not opposed to assistance from the state, I still think the primary financial responsibility for the child should be with the parents, am I wrong?

Are parents not considering all the possibilities of what can happen when they decide to have a child? Where is the parents responsibility in this equation, and why is it the state's fault?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
You are a better person than I, my tribe doesn't have time/space for a liability like that... I would have dropped him off the moment i discoverd the autism....

The homeless shelter is still probably a better fate than what happened to disabled Spartan babies:

www.suite101.com...

When a young boy was born to Spartan parents the father would take the child to the council of elders. These old calloused and scarred veterans would look at the naked infant carefully for any birth defects or the slightest sign of weakness or sickness. If they judged the crying baby to be unworthy of carrying a Spartan shield it would be taken immediately to a nearby cliff off Mt. Taygetos and thrown over the edge.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


A point I don't see made much in this thread, is, don't parents, when deciding to have a child, need to consider the possibility the child might be disabled?

If you had parented, or were a breeder, you'd know that all of these disabilities occur in less that 1 in 150 births. So practically anyone is "playing the odds" by having a child.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If you had parented, or were a breeder, you'd know that all of these disabilities occur in less that 1 in 150 births. So practically anyone is "playing the odds" by having a child.

What if I refer to the US Census, that says the figure of kids with disabilities is more like 5%, which is 7.5 out of 150?

Five percent of children have disabilities, census says

Who ever is going around telling you it's 1 in 150 may be spreading disinformation?

Apparently the odds of having a disabled child are far higher than you think.

reply to post by Kailassa


I read your post, and it brought me to tears. God bless you, and your children.


*I meant that to be a private message, but I am not ashamed.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

Okay, I see what you're saying. I understand that. To fascilitate the concept of just giving up their kids, some parents might opt to do so when they otherwise may not. I guess I understand why such a program might be initiated, but, still, it could be thorn as well.

Why are'nt the parents of the disabled out demonstrating day and night, preferably set up a permanent tent outside this state's Govt offices flocked by these parents and supporters with foreign news journalists etc until this is settled with appropriate funding for these parents????

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you aware many of these disabilities are caused by incompetant doctors delivering these children through birth? It's called birth injury!!!!!

No one can possibly understand what these families go through until you walk in their shoes and insensitivity on the subject by childless people out there disgusts me at no end.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Private charities are different how, exactly?
www.cbsnews.com...
www.toptentopten.com...

ALL charitable organizations pay their employees extremely well.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

ALL charitable organizations pay their employees extremely well.

First of all, and most importantly, government is not a charitable organization. Secondly, the claim that "ALL" charitable organizations pay their employees well is impossibly ignorant and naive. Given that many charities rely on volunteers to help them accomplish their targets and goals, it should be quite obvious that not all employees are paid well, let alone paid at all.

www.urban.org...

www.money-zine.com...

www.closerware.com...

That last link I provided reports:

81% of our non-profits rely on volunteer support which is increasing in demand faster than the increase in supply. Over the period from 1995 to 2005, the most aggressive growth in giving came from private foundations. Their contributions grew 197% over that time period and they also grew in numbers. There were approximately 38,000 private foundations in 1995. By 2005 that number had ballooned to nearly 70,000.

81% of non-profits, (and they are not talking about government agencies), rely on volunteers.

Further, while some larger charitable organizations pay their employees well, particularly their top level employees, most are small charities with a budget of $500,000 or less, and the pay employees get is rather small when compared to the salaries, and compensation packages government employees receive.

After reading the article, the first thing that came to mind is the following, by Charles Dickens, a Christmas Carol:
`Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.
`Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
`And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge. `Are they still in operation?'
`They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, `I wish I could say they were not.'
`The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor, then?' said Scrooge.
`Both very busy, sir.'
`Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge.

Family, it is one of the corner stones of our society. There are times, when a family member is either born with a disability or becomes disabled, and it is on the rest of his or her family to decide on what is the proper way to care for that individual. In my own family, I have watched and sense decided that the correct action is not to put the disabled member into a home, to be forgotten except during the holiday seasons, rather to be at that persons side, to give them some dignity and help them to be able to live without being constrained and letting them make some decisions, though the choices that I have to make are limited, but keep that person out of trouble. Every one in my family has had to make that choice at one time or another, for different members, and especially for those that lived closest. I have seen as an aunt struggled to help and keep her husband out of a home, when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the pain in her eyes and face to struggle to keep it together as he slowly slipped from her, to my own grandparents, when they got older and were no longer able to care for themselves, to even my own self, leaving my home in one state, to uproot and move my entire household, as my own mother is suffering from the early stages of dementia, and her short term memory is slowly going, to where she is vulnerable to being taken advantage of and tends to make very bad decisions. Is it hard, yes, but it is the correct thing to do, as I am doing everything I can to allow her to be independent and active. To put her in a home at this time is the wrong course of action. Can I afford to do that, no, nor can she, but I am working on such actions as is my household and family to ensure that she is getting the proper care and treatment. I have watched as a woman gave up her entire life to ensure that her youngest child, who the doctors told her that would die at an early age, struggled to stay and keep him alive, only to be survived by him, and his family is stepping in to ensure he is not put into a home.
It is unfair and cruel to make that suggestion to a parent or a child to take the very person who they love, and care for, struggle to give that freedom and life to, to just dump and drop off cause it is financially inconvenient for the state to lend a helping hand. These people are not asking for much, just help in some of the bills for the upkeep, from medical, food and some of the housing costs, and ultimately it would be cheaper to keep providing such, rather than build more and more shelters for such. Consider this, if they have to be put into a shelter, the costs for such would skyrocket, and the patients there would just be a dollar sign in the eyes of the administrators’ of those facilities. The patients would no longer be treated with the dignity or care that they should get, all for becoming disabled. If this is allowed to happen, then the very thing that it is suppose to help, becomes a liability and when that is too much, what will they do with all of the people, turn them out to die on the streets? The hardest point in any families life is to watch a loved one, be it a parent or a child to undergo those changes and to be disabled, and the state should be there to offer a hand up, to help them get the necessary training and support to keep helping those who are dealing with such, rather than burden the whole of society with another person that everyone has to support at a rate that far exceeds the original cost of what they required while living at home. Right now it is the children, but how long before it starts to become the elderly, or a military vet who served his country and ended up disabled? Can we as a society justify the lack of humanity?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Here in Australia a person with a disability under the age of 21 receives approx $360.00 nett per fortnight while the care giver/parent also can receive approx $850.00 a week. Once the child turns 21 he/she receives approx $750.00 nett per fortnight.

In the USA?

reply to post by bluemirage5


forgot to add, the disability person and care giver recieve a pharmaceutical card recieving low cost meds, cheap public transport card and are usually top priority of the list for public housing.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Most states and the federal government are suppose to have programs to assist those with disabilities, to include those parents with children that have disabilities, starting with SCHIP, and the different social programs. When those with disabilities, that are not able to function, alot of the state programs are taken over by the federal government to assist families that care for a disabled family member. It varies from state to state, but never has it been that it is suggested that such a person is simply dumped off in a local shelter. They usually try to provide actual facilities when the family can no longer care for the disabled person, as that is what the department of human services are there for. This is just plain inhuman to even suggest that such be done, as it shows a lack of compassion and humanity towards those who can not even at times speak for their ownself, but are still human.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Are you aware many of these disabilities are caused by incompetant doctors delivering these children through birth? It's called birth injury!!!!!

No one can possibly understand what these families go through until you walk in their shoes and insensitivity on the subject by childless people out there disgusts me at no end.

I've read some stories about incompetent doctors causing birth injuries, but I don't think the children with disabilities from that cause should have to worry about ending up in a shelter, as the family should be able to get a settlement from the doctor's malpractice insurance large enough to cover the costs of care plus other damages.

However I don't know what percentage of disabilities are the doctor's fault, I suspect it's not a large percentage which means all the other kids with disabilities will get no financial help from a doctor's malpractice insurance.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Most parents of children with disabilities are financially stressed all their lives re medical bills, education etc and more than 80% of their parent's marriages fail. That's a given.

Where there is malpractice at birth, it's difficult to get in to court because 1. the medical association/hospitals cover up their mess including the medical reports 2. Most parents can't afford a decent lawyer 3. most "decent" lawyers take a majority of the $$$ in lawyer's fees IF there is a settlement

reply to post by bluemirage5


I've heard stories of DSS telling people to give up their kids because the kids needed services the parents couldn't afford to give them for the past few decades.....although they usually suggest that they put them in the foster care system, not just drop them off at a shelter. They might be telling more parents this now, or maybe not, they might be just trying to make it more known for some political advantage, who knows. they could be just trying to get more money to prop up their foster care system...which also isn't in the best interest of the kids, or their parents either!

But well, I've raised the issue up in these threads quite a few times.....people find themselves in that gap between being able to earn enough to take care of their families and being poor enough to qualify for the social aide programs...and they are forced into some drastic options, especially when a member of their family is seriously ill, or disabled.
It wasn't right then, it isn't right now...
and it just creates more need for us to have to take care of!
but, to answer the question, why aren't the parents demonstrating in the streets, well....
as long as they keep the number who are being left out in the cold low enough...there will never be demonstrations, because, well, the system is working fine for everyone, see, we have the best system in the whole world!! even our poorest of poor can get the healthcare they need....we don't know what is wrong with you....maybe you should stop wasting your money on sex, drugs, beer and cigarettes.....is that designer jeans you have on!!!

I guess maybe we can hope that some rich banker comes along and helps the poor kids out, since it seems like they have ended up with all the money.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


If it was your own child, no you would'nt