Kristina,

What is troubling to me (and many others, I'm sure) is the "slippery slope"
argument surrounding sterilization for someone with a disability.  If a
person who is as severely disabled as the girl in the UK is sterilized,
where is the line drawn for others with disabilities?

I don't see this one as being as scary as the "Ashley X" situation in the
US, where "Ashley's" parents also had her breast buds removed, and other
growth attenuation procedures performed, but it does make me wonder where
the line will finally be drawn.

Several states performed involuntary sterilizations of people with
disabilities, including the state where my mother (and later my wife) grew
up.  When my mom was going through nurses training, she worked at the
"Hospital School," where children with severe disabilities were educated and
provided health care services.  My wife was later a student there for a
little bit when she was in grade school, since in the mid 60's, many small
towns in that state didn't have access to the needed services for kids with
disabilities locally.  Since my wife wasn't a "permanent" resident at the
school, and her parents would  never have consented, it wasn't an issue for
her,  But even in the 50's and 60's there were families who felt they
couldn't adequately meet the needs of their child with a disability.  In
these cases the children became "wards of the state," so that they could
meet the financial requirements to receive state services.  It's families in
these circumstances that I worry about.  In Wyoming, and other states, there
is presently a "push" to re-open or re-populate institutions for people with
disabilities.  This push is based on the perceived "need" to keep people who
work at these institutions employed, and a thinly veiled attempt to provide
people with disabilities and their families another "choice" of service
provision.

I realize that this must be an agonizing decision for parents of children
with disabilities, but feel that in all cases, we should err on the side of
the least permanent option possible.


On 10/8/07, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I had a hysterectomy and the doctor said she might take my apendix (but
> did
> not)  Just to avoid it if it latter had problems... I was OK
> with  that.  It
> is not something you can't live without and it may save surgery  later.
>
> As to the hyster for the girl.  I am all for it. But the mother can
> do  meds
> to stop period.  But I have been on the shot and it made me sick... so  I
> say
> go with pills.  But I can understand wanting it stopped by  hysterectomy.
> That way when the mother dies in years to come at least the  girl can't
> end up
> pregant in a care home somewhere.  Which is what I worry  about with my
> own
> girl... who is very pertty.   SO I REALLY worry.. no  that some sick man
> would
> care if they are pertty.  Here in the US we hear  about someone being in a
> coma
> or something and having a baby about every  year.... just think how many
> we do
> not hear about.
>
> Plus.... I work in a hospital and see older family members come to our
> department with diaper soaked and all over the bed.... at least without
> the  period
> it would not add to the mess.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> kristina
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at
> http://www.aol.com
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>



-- 


Kendall

An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

-George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy