Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not cool. But what else is not cool is our society's lack of true resources for such people.
We cannot afford to pay 6 people to baby-sit one person. That's why they should be institutionalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
There is no reason to have these kids removed from school, they just need the right classroom set-up (as in self-contained class with trained special ed teachers).
Violence is a valid reason.
If they cannot conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, then they need to be removed and institutionalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
No, we didn't & only someone who has not spent much time around Intellectually Disabled children nor Autistic children would believe that.
.
Yes, we did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
We don't have the stats to prove that & plenty of people lived very long lives.
Yes, we do have the statistics.
Alzheimer's was discovered in 1906.
Unfortunately, a diagnosis of Alzheimer's can only be confirmed by dissecting the brain tissue, and you can't do that while a patient is alive. You can only do that during an autopsy.
Unfortunately, some of 3,007 County Coroner's offices are overwhelmed and over-budget, so they can't conduct autopsies just because they want to do that. For the 2,000+ County Coroners' offices where there's a death or suicide every 5 to 35 years, they have very low budgets, so they have to exercise extreme discretion when performing autopsies.
Fortunately, all States require autopsies when a patient dies in hospital, and many States have extended that to long-term care facilities that house the elderly for any number of reasons.
So, we do have the data, and we can make inferences from population statistics.
You're also confused about Life-Expectancy. There are two measures, Life-Expectancy from Birth and Life-Expectancy from Age 65.
They are not the same, and actuarial science has been tracking both since the 1880s, when life insurance policies began to be issued.
The Social Security Trustees track Life Expectancy, but only from 1940, since the program wasn't implemented until 1939. At that time, Life Expectancy from birth for a male was 61 years, but if he lived to age 65, he could expect to live until age 77.
When penicillin was introduced in 1942, although the first several Million units produced went directly to the military and civilians didn't have access to it until November 1942, it was a game-changer.
By 1945, Life-Expectancy from Birth jumped 3 years for both men and women, and Life-Expectancy from Age 65 increased 2 years for both men and women.
In 1948, you had only 10,488,000 people age 65 or older. Today you have 50,319,000 Million.
Your total population of person age 16 or older was 103,468,000 in 1948, and it's 258,290,000 today.
Fortunately, all States require autopsies when a patient dies in hospital, and many States have extended that to long-term care facilities that house the elderly for any number of reasons.
Do you have a source for that statement, because I do not believe it is true? My Dad died in a hospital. There was no autopsy required, though I was offered one because he died after having had surgery.
We cannot afford to pay 6 people to baby-sit one person. That's why they should be institutionalized.
Violence is a valid reason.
If they cannot conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, then they need to be removed and institutionalized.
.
Yes, we did.
Yes, we do have the statistics.
Alzheimer's was discovered in 1906.
Unfortunately, a diagnosis of Alzheimer's can only be confirmed by dissecting the brain tissue, and you can't do that while a patient is alive. You can only do that during an autopsy.
Unfortunately, some of 3,007 County Coroner's offices are overwhelmed and over-budget, so they can't conduct autopsies just because they want to do that. For the 2,000+ County Coroners' offices where there's a death or suicide every 5 to 35 years, they have very low budgets, so they have to exercise extreme discretion when performing autopsies.
Fortunately, all States require autopsies when a patient dies in hospital, and many States have extended that to long-term care facilities that house the elderly for any number of reasons.
So, we do have the data, and we can make inferences from population statistics.
You're also confused about Life-Expectancy. There are two measures, Life-Expectancy from Birth and Life-Expectancy from Age 65.
They are not the same, and actuarial science has been tracking both since the 1880s, when life insurance policies began to be issued.
The Social Security Trustees track Life Expectancy, but only from 1940, since the program wasn't implemented until 1939. At that time, Life Expectancy from birth for a male was 61 years, but if he lived to age 65, he could expect to live until age 77.
When penicillin was introduced in 1942, although the first several Million units produced went directly to the military and civilians didn't have access to it until November 1942, it was a game-changer.
By 1945, Life-Expectancy from Birth jumped 3 years for both men and women, and Life-Expectancy from Age 65 increased 2 years for both men and women.
In 1948, you had only 10,488,000 people age 65 or older. Today you have 50,319,000 Million.
Your total population of person age 16 or older was 103,468,000 in 1948, and it's 258,290,000 today.
That's 10% versus 20%.
We do not have institutions for children in this country. We do have residential schools for children. I have addressed them in my last several posts. You are welcome to petition your township to send all kids with behavior problems to residential schools, but as I said many are in the $100,000 a year range and your school district is responsible for paying it, so be prepared for your property taxes to rise significantly because every district has multiple kids like this.
"People" here are not "posting nonsense" & the demi-gods of science are not waiting with bated breath to hear what we have to say before they rush off to endanger their funding by actually making any headway.
That's not how it works.
Contrary to popular belief, healthcare is subject to the Laws of Economics.
There's a limited finite amount of money that can be spent on medical research. Even if government intervenes and demands, coerces or injects money into medical research, the amount is still limited and finite.
There are thousands of medical diseases, illnesses and conditions vying for research dollars.
The fact that Autism exists is not a reason to drop everything and devote every single dollar to Autism research.
Autism is a non-fatal non-contagious condition competing against thousands of other medical diseases, illnesses and conditions which are fatal, and some are contagious to one degree or another.
Society is best served by devoting money to those medical conditions, and not to Autism.
I would spend $Millions on breast cancer or prostate cancer research before spending one dime on Autism, and if cures or curative treatments were discovered, I would shift that money to colorectal cancer, before spending a dime on Autism.
And, your ignorance of researchers is unbecoming.
The name of the game is to get published and to realize achievements, because you can't do that if you're dead. A dead researcher doesn't do anything, except rot in a coffin.
And, progress equals more funding.
The greater your progress, the more funding you get, so it's in researchers' best interests to do everything they can to publish, and get awards and generate progress so they get even more funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
That means that the genetic basis for autism may be unique for each individual.
That's exactly like schizophrenia.
Even though it is genetic, it manifests itself differently in each individual.
Just because your parent or grandparent had it doesn't mean you will, and you might escape it, while your sibling is affected.
You cannot predict the symptoms. They may experience auditory hallucinations only, or only visual hallucinations, or only tactile hallucinations, or they may have both auditory and tactile hallucinations, or visual and tactile hallucinations, or all three.
While there is medication, you can't predict how a person will react to the medication. They may have to try several different medications, or a combination of medications to get the symptoms under control.
Note that schizophrenia has been investigated and researched far longer than autism, and they still don't have all the answers, and the best they can do is offer medication to alleviate some of the symptoms.
It is unreasonable for people to expect a greater body of knowledge about autism than schizophrenia, or to expect cures or medication to relieve symptoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Yes we did. Those most severely affected were institutionalized. It is ridiculous to propose that severe autism just poofed into existence in the 1940s.
Many medical diseases, illnesses and conditions went undiagnosed for centuries for lack of diagnostic equipment or methods to detect them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
There is early onset Alzheimer's disease but it is usually diagnosed after age 60. If the average life expectancy was below 60, as it was in the US before the 1920s, the average person would not live long enough to develop Alzheimer's disease, which is most often diagnosed after that age.
That isn't relevant. The percentage of the population in the US over 65 years of age was always 10%.
I have dozens and dozens of family members who died between 80 and 100 years of age during the 1910s and 1920s. It was neither rare nor uncommon, in fact, just the opposite.
What was uncommon is for family members to tell non-family members that Grandpa Harry spent most of his time wandering around with the little animals and flying around in his space-ship.
Family members did not tell non-family members, and often wouldn't tell extended family members that their parent or grandparent was suffering from some form of Dementia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
It's not grossly unfair. Every single citizen of this country is guaranteed a free and appropriate education for 12 years. You want disabled people to be stripped of the rights of citizenship for something they had no control over?
Disabled people are not stripped of their rights.
We educate the deaf, the blind, the retarded, and children in wheel-chairs due to any number of disabilities, like cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and mobility issues.
But, note that those kids are not violent or disruptive.
Note that those children can and do learn.
Note that those children can function independently as adults.
Also note they can be are very often are functional members of society who contribute in a variety of ways, including holding jobs.
If you cannot see the difference between those children, and a child who is violent and disruptive, who cannot learn, and who cannot ever function independently or contribute to society, then you need to open your eyes.
Contrary to popular belief, healthcare is subject to the Laws of Economics.
There's a limited finite amount of money that can be spent on medical research. Even if government intervenes and demands, coerces or injects money into medical research, the amount is still limited and finite.
There are thousands of medical diseases, illnesses and conditions vying for research dollars.
The fact that Autism exists is not a reason to drop everything and devote every single dollar to Autism research.
Autism is a non-fatal non-contagious condition competing against thousands of other medical diseases, illnesses and conditions which are fatal, and some are contagious to one degree or another.
Society is best served by devoting money to those medical conditions, and not to Autism.
I would spend $Millions on breast cancer or prostate cancer research before spending one dime on Autism, and if cures or curative treatments were discovered, I would shift that money to colorectal cancer, before spending a dime on Autism.
And, your ignorance of researchers is unbecoming.
The name of the game is to get published and to realize achievements, because you can't do that if you're dead. A dead researcher doesn't do anything, except rot in a coffin.
And, progress equals more funding.
The greater your progress, the more funding you get, so it's in researchers' best interests to do everything they can to publish, and get awards and generate progress so they get even more funding.
That's exactly like schizophrenia.
Even though it is genetic, it manifests itself differently in each individual.
Just because your parent or grandparent had it doesn't mean you will, and you might escape it, while your sibling is affected.
You cannot predict the symptoms. They may experience auditory hallucinations only, or only visual hallucinations, or only tactile hallucinations, or they may have both auditory and tactile hallucinations, or visual and tactile hallucinations, or all three.
While there is medication, you can't predict how a person will react to the medication. They may have to try several different medications, or a combination of medications to get the symptoms under control.
Note that schizophrenia has been investigated and researched far longer than autism, and they still don't have all the answers, and the best they can do is offer medication to alleviate some of the symptoms.
It is unreasonable for people to expect a greater body of knowledge about autism than schizophrenia, or to expect cures or medication to relieve symptoms.
Many medical diseases, illnesses and conditions went undiagnosed for centuries for lack of diagnostic equipment or methods to detect them.
That isn't relevant. The percentage of the population in the US over 65 years of age was always 10%.
I have dozens and dozens of family members who died between 80 and 100 years of age during the 1910s and 1920s. It was neither rare nor uncommon, in fact, just the opposite.
What was uncommon is for family members to tell non-family members that Grandpa Harry spent most of his time wandering around with the little animals and flying around in his space-ship.
Family members did not tell non-family members, and often wouldn't tell extended family members that their parent or grandparent was suffering from some form of Dementia.
Disabled people are not stripped of their rights.
We educate the deaf, the blind, the retarded, and children in wheel-chairs due to any number of disabilities, like cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and mobility issues.
But, note that those kids are not violent or disruptive.
Note that those children can and do learn.
Note that those children can function independently as adults.
Also note they can be are very often are functional members of society who contribute in a variety of ways, including holding jobs.
If you cannot see the difference between those children, and a child who is violent and disruptive, who cannot learn, and who cannot ever function independently or contribute to society, then you need to open your eyes.
I do see the difference. Where I disagreed with the poster was on that child’s right to a free and appropriate education, just like all kids able bodied or not. Whether that means public school or a residential setting makes no difference, payment should not be expected from parents for their child’s 12 years of guaranteed education. Children in the US are guaranteed a free and appropriate education, and that cannot be taken away from a child just because what’s appropriate for that child costs a lot of money and might not result in an independent life.
That isn't relevant. The percentage of the population in the US over 65 years of age was always 10%.
I have dozens and dozens of family members who died between 80 and 100 years of age during the 1910s and 1920s. It was neither rare nor uncommon, in fact, just the opposite.
What was uncommon is for family members to tell non-family members that Grandpa Harry spent most of his time wandering around with the little animals and flying around in his space-ship.
Family members did not tell non-family members, and often wouldn't tell extended family members that their parent or grandparent was suffering from some form of Dementia.
I agree that medical conditions were not the topic of discussion in social situations that they are now. However, there must be a way to diagnose those conditions (we have tools now that we did not have in 1950) and there must be an incentive to label a person with a diagnosis. In the absence of effective treatment there is little incentive to try to find such a label. That is why someone with Alzheimer's would have been given a catchall label of "dementia" and someone with autism the catchall label of "mental retardation."
If you have "dozens and dozens" of family members who reached extremely advanced ages you come from genetics that promote that. Such a family history is not common.
I do see the difference. Where I disagreed with the poster was on that child’s right to a free and appropriate education, just like all kids able bodied or not. Whether that means public school or a residential setting makes no difference, payment should not be expected from parents for their child’s 12 years of guaranteed education. Children in the US are guaranteed a free and appropriate education, and that cannot be taken away from a child just because what’s appropriate for that child costs a lot of money and might not result in an independent life.
What sort of education can be given to children who are so impaired they cannot function at all, in society, without being constantly attended? And what is the point thereof?
They will not ever be able to give back to society, nor be productive adults. The reality is, severely impaired humans are parasitic by truest definition.
All the effort made to keep such a child in school, for naught. The result is not worth the effort nor the expense. The money better spent towards secure residential centers if tax dollars must be allotted towards the maintenance of such cases.
What sort of education can be given to children who are so impaired they cannot function at all, in society, without being constantly attended? And what is the point thereof?
They will not ever be able to give back to society, nor be productive adults. The reality is, severely impaired humans are parasitic by truest definition.
All the effort made to keep such a child in school, for naught. The result is not worth the effort nor the expense. The money better spent towards secure residential centers if tax dollars must be allotted towards the maintenance of such cases.
So who gets to decide which children are worth educating and which aren’t, and at what age is this being decided?
By the way, education is not the same for all kids. Low functioning kids are educated on basic skills, communication skills, life skills, not history and math.
So who gets to decide which children are worth educating and which aren’t, and at what age is this being decided?
By the way, education is not the same for all kids. Low functioning kids are educated on basic skills, communication skills, life skills, not history and math.
The decision should be based upon logic and reason; parents are often too emotionally involved to employ either.
Those who cannot learn even the most "basic skills" such as self care at the most basic level, let alone "life skills" they shall never be able to implement are surely not well served by spending time in a classroom setting; that it makes parents feel better and makes sp ed teachers feel they're doing some good in the world are warm and fuzzy but not logical, reasons.
Surely you know -as you have stated you have worked with this pt population- that some pts are so profoundly affected that no interventions shall alter nor modify nor improve their functioning. Those are the cases to which I refer, additionally any with violent tendencies/aggression as in the example that triggered this discussion.
What sort of education can be given to children who are so impaired they cannot function at all, in society, without being constantly attended? And what is the point thereof?
They will not ever be able to give back to society, nor be productive adults. The reality is, severely impaired humans are parasitic by truest definition.
All the effort made to keep such a child in school, for naught. The result is not worth the effort nor the expense. The money better spent towards secure residential centers if tax dollars must be allotted towards the maintenance of such cases.
You don't always know which autistic kids can grow up to be self sustaining and which can't until later on in the process. I have no idea with my own son. He is extremely advanced in some areas and extremely undeveloped in others. I don't know if we're going to be able to develop the undeveloped areas to the point where he will be able to take care of himself or not. I think he deserves a full education so he can be given the chance. If it doesn't work out he'll live with me until the day I and my wife have both died, and then who knows what?
Last edited by Fifty Seven; 11-02-2018 at 08:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
