The disabled don’t have a moral right to refuse a cure or treatment?

13 Jul

With billions of people on the planet, you gotta figure that every second someone, somewhere, is saying something which just makes your head spin. Such is a comment I recently read in a discussion at Harpocrates Speaks. In You Have No Voice, they highlight a comment from the Age of Autism blog. Here’s the worst of the comment:

unless a disabled person is financially and physically independent they do not have moral right to refuse a cure or treatment.

The comment was apparently written by someone with the pseudonym “taxpayer”.

The message is clear: the disabled are such a burden to “taxpayers” that they (the disabled) must undergo any treatment considered a “cure” by taxpaying members.

Here’s the full comment:

M@”Does focusing on access barriers rather than cure make a wheelchair user less of a stakeholder in discussions re physical disability?”

From my taxpayer perspective the answer is No, they don’t have a right to be there. No one has the right to refuse a cure or a treatment that would make them less needy of state-sponsored services.

I would much rather see my tax dollars going towards a CURE, I would rather be paying to ERADICATE autism than paying for your wheelchair access barrier and many millions of wheelchairs to come.

So yes, unless a disabled person is financially and physically independent they do not have moral right to refuse a cure or treatment. And they especially don’t have any right to sit on a panel that was created to COMBAT that disability.

As Harpocrates Speaks writes: “Ten thousand words would not be enough to express my feelings on this.”

I can’t even begin. In this day and age, how can anyone write the above?

–by Matt Carey

Advertisements

57 Responses to “The disabled don’t have a moral right to refuse a cure or treatment?”

  1. Saraquill July 13, 2012 at 23:42 #

    If that person is so concerned with saving money, that person can move onto the sidewalk, renounce all financial obligations and stop eating.

    Money well spent is funds that go to helping others lead full meaningful lives rather than force-feeding them bleach or stuffing week-old feces into their rectums.

  2. determinedtri July 13, 2012 at 23:51 #

    A pro-neurodiversity perspective is essentially a social model of disability one. Always struck me as strange that autistic adults are attacked for expressing the same sort of social model ideas that are the dominant narrative in the disability movement as a whole. People with physical or sensory impairments don’t get attacked for them in the same way. Cure/prevention discourses coexist (eg Christopher Reeve, many charities), but not the same personal attacks. And certainly no suggestion that social model perspective = not a stakeholder.

    I honestly thought that compare/contrast would work. Forgot, I guess, that most AoA readers have very little contact with the cross-disability movement.

    • determinedtri July 13, 2012 at 23:54 #

      Above comment from M – couldn’t comment here in that name.

  3. Kassiane July 14, 2012 at 02:36 #

    You know, I am surprised that people are surprised. I hear this junk all the time…but them, I’m Autistic & think I have rights & we can’t be having that.

    Welcome to knowing what people actually think. It’s dark & scary here.

    • Sullivan July 14, 2012 at 03:56 #

      Kassiane,

      I know it happens. I know I’ll read and hear them again. And even knowing that, I know I’ll be stunned again.

      • Kassiane July 14, 2012 at 05:54 #

        I wish I was stunned. I’m not. I never am. It’s how people have been talking about me to my face for as long as I can remember.

  4. farmwifetwo July 14, 2012 at 12:34 #

    Actually, it already happens. I asked my FSW about the “aspies” and the children that are being made disabled (there’s 6 in there that I’m not convinced should be) in my youngest’s (severely autistic, doing amazing, will always require care) classroom and what happens when they become adults. Her comment is after highschool, they get 2yrs ODSP, job training and are expected to go to work. There are also highschool programs to help get these children into the work force.

    Services are for those that require them. There isn’t infinite monies. Job training, social skills training do not change the way you think but do allow you to become independant. I would think this would be viewed as an important part of managing one’s autism disabilities, not as a reason to demand to remain disabled.

    Society has no issues paying to help those that require it. Society has no issues paying to give people a helping hand up to better themselves – which is what that poster was telling you. Society has little patience or respect for those that demand special treatment, monies or services when they can learn and become more than their disability. The worse the economy becomes…. the less patience and less money there is… it’s just the way it is and you can either take advantage of what is offered and become independant or make demands which just upset those paying taxes to simply refuse to pay.

    Cold?? Cruel?? Maybe…. but be thankful there is atleast something… you could live somewhere there is nothing like billions of people do.

    • Shain July 15, 2012 at 01:01 #

      Because the money of able-bodied neurotypical people is just infinitely more important than the bodily integrity and self-determination of their fellow human beings with disabilities, right? We should be happy to be forced through physically and psychologically traumatic treatments and segregated into too often abusive treatment and education environments that force normalcy on us at the expense of actual functioning, because you don’t outright kill us. You know, except when you do, and then collectively excuse it by saying there aren’t enough services and we’re such a burden on everyone who has to take care of us and all that garbage.

  5. TLPG July 14, 2012 at 12:43 #

    There’s just a slight chance that I may have a precedent in the next few months that labels this sort of talk as hate speech against the Autistic Spectrum.

  6. lilady July 14, 2012 at 15:03 #

    “Taxpayer” and the other posters at AoA are so wrapped up in their own “troubles”, that they are unable to see the greater world out there.

    How insulting it is to me and the memory of my dead son, who was born with a rare genetic disorder, who had pronounced autistic behaviors, and who was wheel-chair bound during his short twenty-eight years on this earth, to read that vicious, vile remark and to have it go unchallenged by other posters or the “moderator” at AoA.

  7. Stuart Duncan July 14, 2012 at 23:28 #

    Dear “Taxpayer”,

    My child was born with a disability and our entire lives are affected by it. There’s going to be some struggles just about every step of the way and yet we never get down or negative about it because we just love him so very much.

    But please, tell me about how burdened you are by paying the same taxes I am. That must be devastating for you. Is there anything I can do to help? I hate to see you suffer so.

    Sincerely,
    A taxpayer too, but with a heart.

  8. qwerty July 15, 2012 at 02:51 #

    Unfortunately, I think these kind of cold, disdainful comments are all too common. Just the other day there was an article in a local paper (web version) discussing cuts to school budgets and the impact on special ed. services. One commenter going by the name “proudparentof2” had this bit of eloquent prose to add to the discussion:

    “do we really need to send children that not once ever speak,look,and have to eat through a tube why are we spending over35,000 on them per year to go to school when they will never get a job nor can they even after 10 years in school say or sign their abcs. We have to stop sending them to school maybe churchs can take this over as a charity for these children since they are the ones that want every child born and would be against this say it would cause stress on the parents and more babies would not be born”

    Comments like the ones made by “taxpayer” and “proudparentof2” echo much the same sentiment that I heard when the Afordable Care Act was being proposed. There seem to be quite a lot of people that feel that the poor, the sick, the disabled, are in their current state because of laziness….that they *deserve* their hardships.

  9. johndstone July 15, 2012 at 13:08 #

    Matt Carey quotes the comment of ‘Taxpayer’ about forced medication on the AgeofAutism blog as if he/she represents the opinion of the blog. But the opinion of AoA has been entirely against forced medication: that is what it is all about. We’ve been against forced psychiatric medication as we’ve been against vaccine mandates. But what about Mr Carey: does he oppose vaccine mandates? Perhaps he could as an appointee to a government committeee manage to get his left brain and his right brain together and work out what he really thinks.

    • qwerty July 15, 2012 at 16:13 #

      @johndstone

      If AoA is “all about” speaking out against forced treatments and medications, then they would be outraged about MMS treatments, right? After all, it really doesn’t get much more forced than cramming bleach down the throats and up the rectums of disabled children to the point of fever, diarrhea and vomiting. Yet, you and AoA say nothing. Nor do you speak out about the misuse of long-term antibiotic treatments (which have well known adverse heath affects) promoted by Luc Montagnier to test unsubstantiated claims that chronic bacterial infections may promote autistic symptoms. So, please, tell me again how you and AoA are watchdogs and whistleblowers whose sole purpose in life is to shine a light on the abuse of autistic children. The reality is that you and AoA are 110% anti-vaccine, nothing more and nothing less.

  10. lilady July 15, 2012 at 16:45 #

    @johndstone: I just “love” how you came here to defend the AoA poster who made that offensive remark. The fact is that neither you or any of the AoA “regulars” spoke out for other disabled kids and adults who are physically disabled.

    Odd how one of your “journalists” came to the defense of the MMS industrial bleach *autism treatment/cure* protocol because it is just another of the “biomedical” *treatments/cures* for autism.

    At one time AoA was promoting the Geier’s Lupron castrating *treatment/cure* for autism and continues to promote stem cell treatment. What happened to the upper banner ad featured on AoA recently, that was promoting and selling this stem cell treatment, John? That company has local offices throughout the United States and sends kids to Panama for stem cell treatment.

    How about AoA’s journalist who borrowed money from his in-laws to take his daughter offshore for “biomedical” autism treatment with G*d knows what substance in an intrathecal infusion?

    Why do you and your pals at AoA continue to support Wakefield, John, when he was found guilty of ordering/performing not-medically-indicated painful, invasive tests on his study subjects.

    Finally John, you have all the transcripts and reports generated from the GMC. Take a look at what we all know about the children’s medical histories and show me the medical justification for ordering/performing lumbar punctures on these children. (Reputable websites only, accepted). I’ll be waiting for your link, John.

    • Sullivan July 15, 2012 at 17:41 #

      lilady,

      I’m sure you are aware of this, but I feel the need to point it out :

      Mr. Stone has tried a classic debate trick: passing off a false premise.

      “no one has the right to refuse a cure or a treatment that would make them less needy of state-sponsored services.”

      That bears no real resemblance to the vaccine “mandates” in the US. 48 of 50 states allow parents to forgo vaccinating their children with a personal choice exemption. All States allow medical exemption.

      If taxes were such a “mandate” I doubt anyone would file returns.

      • determinedtri July 16, 2012 at 01:23 #

        How did this get onto vaccines?

        Look at Social Security Disability law. If someone refuses reasonable treatment for a medical condition, they can’t get disability benefits for that condition (unless they refuse for eg a good medical reason). Autism isn’t generally considered a medical condition. Co-existing epilepsy, GI or immune problems etc are.

        Surprising as it may seem to some, there are a lot of pro-neurodiversity autistics with chronic health problems. We just don’t frame them as “part of our autism”.

        -M

      • determinedtri July 16, 2012 at 07:51 #

        That “refuse treatment and you don’t get social security disability benefits” clause: I internet-know people who’ve been denied SSI because of it.

        One wasn’t taking prescribed medication because he genuinely couldn’t afford it (no income, no insurance). Another did not consistently take their medication because their impairment itself made them unable to do so without support (that they had no way of getting). These will not be isolated cases.

        -M

    • johndstone July 15, 2012 at 18:39 #

      Lilady

      The English High Court have already ruled that the investigations of the children in the Wakefield paper were clinically indicated and the GMC were in error – ruling by Mr Justice Mitting in the case of Prof Walker-Smith, senior clinician and author of the paper where all the findings were quashed.

      It looks like Sullivan has understood the issue I was trying to raise (below). Personally, I am cautious about medications of any sort, but that’s actually slightly different from what I was talking about.

      • autismjungle July 15, 2012 at 20:13 #

        John D Stone, you are either ignorant or willfully mendacious. John Walker-Smith basically claimed that Wakefield duped him. The court accepted that defence. Your claim that the court accepted the tests were clinically indicated is false.

  11. johndstone July 15, 2012 at 18:17 #

    Matt/Sullivan

    No, it is not a debating trick. If you affirm that you are in favour of parental choice over vaccination I will believe you. But clearly there is much pressure even in states with religious and intellectual exemptions, and also lobbying to have such freedom as there is taken away: I note you are a citizen of California where this happening at present.

    • Chris July 15, 2012 at 18:25 #

      Now, if you are going to get your panties in a twist over the fact that Dr. Carey is an American, yet this website has a “uk” in the URL, then we are going ask you if John Scudamore is a citizen of Tonga. The whale.to site is obviously from Tonga.

    • Lawrence July 15, 2012 at 18:30 #

      @Johndstone – can you point to the specific language in AB2109 that “mandates” vaccination?

      I would love to see it.

      • Sullivan July 15, 2012 at 19:30 #

        Exactly. Mr. Stone redefines the clear meaning of the law.

        See how he’s using this in another debate trick. He asks if I believe in choice. I if I agree he will claim I agree with *his* definition. If I disagree he will say I disagree with the real definition.

        Basically a variation on the old “have you stopped doing illegal acts” gambit. Present the question such that any simple response works to his benefit.

        He bolsters this by acting as though I have not made my position clear already.

        The next step in this type of discussion is to claim it is I who is playing games, accusing me of being evasive. As though someone with over 1000 articles is afraid to say what he thinks.

        One might wonder why he doesn’t ask simple, direct questions.

        Like, do I think that personal exemptions should be allowed? I’ll address this again. Yes. But with rights come responsibilities. Children have the right to be safe at school. That includes the right to be as protected as possible from infectious diseases. Those of us with medically fragile children are keenly aware of this.

        Do people have the right to make informed healthcare decisions? Absolutely. Mr. Stone works against that right by spreading misinformation. I don’t care if his lies are intentional or just the result of being misinformed. They are irresponsible.

        See what I just did there? I exercised my first amendment rights as an American on an American website to express my opinions.

    • Chris July 15, 2012 at 18:35 #

      Oh, and there have already been Supreme Court rulings that allow public health mandates, like not allowing infectious or unvaccinated children entering a public school. Kind of not allowing a person to bypass the city sewers and letting the effluent flow down the streets.

      Read Pox: An American Story by Michael Willrich. The bit about Dr. Immanuel Pfeiffer is a classic story about very wrong beliefs and why there is legislation against spreading diseases.

  12. johndstone July 15, 2012 at 20:54 #

    Matthew Carey

    I could not really follow all of that. However, if you are saying parents should be allowed choice as free citizens and not be subject to coercive pressures when deciding about vaccination than that is gratifying. Of course, in the US parents still have to opt out, whereas in the UK it still voluntary, though there are pressures and effective choice is limited by the use of multivalent vaccines. Other than that we can always argue about the truth but I am talking about basic principles.

    • Sullivan July 16, 2012 at 00:04 #

      So now your turn.

      Here’s a comment from one of your blogs. Since you didn’t make it I would appreciate it if you would clarify how you fit in to the discussion:

      With less than a half-dozen full-time activists, annual budgets of six figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees.

      Do you agree that there is a community working to “bring the vaccine program to its knees”?

      If so, do you feel that you are a part of that community?

      Do you feel that this community is being successful in their efforts to “bring the vaccine program to its knees”?

      If you feel that you are a part of this community, do you share their pride in these efforts?

      Simple and direct questions.

      • johndstone July 16, 2012 at 00:31 #

        Mr Carey

        My opposition to the vaccine programme in its present form is quite clear, but I think you are trying to distract from the fact that you haven’t answered the question whether you are in favour of vaccine choice for parents which arose from your proper concern about forced medication for disabled people – on the whole I think not.

      • Sullivan July 16, 2012 at 01:02 #

        My positions are also clear, yet I responded to your questions.

        When you are willing to respond to simple questions, feel free to return. Till then, I expect you have accomplished what I suspect is a goal of gathering quotes to misrepresent for some blog post.

  13. lilady July 15, 2012 at 21:47 #

    @johndstone: I posed specific questions to you about the lumbar punctures which were not-medically-indicated on the children who were part of the Wakefield study:

    “Why do you and your pals at AoA continue to support Wakefield, John, when he was found guilty of ordering/performing not-medically-indicated painful, invasive tests on his study subjects.

    Finally John, you have all the transcripts and reports generated from the GMC. Take a look at what we all know about the children’s medical histories and show me the medical justification for ordering/performing lumbar punctures on these children. (Reputable websites only, accepted). I’ll be waiting for your link, John.”

    You in turn, changed the subject by (not so cleverly) mentioning the Walker-Smith license restoration hearing and California AB 2109 legislation.

    Here’s a medical website for you to peruse:

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview#aw2aab6b2b1aa

    Did any of the children in Wakefield’s study have any of these “indications”, John?

    Indications

    Lumbar puncture should be performed for the following indications:

    Suspicion of meningitis

    Suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH)

    Suspicion of central nervous system (CNS) diseases such as Guillain-Barré syndrome[6] and carcinomatous meningitis

    Therapeutic relief of pseudotumor cerebri[7]

    I’m still waiting, John.

    • johndstone July 15, 2012 at 22:50 #

      Lilady

      If you want to learn about the clinical background to the lumbar puncture investigations (which had nothing to do with Andrew Wakefield) I suggest you read the Mitting judgment. Try a web-search on ‘English Court Exonerates MMR/Autism Doctor’.

      • lilady July 15, 2012 at 23:00 #

        Was Wakefield exonerated, John?

        Which of the children in Wakefield’s study had “Indications” that warranted the invasive, painful, not-medically-indicated lumbar punctures? Perhaps you want to contact Wakefield directly for that answer.

        I’m still waiting, John.

    • Sullivan July 16, 2012 at 00:39 #

      lilady,

      Wasn’t the argument that Mr. Wakefield didn’t pursue an appeal because it would be expensive? What was it for Prof. Walker-Smith? 5 days of hearings? Mr. Wakefield has likely already spent as much or more to pursue a defamation suit.

      A big part of the decision for Prof. Walker-Smith hinged largely on the idea that it wasn’t research because the GMC did not prove there was an intent to present do research.

      I doubt they would have had the same problem with their case against Mr. Wakefield. Especially for those procedures which Mr. Wakefield called for (even though he was prohibited from clinical duties)

  14. johndstone July 15, 2012 at 23:31 #

    Lilady

    I’ve just directed you to an English High Court judgment which gives you the information you (don’t) want. It certainly follows that if many of things the GMC have found were not true of Walker-Smith – the lead clinician – they also couldn’t have been true about Murch or Wakefield.

    • Chris July 16, 2012 at 00:12 #

      Link please.

      And exactly where is Wakefield allowed to practice medicine?

    • lilady July 16, 2012 at 00:18 #

      “It certainly follows that if many of things the GMC have found were not true of Walker-Smith – the lead clinician – they also couldn’t have been true about Murch or Wakefield.”

      You forgot ( or did you?), that Walker-Smith threw Wakefield under the bus and made a statement that the vaccine-autism link has been thoroughly investigated…and debunked.

      Answer the questions I posed to you John:

      “Why do you and your pals at AoA continue to support Wakefield, John, when he was found guilty of ordering/performing not-medically-indicated painful, invasive tests on his study subjects.

      Finally John, you have all the transcripts and reports generated from
      the GMC. Take a look at what we all know about the children’s medical histories and show me the medical justification for ordering/performing lumbar punctures on these children. (Reputable websites only, accepted). I’ll be waiting for your link, John.

      I’m still waiting, John.

  15. JUST A FART July 16, 2012 at 00:13 #

    Eh!!!only when Autism is on the cards that they are invasve ,painful and not medically-indicated,,AYE RIGHT! FRIGGING EMU JUST FLEW BY MY WINDOW!!”

    Which of the children in Wakefield’s study had “Indications” that warranted the invasive, painful, not-medically-indicated lumbar punctures? Perhaps you want to contact Wakefield directly for that answer.” has anyone bothered to ask him??

  16. determinedtri July 16, 2012 at 00:45 #

    In my country (not the USA), there is a sometimes years-long waiting list for support services, even for people needing 24/7 care. When my nephew was starting school, he was offered an aide 12 hours a week; he’s diagnosed Autistic Disorder, tested IQ in the 50s, was not toilet trained, and had ‘wandered’ from preschool several times. 3 other autistic children from his early intervention program started school the same year; they got no school support at all. Sink or swim, like I had to in the 70s/80s.

    No, support is *not* always there when needed. Not where I live, and from what I hear from others, not in other places either. Especially for adults.

    The specific examples of ‘cures’ I gave, the ones that prompted that AoA rant? One was highly experimental (but available quick, dirty, expensive and unregulated as quackery). The other was extraordinarily expensive and mimics ‘normal’ at the expense of function.

    Yes, many of us believe autism has advantages (as well as disadvantages), and that society has to change more than we do, But given attitudes like “it’s OK to force risky/experimental treatments on people”, how is that wrong? I say this as someone who *is* on an experimental treatment (epilepsy med: 90% seizure reduction, it changed my life) and has also experienced forced treatment (chemical restraint, physical restraint, seclusion).

    -M

  17. Science Mom July 16, 2012 at 03:51 #

    I’ve just directed you to an English High Court judgment which gives you the information you (don’t) want. It certainly follows that if many of things the GMC have found were not true of Walker-Smith – the lead clinician – they also couldn’t have been true about Murch or Wakefield.

    This is daft “logic” if I ever saw it. Say you have three defendents on trial for murder, one is acquitted outright and the other two are convicted but one appeals and is successful. The one that chooses not to appeal is acquitted by proxy? That is what you are arguing and is about the dumbest defence of Wakefield there can be. It just supports Mr. Deer’s statement about what a sad rump of disciples you are.

    Now why don’t you get to the topic which has nothing to do with vaccines, which aren’t forced no matter how you try to argue otherwise and denounce the miscreant who believes that “autism treatments” should be forced. No more of your bullshit, double-speak and deflection. Matt Carey has been perfectly clear about his positions; I had no trouble following his rebuttals.

    • lilady July 16, 2012 at 04:53 #

      johndstone came here to deflect criticism away from AoA, by bringing up side issues such as the high court’s decision for Walker-Smith and vaccines.

      The subject of this particular blog is the outrageous post about disabled people who are not on the autism spectrum…and the deplorable silence by the moderator and other posters at AoA.

      @ Science Mom: I don’t think John will be back on this particular thread. It is his typical behavior…just like a mangy dog…comes in and soils the carpet…then skulks out the door.

      • determinedtri July 16, 2012 at 08:13 #

        The comment that prompted that outrageous post? I was *trying* to get across “physically impaired disability rights advocates argue for access, social change etc – much the same as pro-neurodiversity autistics do. Why’s one OK and the other not?”. Clearly – and unusually – Taxpayer decided neither one was OK.

      • Sullivan July 16, 2012 at 21:58 #

        “…then skulks out the door.”

        This isn’t fair. He was shown the door. He came purportedly seeking answers to questions, refused to acknowledge that they were answered and then refused to respond to direct questions put to him.

        It’s the same methodology used by his colleague, Cliff Miller, only he’s slightly less obvious about it.

        As noted above, when he’s willing to respond to the questions put to him, he’s welcome back. I can fully understand why he might not want to answer the questions. And the reasons do not speak well of Mr. Stone nor his group.

      • psychtld July 22, 2012 at 04:34 #

        Difference between John Stone and a turd: a turd is useful.

    • psychtld July 16, 2012 at 23:27 #

      Science Mom: “This is daft ‘logic’ if I ever saw it.”

      If you mean that it is total bollocks, I agree entirely!

  18. Nashira July 16, 2012 at 18:48 #

    People suffer and die every time we have forced people w/ disabilities to undergo whatever “treatment” or “cure” was fashionable at the time, with no recognition. No one really cared about what was best for them, for us – people like us just lived in pain, fear, and suffering, until and unless they died from it.

    The idea that a supposed human being can think and say what “Taxpayer” said makes me wish to vomit. People like that who think that people like me and my husband, that we aren’t people because our brains are weird, need to get fired out of a cannon. Maybe into the sun. Because they’re dangerous, and the more of them exist, the more victimization, pain, suffering, and death happen.

  19. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. July 16, 2012 at 22:20 #

    Well, I just went there … this was what I got when I opened the link:

    “Service Unavailable
    Error 503”

    I can only hope that taxpayer‘s comment lead to that article being pulled, because of the shittiness of taxpyer‘s evident attitude towards the disabled.

    I live in a total shithole called Finland. It has shitty attitudes towards the disabled, I can absolutely truthfully tell you. And yet – the disabled here are taxpayers too, so we get to tell idiots like taxpayer to boil their insolent bloody heads.

    I’m not praising Finland either … I’m actually trying to say how shitty I think taxpayer and its ilk are. Maybe the ones who have no right to be on this planet are people like that. If it were in front of me now talking bollocks like that, I’d bloody belt the bastard hard

  20. lilady July 16, 2012 at 22:55 #

    @ Sullivan: I’m well aware of the Stone/Miller tag team; I’ve tangled with them before…along with the Dachel bot on a number of blogs.

    Stone couldn’t (or wouldn’t) respond to my direct questions about “Indications” for performing lumbar punctures…because he knows none of Wakefield’s study subjects presented with those medical emergencies.

    Lumbar punctures are invasive and painful and leave a child with an extraordinarily painful headache, until the cerebral spinal fluid that was removed during the procedure is replaced. My son had a number of LPs to diagnose meningitis and to rule/out meningitis.

    • Sullivan July 16, 2012 at 23:40 #

      And, of course, there is more. So much more, against the idea that somehow the Walker-Smith appeal applies to exonerate Mr. Wakefield.

      Consider–what is the first charge noted in the Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction from the GMC?

      The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike.

      By definition, this does not involve Prof. Walker-Smith.

      A key statement in the conclusions of the Walker-Smith appeal was “The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously”. I.e. the GMC needed to determine Prof. Walker-Smith’s honesty to make the charges stick. That is not a very high bar in regards to Andrew Wakefield. A bar which the GMC passed easily. Mr. Wakefield would have failed on appeal.

      • Sullivan July 17, 2012 at 00:26 #

        Of course, there is the basic finding of the appeals court. If you recall, much of the defense of Prof. Walker-Smith was that his efforts were not research because his intent was not proven to be research. However, the same judge made it crystal clear that Mr. Wakefield’s intent was research:

        When the person undertaking the activity has two purposes or when different people participating in the same series of activities have different purposes, it may be very difficult to say into which category the activities fall. This difficulty is particularly likely to arise in activities undertaken by an academic clinician and/or in a teaching hospital with a research department. These difficulties arose in this case: Dr. Wakefield’s purpose was undoubtedly research; Professor Walker-Smith’s may have lain anywhere on the spectrum. It was for the panel to determine where it did; but first, it had to determine what his intention in fact was.

        Emphasis added.

        Which directly contradicts the assertion of Mr. Stone:

        It certainly follows that if many of things the GMC have found were not true of Walker-Smith – the lead clinician – they also couldn’t have been true about Murch or Wakefield.

        There is no inference. No interpretation. The judge laid it out clearly. Things which the judge found did not apply to Prof. Walker-Smith did indeed apply to Andrew Wakefield.

        So, when we consider situations where Mr. Wakefield made clinical decisions (which were prohibited in his contract), those were done by a man whose “undoubted” purpose was that of performing research.

        This claim that the Walker-Smith appeal exonerates Andrew Wakefield is just wrong.

  21. lilady July 16, 2012 at 22:57 #

    test posting

  22. lilady July 16, 2012 at 22:58 #

    @ Sullivan: Am I stuck, somehow, in moderation? I posted a reply to you last post.

  23. lilady July 17, 2012 at 01:22 #

    @ Sullivan: That is the very reason why I posed those specific questions to him. When/if he returns, I will again pose the questions about “Indications” for lumbar punctures. I *know* pediatric neurology…and he doesn’t.

  24. Roger Kulp July 17, 2012 at 14:06 #

    determinedtri July 16, 2012 at 01:23 #

    How did this get into vaccines?…

    Surprising as it may seem to some, there are a lot of pro-neurodiversity autistics with chronic health problems. We just don’t frame them as “part of our autism”.

    I can sort of tie the two together.The vaccine-autism “connection”,is at it’s core,all about regression.Since Wakefield first published his article,the science has moved on quite a bit.We now have a growing list of diseases and syndromes that can cause regressive autism.If you regress after a febrile illness,seizure,metabolic crisis,whatever,you do see them as part of your autism.If you don’t regress,you don’t.I can tell you from experience,regression is a lifelong thing.

    My sister and I are both on the spectrum.She has Asperger’s,I have something somewhere in between Asperger’s,and classic autism.I regress,she does not,yet she has a lot of medical problems too.She has the immune issues,but not as serious as I do.She has much worse seizures than I do,but has none of the metabolic disease I do.I have done a lot of work to uncover the cause of my problems,and get medical treatment.My sister could not care less.I have tried to talk her into getting a few of the tests I have had.She only got angry about it,so I just backed off about the subject.

    I keep thinking about something I heard Temple Grandin say.This is in response to a question at the talk she gave that is on the UC Davis MIND institute Distinguished Lecturer video page.She said that the whole regressive vs nonregressive thing was a completely separate topic.Something too complicated to discuss,and she did not have time for it.

    I think this is one of the most important topics we need to discuss in the autism community.It is clearly quite divisive.Until we can have a meaningful discussion,one free of any mention of vaccines,there will continue to be cross-spectrum warfare.

  25. LizP July 14, 2013 at 06:44 #

    The disabled should have the right to refuse treatment, and take-on the responsibility to shoulder whatever personal outcome results; AND, the temporarily-able-bodied should have the right to refuse treatment, and take-on the responsibility to shoulder whatever personal outcome results. So it follows, the CDC and physicians should stop trying to ram drugs down the throats of the disabled; AND the CDC and physicians should stop trying to jam vaccines into the temporarily-able-bodied…IF you agree with the first, the second naturally follows…

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. This person thinks that disabled people have no right to refuse a cure or treatment | Autism from a Father's Point of View - July 15, 2012

    […] The disabled don’t have a moral right to refuse a cure or treatment? […]

  2. Disability - a medical fact or social construction? - July 24, 2012

    […] for Business DecisionsDifferent forms of ‘violence’ used against people with disabilitiesThe disabled don’t have a moral right to refuse a cure or treatment? .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: