Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Male Nurse


Single Dad's most recent poll asks about whether or not a parent would use a male caregiver for their disabled child. When I read it, I laughed out loud because it reminded me of something....

When my daughter was in the PCCU (pediatric critical care unit), there were three male nurses involved in her care. I loved them all...they were absolutely great (as were most of the PCCU staff). It was big Ray, as a matter of fact, who noticed that Sophie was doing voluntary movements during those critical 24 hours before they were to turn off the machines.

In home care, however, we only came across one male nurse. He was in his early 30's, fit, medium height and on the slightly swarthy side (see above pic)...and completely wrong for the job in our home, though I think he was probably a really good nurse...in a hospital setting that is. Anyway...the guy gave it a shot and I never for a minute believed there was anything inappropriate about him taking care of my daughter's personal needs...and I had no fear of him being a pervert. Aside from the fact that he was completely inept at dealing with the socialization piece of my daughter's care, I knew he just couldn't stay around our home too much longer.

One day, for some bizarre reason, he reaches up and grabs the top of the doorway and pulls himself into a stretch that I can only describe as being similar to what a cat does in the sun. With that, I get a flash of his rather perfectly sculpted torso and just a bit of hip action to top it all off. In all honesty, I think he just did that to actually stretch and that there was no hint of any ulterior motives...but I can tell you, I looked away as fast as I could and must've turned every shade of red known to humankind.

Yep...can't keep that one around...too much of a challenge for mommy.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Quality of Life



Of course, now that my daughter is sleeping better, I am not sleeping at all! I am thinking. I am thinking altogether too much at the wrong time of day. It does, however, have its payoffs.

When dealing with topics relating to disability, there is always a lot of discussion about quality of life. The minute something goes wrong with the human body, the assumption is that life is pretty much going to suck from then on.

This is particularly the case with children born with severe, multiple physical/cognitive disabilities. The first thing that goes through everyone's mind is "how good of a life will this child have?". There are those who will try to tell you that they will have a "poor quality of life", based on certain assumptions as to what a good life is. I can tell you right now, "the good life" tends to be white, upper middle class...and male.

The burden of proof for quality of life lies in the hands of the disabled person, in other words...and I am here to tell you that that is a false concept.

Let's take a nice, normal white guy with full cognitive and physical function, and have some fun with him, shall we?

So, take Ken here, and put him in an upper middle class North American life. Nice house, nice wife, nice kids, nice school, nice job, good pay....blah, blah. Good quality of life (yes, good attitude plays a part, but if this guy's not happy with this, well, he's just an ass). Now, let's move Ken to a country in the middle of the African continent...(this takes a minute, because the poor bastard is screaming). Ken is now black. His country has experienced half a dozen civil wars in the past decade. His village was ransacked by a marauding band of insurgents, his wife raped and killed, his kids are gone somewhere...likely the girl is used for sex, the boy, a soldier. He spends his days roaming around trying to find food and water...and often must hide to keep away from groups of men looking for something to kill for no good reason. Bad quality of life.

Ken is on the move again...let's put him in Russia...he has work, and some food. He lives in a tiny two room flat in a large complex. He waits in long lines for many necessities. He has a wife and a child. The child is often sick and doesn't always get consistent medical care. He loves his family, has extended family to help and life is OK..but hard. Average quality of life??

Ken is a Mexican man. He works in a factory. He has no family of his own, but visits regularly with his brothers and sisters, his mom and dad. He goes out with his friends on the weekends for drinks. He watches soccer on TV. He eats well and has a roof over his head. He is happy. Good quality of life.

Last move...Ken is in a detention centre of some sort because of his political beliefs. He is tortured for information and is close to death....but they just won't let him die, so that they can keep torturing him. Poor quality of life.

Hopefully, you've noticed something here. Hopefully you will have noticed that quality of life is not intrinsic to the person...it is intrinsic to the society in which that person lives. A good life or a bad life has a number of qualifiers to it, none of which necessarily involves one's physical or cognitive abilities. Your life can suck even if you are perfectly "normal" if the society you live in is crappy.

If one uses the logic that is regularly applied to the lives of those with disabilities onto Ken's life, you can say that he should be killed in two of those life situations because his quality of life is poor. So, you could go to Africa and kill the African Ken and feel good about it because you have saved him from his misery (now multiply African Ken by a few million)...same with the tortured man...or you could say that you should kill all those who are in any sort of detention because their quality of life is poor.

Or you could say that it is appalling that there are people who live the way they do in the world and work toward solutions to change those things...stable governments, good health care, food, water, safety for children, political freedom, on and on and on.

So, when a child with severe disabilities is born, you can assume its quality of life will be poor and "let it" die....or you could provide for it that which it needs to have as good a life as is possible and appropriate for him or her. That would vary for each child...just like it varies for any other human being and/or in any other culture.

If the child lives for a week, hopefully, it will have been held, cuddled, kept warm and felt love for that entire week...as opposed to it being left alone in a hospital bed. If the child lives for many years, hopefully it will have received medication and treatment appropriate to avoid pain and/or progress to its greatest potential, and provided with stimulation in forms that s/he finds pleasant, whether that be a warm bath or a classroom full of people.

Quality of life is a variable, not an absolute. It can't be assumed, it must be created. Just because I like chocolate and you don't doesn't mean you can never be as happy as I am. The whole thing is idiotically simple...I am no genius.

So why is it that there are some who are still trying to assess human value based on quality of life?

Why? Because, in the end, it's cheaper to "let" a severely disabled child die (or a few million Africans) than to provide that which the child needs to have a good life. When push comes to shove, have no doubt that it is about money.

And isn't that just the most shameful thing you have ever heard of in your life?

Monday, November 16, 2009

A Book Give Away! Hurray!

I have two signed copies of the wonderful "Cowboy and Wills: A Love Story" by Monica Holloway to give away!!

Comment on this post and I will put the names in a hat (I have a vintage fur one to use) then I'll contact the winners.

Go for it! I have to say, this is not just a book for parents who have an autistic child. This is a great read and touches on a number of things we all have in common with parenting, whether a child has challenges or not. It's also really funny in so many places...very uplifting in the end, without being sappy. The post with my review is here.

So, put your name in the ring and cross your fingers!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

BFF

The girlies, circa 1999...Best Friends Forever

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Just a Little Joke


Francesca Martinez's victim is squirming. Trapped under the scrutiny of the comedian and fellow members of the audience at her show in Edinburgh, he is clearly wishing for the proverbial hole to open up. "What are you bad at?" asks Martinez. "Football," comes the sheepish reply. "Were you born like that?" she enquires, head tilted in sympathy, "Couldn't your mum have had a test when she was pregnant?" Turning to the man's girlfriend, she simpers: "You are so brave. Well done... Does it mean he can't have sex?"

From The Independent: Francesca Martinez: A Wobbly Girl's Battle Against the Last Taboo

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Other Point of View




HUMANKIND has inherited much from past generations that contemporary life calls into question; thus, the numerous“current crises” and “demands of our time.” How many such matters occupy the world’s attention—social questions, women’s issues, various educational concerns, health debates,questions of human rights, and so on? Human beings endeavor to come to terms with these problems in the most varied ways.There are countless numbers of people who appear with some remedy or program to solve—or at least partially solve—one or another of them. In the process, all sorts and shades of opinions are asserted: extremism, which casts a revolutionary air;the moderates, full of respect for what exists, but trying to evolve something new from it; and the conservatives, up in arms whenever any of the old institutions are tampered with.Aside from these main tendencies of thought and feeling there are all kinds of positions in between...
But those who make proposals for the future must not be satisfied with only a superficial knowledge of life. They must investigate its depths....
Life in its wholeness is like a plant. The plant contains more than what it offers to external life; it also holds a future condition within its hidden depths....
Likewise, the whole of human life also contains within it the seeds of its own future; but if we are to tell anything about this future, we must first penetrate the hidden nature of the human being. Our age is little inclined to do this, but instead concerns itself with what appears on the surface, and believes it is walking on unsure ground when asked to penetrate what escapes outer observation.
(From Rudolf Steiner, The Education of the Child in Light of Spiritual Science, 1907)


A child's parents are not his makers but his guardians. They must protect him and have a deep concern for him like one who assumes some sacred trust. For their exalted mission a child's parents should purify the love that nature has implanted in their hearts and they should strive to understand that this love is the conscious expression of a deeper sentiment that should not be contaminated by self-interest or sloth. Parents should be concerned with the great social question of the day, the struggle to gain a recognition for the rights of childhood in the world.
(Maria Montessori, The Secret of Childhood, 1936)



This is my fourth re-write of this post.

These two quotes are among many beautiful writings by these two educators. Montessori and Steiner made children their life-blood...and both began their careers by working with children with disabilities.

Unlike the Peter Singer's of the world, these two saw that our pre-adult selves were not "non-persons" but the potential for all things great in the world. They didn't look at the seed and claim it valueless because it wasn't yet a tree.

These two tell us not that infants lack proper consciousness but that they possess all awareness, all consciousness in potentiality. It is adult life that limits them, adult prejudices that encase them, conscious life that kills them in the end.

New life is boundless until we impose upon it those binding notions of our culture and time. Isn't that the opposite of what Singer might tell you? Isn't that more dis-ableing than any disability?

How arrogant are we that any among us might point to another and say that the limitless possibilities of their existence has no value?



Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Kahlil Gibran, On Children


Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Independent: Life and death decisions with a disabled child

(from The Independent)

Do I love her? With all my heart. When she dies, will it be a relief? Without question, says Tussie Myerson

My eldest daughter, Emmy, was epileptic in the womb. This means that the abnormal foetal movements during the last two months of my pregnancy were actually epileptic seizures. She had her first seizure outside the womb

at three months, followed by many months in hospital, before being discharged into my completely untrained hands.

Emmy, 18, has what the professionals call PMLD – profound and multiple learning difficulties. She is quadriplegic, with cerebral palsy and intractable epilepsy. Basically that means that she is buggered. She cannot walk, talk, toilet herself, feed herself, etc. She can communicate in a fashion, by laughing, crying and smiling, but you cannot be sure that it is controlled. When she was 10 months old (1992) we were told by the wise and the wonderful at Great Ormond Street that she would die very soon. If she didn't die very soon she would die a little bit later. If she didn't die then she would probably be a vegetable for the rest of her "short" life. There was no counselling or support. We saw a geneticist who told us not to have any more children, and that was it. There was the usual gaggle of meetings with social services, who offered us residential care or possibly a bit of respite in the community, but they weren't sure. Our GP was very kind, but she had never had a case like this before.

For the next 18 months I had to deal with the hugely complex array of appointments, whilst having this dreadful thought in the back of my head that my daughter was going to die.

She didn't. I stopped believing the doctors. I started believing in my daughter.

And yet no one believed in me. There was no joined-up thinking. No early intervention, no support structure. No recognition of what that day at Great Ormond Street had done to us as a couple, or our little family.

When you give birth to a child whose life is going to be bombarded with medical complexity, you begin a journey that is impossible to be prepared for. For the first 10 years we simply existed. Every few months she would have a bout of pneumonia and we would prepare for her possible departure. It was a staggeringly difficult time. When she was four we found Helen House Hospice in Oxford, and thanks to them many of these interruptions were made more manageable. We came to understand what "life-limiting" meant. And how to come to terms with the fact that our gorgeous child was not going to live into adulthood.

We still had little or no support from our local authority. I think we got a respite weekend a month, for a child who could have up to 40 fits a day and was heavily medicated. Plus I had two more babies. We had a social worker, but to be honest I can't remember her. I think I saw her twice a year to review the care package.

We also received little or no support from our families. My parents did a fair amount, when she was well. David's family live in the US, which isn't really convenient for babysitting.

Coming to terms with your child's passing is a journey that is very difficult to explain. It doesn't really happen overnight ... well it didn't for us. It wasn't like there was one day when it dawned on us. But repeated events. The pneumonia and recovery, maybe it started to take a little longer. I couldn't say. But even at eight or nine I think I was still fairly idealistic. I knew she could go, but I hadn't really got my head round her handicaps. We had, after all, had several near misses already. But she was still such a baby in my eyes. And the steel cage I had built around myself to protect me from the so-called "professionals" worked very well. Unfortunately what it also did was block out my husband for a lot of the time.

Her brother and sister were also still very small. As they began to gain some independence reality began to strike. She was still here. I was still caring. All the time, three hospital appointments a week, often more.

But at no point was there one person who stuck with us, to catch me as I started to fall. Briefly there was one social worker who went above and beyond; but she got disillusioned and left the profession.

Because of the nature of my daughter's diagnosis we, my husband and I, decided early in her life that we wished her care to be palliative. To most people this would mean end-of-life hospice care. But for us it means whole life care. Which means that her life is about quality now, rather than using medical intervention to keep it going. Therefore we do not wish her to be tube-fed, to be resuscitated, have intravenous medication other than pain relief, or any other intervention.

Her quality of life is about being able to make the very few decisions she can make herself. This includes eating, which is under her control. And breathing. She and I have "agreed" many times over the years that it is her call. She decides if she is going to wake up, not me. So far, she has chosen to wake up.

When we first asked for no intervention I don't think we fully understood what we were saying. It was more a reaction to what everyone was doing and taking into account the fact that they kept telling us she was going to die. So if she was then let her. But now I do understand. She should never have survived. For whatever reason, she did. That does not make it right to keep that life going "just because you can".

What a family like ours goes through is grieving for a very long time with the end never actually happening, and also caring. So two of the most stressful jobs wrapped up in one package. It appears to be taboo to admit how hard it is. As a society we don't seem to want to admit to the hurt of watching our children live half-lives, quarter lives even. Does Emmy have a quality of life? I don't know. Do I love her? Absolutely. Will I miss her? With all my heart. When she dies, will it be a relief? Without question.

Gradually you recognise that extending this life, it isn't your call. You are simply a manager of a body. It is down to her if she wants to keep going. My job is to make sure she is comfortable. That she has a reason to smile when she can. That she is loved by her family, and at the end of the day her family have the energy and capacity to love her.

Society now appears to be about extending life. Ticking medical boxes and covering arses that enable life to be prolonged without necessarily asking the terribly important question. Who are we doing this for? Because it is not for me, or my family. We have been through quite enough. And I cannot imagine it is for my daughter. What she has had to go through does not bear thinking about.

And why is it still taboo to talk about this issue? Why, with an ageing population, and more babies surviving premature birth and birth trauma, is it still considered politically incorrect to tackle the really important and, lets face it, unavoidable issue, of who are we maintaining life for? I can only speak from the experience of my daughter. I do not know what it is like for anyone else. I would never claim to know. But I do feel that it shouldn't be wrong to say what you really feel.

Why is there nowhere in this country that provides long-term palliative care for young people whose lives are not going to be improved by medical intervention? They are just going to be extended. Extension does not mean made better, it just means longer.

The decisions that have to be made are complex. But decisions have to be made, and this is clearly where a huge problem exists, because no one wants to make them. You are held hostage by a social welfare service that is not structured to provide care but to avoid spending money. And the sad reality is that children and young people with complex health needs cost money. Families can't even be paid properly for the care that they provide.

My daughter is now 18. Were she not profoundly disabled she would be at college or something. Were she out of work she could claim housing benefit. But as a profoundly disabled 18-year-old living in an annexe of her parents' house she is not allowed housing benefit because her landlord is her father and God forbid she may be abusing the system. No one will support her accommodation needs. Why? Well, that is the question they must answer, because we certainly didn't realise that in her being at home we would be paying for her accommodation and that of her two carers as well. Maybe I am being petty here, but when my daughter was discharged from Hammersmith hospital in 1992 no one told me that I would still be fighting 17 years later. No one told me that my fight would get as ugly as it has done. No one told me that I would be judged by people who had/have never met her and have refused to meet her. Or who would twist the situation to avoid facing up to the horrific reality. We, her parents, have had to make decisions that no one else will face. Quality versus quantity. Palliative versus intervention. It is just adding insult to injury that my daughter becomes a box-ticking exercise rather than one of decision-making.

I am not alone in my outspokenness on these issues. But maybe right now I am just that little bit angrier that it is discretionary, not legal, whether Worcestershire County Council meets her housing needs. Discretion should not come into it.

If we are going to maintain life then we have to treat those who are managing those lives with respect. That includes the carers, the families and the individuals themselves.

We don't do that. Our local authority has spent more avoiding their responsibilities than meeting them. And that is wrong.