Disabled kid on the road to nowhere! (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

Thread title refers to the fact that, you know, he's got no place to go and whatever.

THE parents of a severely disabled eight-year-old boy have pleaded with the State Government to overturn its policy opposing group homes for children after being forced to leave him in respite care for more than six months.

The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has been unable to find a foster family able to cope with Aaron Blinman, who is unable to speak or walk and is fed through a tube in his stomach. But the director-general of the department, Jim Moore, said disabled children under 12 were not allowed to live in group homes because they need to be in a ''family-like'' environment. ''Aaron's parents want permanent care for him and we have exactly the same concern, but we've moved away from that sort of institutionalisation,'' Mr Moore said.

However, Rebecca and Scott Blinman say Aaron's first foster family was unable to cope despite being paid by the State Government and given fortnightly respite. ''There is no family in existence that could cope with Aaron's need - he doesn't sleep, he bangs on his bed, screams and calls out all night keeping the whole family awake and needs his nappies changed every couple of hours,'' Mrs Blinman said.

''If we couldn't do it, and the two of us were home full-time, how could anyone else?''

The couple have three other young children, including a nine-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and vision impairment.

They relinquished care of Aaron, hoping he would be placed in a permanent group home with round-the-clock care. The department refuses to allow children to live in group homes for fear of vulnerable children being institutionalised for life. Aaron has spent the last six months in respite care that also houses intellectually disabled adults.

Mrs Blinman said a long-term stay in respite care was hardly a family-like environment.

The Opposition spokesman for Disability Services, Andrew Constance, said the family should not have been allowed to become so desperate that they had to relinquish care of their son.

Disability services shortage | Rebecca Blinman | Scott Blinman Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care | Louise Hall

aight. serious conversation here. what argument is there to keep this kid, and other people in the same condition, alive at the enormous expense of the taxpayer?

I'm all for keeping him alive - it seems intuitive that he shouldn't be slaughtered for the state. But I'm confused as to why I feel that way.

*He has little chance of recovery
*He has little capability to appreciate his life in his current state (assume this is true for this thread)
*He consumes enormous amounts of resources

When talking ethics in philosophy, we always talk about innocent 'people', where a person is a rational, conscious person ra ra ra. So insofar as it relates to moral philsophy, a carrot is not a person, a rat is not a person, an elderly person with severe dementia is not a person and so on. Is this kid worthy of consideration as a person within the moral sphere? More importantly, is it worth the $$$'s to keep him alive when these $$$'s, presumably, could be better spent elsewhere?

Try not to get all emotional please townie. We talk about euthanasia, abortion and other moral issues without you getting all uppity. REMEMBER I DON'T SUPPORT KILLING THE KID!

 

[saberbladexx]

Keep him alive, its the right thing to do, thats what my gut says.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

yeah but i think the notion of "go with the gut" is as invalid in philosophy as out.

 

[lolokay]

my gut says KILL

 

[MC Squidge]

^
this

 

[Tangent]

they are still human. all life is equal.

+euthanasia is illegal

 

[kaz1]

If the kid doesn't want to die I wouldn't want him to die. But if the kid wants to be euthanised let him be euthanised.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

what if the kid cant make that choice because he is so retarded
so retarded that he doesnt function at all as a human being

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

for once the country hick w/o a brainz is right!
kid doesn't care what happens to him or not because he lacks the cognitive ability.

still no argument against killing teh kid.

 

[walkahz]

I cant support killing as he is way too retarded to make a choice but fuck me I would'nt want to live if I was like that. He has absolutely no quality of life and no chance of recovery or any sort of life so it is hard to justify the expense of keeping him alive.

 

[SylviaB]

Don't kill him.

Let him die.

Give the parents the option of euthanasia .

Seriously, there is no benefit to anyone in keeping him alive, himself included.

The money would be far better spent on hospitals for people who, you know, are capable of actually living proper lives.

 

[WithWings]

whats wrong with these incest parents and their fucked up kids

my gut says kill but my heart says save for obvious reasons
btw euthanasia is not an option here
the parents do not have the legal choice to stop feeding the child via tube as it is seen as a basic human need
it would be considered illegal and they would probably serve a hefty jail sentence

 

[WithWings]

do you see whats wrong with this day and age
way back when a child like this would have been wiped out long ago by darwins theory of evolution - natual selection
now we have all these retards and shit running around banging their heads on beds
humanity would never have become what we are today if these fucks were given the opportunity to survive

fuck what i said in my last post
KILL

 

[tku336]

I disagree with having a utilitarian value be placed over life - it shouldn't be commodified into "well his death could save x". Unless he can make a rational conscious decision for euthenasia, he should be kept alive.

 

[Jack Burton]

its an obvious choice hes a vegetable and vegetables aren't human so KILL HIM BECAUSE THIS IS AUSTRALIA!

 

[Serius]

Maybe just stop looking after him until he dies? lol. Seriously though, the arguement that he is worthless and a drain on resources, no quality of life ect is powerful and pulls at me, but at the same time i dont think we should have the state judging someones worth and killing them if they dont match up.