Comments on: Detailed report on “Ashley treatment” (growth attenuation, etc.) symposium @ University of Washington, May 16 http://eminism.org/blog/entry/16 Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:37:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nancy Rhead http://eminism.org/blog/entry/16#comment-514 Nancy Rhead Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:59:37 +0000 http://eminism.org/blog/?p=16#comment-514 Re: "ASHLEY'S TREATMENT" I am a parent advocate who just enlightened herself about this subject found in The Arc US Medical Position Statement and your web site. The Arc US is prohibiting a medical advocate to be able to request such a treatment. Regarding mental age--which has been known as the most harmful concept to persons with developmental disabilities--the number of the identified IQ is best described as a prediction of how well a person will be at mastering school education. So a five year old child with an IQ of a "three month old" would be expected to succeed at school education similar to that of a typical three month old child. No biggy. The problem comes by assuming that all that the child will comprehend, will be able to do any time in the future will also be in the manner of a typical three month old child. Now, we don't know what goes on in the minds of many individuals, etc. I have a son whose IQ is about 55. That meant that at the age of six he could be expected to do as well as a typical three year old in school. Now that he is 42--the numbers don't work any more. The numbers also represent the percentage of persons who would do better or worse than a person with a 55 IQ. Put the common comment by parents relects that the number tells everything about an individual. My son can travel on train, plane or bus by himself; he can get to ebay on his new computer. He does not read except functionally, but holds a job at the local grocery store and uses the store computer to check in and out. If I and others insisted upon seeing him as never gaining in any areas throughout his life--he propbably would not be doing these things. The issues facing parents are emense--especially since the medical community is now able to save many physically disabiled infants that in prior years did not survive. I can totally understand that a child can present many dificulties, yet not seen as a "burden" in the philosophical meaning. We do need to support families from day one in their homes as well as at other integrated child care centers (with appropriate supports) that are used by typical families who work outside of the home. I can understand a family seeking some intervention who can extend the growth of legs for instance in an effort to allow a child to grow more typically. And as for those children who continue to grow past when most individuals usually cease growing, I can see trying to undersand why and intervene when it appears that something truly abnormal is going on. Some very tall persons can't hold themselves up to sit or stand, etc. Thank you for sharing your notes on what seemed to be a very complicated seminar. Re: “ASHLEY’S TREATMENT” I am a parent advocate who just enlightened herself about this subject found in The Arc US Medical Position Statement and your web site. The Arc US is prohibiting a medical advocate to be able to request such a treatment. Regarding mental age–which has been known as the most harmful concept to persons with developmental disabilities–the number of the identified IQ is best described as a prediction of how well a person will be at mastering school education. So a five year old child with an IQ of a “three month old” would be expected to succeed at school education similar to that of a typical three month old child. No biggy. The problem comes by assuming that all that the child will comprehend, will be able to do any time in the future will also be in the manner of a typical three month old child. Now, we don’t know what goes on in the minds of many individuals, etc. I have a son whose IQ is about 55. That meant that at the age of six he could be expected to do as well as a typical three year old in school. Now that he is 42–the numbers don’t work any more. The numbers also represent the percentage of persons who would do better or worse than a person with a 55 IQ. Put the common comment by parents relects that the number tells everything about an individual. My son can travel on train, plane or bus by himself; he can get to ebay on his new computer. He does not read except functionally, but holds a job at the local grocery store and uses the store computer to check in and out. If I and others insisted upon seeing him as never gaining in any areas throughout his life–he propbably would not be doing these things.

The issues facing parents are emense–especially since the medical community is now able to save many physically disabiled infants that in prior years did not survive. I can totally understand that a child can present many dificulties, yet not seen as a “burden” in the philosophical meaning. We do need to support families from day one in their homes as well as at other integrated child care centers (with appropriate supports) that are used by typical families who work outside of the home.

I can understand a family seeking some intervention who can extend the growth of legs for instance in an effort to allow a child to grow more typically. And as for those children who continue to grow past when most individuals usually cease growing, I can see trying to undersand why and intervene when it appears that something truly abnormal is going on. Some very tall persons can’t hold themselves up to sit or stand, etc.

Thank you for sharing your notes on what seemed to be a very complicated seminar.

]]>