Sue O’Reilly, who has guest written today’s column on The Angry Cripple, is a freelance journalist. She is is a parent and raised her son with cerebral palsy until last year, when he died at the age of 21. She co-founded Australians Mad as Hell with Fiona Porter to campaign for an NDIS and established a charity called Fighting Chance to help people with disabilities pay for essential therapy services.

Welcome to the Spastic Centre. Pic: Rollercoaster Parenting (rollercoasterparenting.blogspot.com

When does any form of disability turn into a “disease” to be eradicated?

When it is being discussed by doctors and medical researchers seeking money from governments, corporate donors and members of the public to fund research aimed at finding ways to prevent and/or cure some form of disability.

Now, you may think that no one in this relatively enlightened day and age, however well-meaning and well-intentioned, would describe any form of disability as a “disease”.

A condition which there may one day be ways to prevent or cure perhaps… but no one would talk as though a lifelong physical or intellectual disability was akin to rabies or leprosy or cancer – would they?

If that’s what you are asking yourself, then go to the website of the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Research Foundation, and also one of its main financial sponsors, the Balnaves Foundation, and read all about it for yourself. 

Cerebral Palsy Alliance is the new, improved “brand”  for one of Australia’s largest disability charities, the Spastic Centre of NSW, which early last year bowed to about 20 years of pressure and pleas and agreed to change its name to something a little more… up-to-date.

You may recall the Spastic Centre was responsible a few years ago for a television commercial, aired nationally, in which the pitch for donations featured parents graphically describing how devastated they felt when told their children had CP – with the children sitting alongside them.

Around the same time, the entrance to the Spastic Centre’s headquarters in Sydney featured a giant bill-board proclaiming: “There is as yet no pre-birth screening test for cerebral palsy”.

Clients with CP, parents and families arriving for appointments couldn’t miss it, and nor could anyone driving past for that matter.

When challenged as to what a pre-birth screening test might be designed to achieve, and whether it could possibly be anything akin to the pre-birth tests designed to detect – and with parental consent, abort - foetuses with genetic and chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, Spastic Centre staff replied that it merely had something to do with “providing early intervention services more efficiently”. But fairly soon after, the poster disappeared – never, as far as I’m aware, to be seen again.

Sadly, however, the thinking behind that TV ad and poster has proved far harder to dispel.

Although founded by a small group of Sydney-based parents in the late 1940s to provide services and supports for people with CP in NSW and their families, the Spastic Centre/Cerebral Palsy Alliance has over recent years become increasingly enamoured with the startlingly ambitious idea of “leading the world in the search for the prevention and cure of cerebral palsy”. 

Given the explosion in neurological, genetic and stem cell research in high-powered universities, specialist teaching hospitals and research institutes throughout north America, Europe, Asia and Australia over the past couple of decades or so, we can only wish the former Spastic Centre of NSW well in its self-anointed role of “world leader” in this particular field of work.

Yes, research is important. Yes, research is desirable. And yes, someone has to do it. But exactly the same argument applies to the far more mundane-sounding but equally vital goal of helping provide wheelchairs, therapy services, respite and decent supported accommodation for people with disabilities - and as it happens, the latter is what the Spastic Centre/Cerebral Palsy Alliance was created to do.

There are no natural linkages between present-day disability service provision and long-term medical research. They are two very different things - which is perhaps why, as the CPA actually boasts, it is “unique” in trying to do both.

Just as worrying though are the hopelessly mixed, contradictory messages this organisation is now spending money on promoting to the “world” (or at least the citizens of NSW) when its research arm asks for money from governments, corporate donors and the public to – as it puts it – “help us achieve our vision: a future without cerebral palsy.”

For decades, disability rights campaigners and activists have fought desperately hard to beat back the pessimistic, negative, medical-model view of disabilities like CP as some terrible, untreatable, incurable affliction from which people “suffer”. 

It was the far more optimistic and tolerant social-model view of disability that led to the closure of the gruesome quasi-hospitals in which people with disabilities used to be locked away, and to the spread of concepts like “inclusion”, “participation” and “basic human rights”.

How is promoting a “vision” of a world without some form of disability, whatever it may be, in any way helpful to people living with that form of disability today? For instance, would I have wanted my late son, who had CP, to have heard his disability publicly described as a “disease” that needed to be “eradicated”, as it was late last year on ABC TV by the head of the Balnaves Foundation in a news story sparked by a CPA Research Foundation media release? No, I would not. 

My son was a happy, cheeky, wise and much-loved person who, precisely because he had cerebral palsy, taught his parents and siblings a vast amount about what really matters in this world, brought us into contact with kind, inspiring and generous people and changed all our lives for the better.

As the US politician Sarah Palin wrote recently about her young son, who has Down Syndrome, “families of children with special needs are bonded by a shared experience of the joys, challenges, fears and blessings of raising these beautiful children, whom we see as perfect in this imperfect world. Our children are a blessing, and the rest of the world is missing out on not knowing this”.

One day, medical researchers may well find a way to prevent all the many causes of cerebral palsy, maybe one day even come up with a cure. Maybe one day there will be no such thing as “disability”. Maybe one day medical researchers will even achieve human perfectibility.

But in the meantime, do you think some research genius might be able to come up with an answer as to why kids with CP in NSW have to wait up to three years for a bloody wheelchair? 

89 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Philly Cheesesteak says:

      05:58am | 15/02/12

      You attacked people’s right to know and, if they choose to do so, abort foetuses that have CP.

      I for one would look at that option.

      My second cousin suffers from CP, and his quality of life is shit. His father died at 43 due to the stresses of raising him. His mother, as strong as she is, has wept uncontrollably in front of me many times due to the pressure he has brought into her life. She loves him unconditionally, as we all do, but I guarantee that if she had known then that he would have such a hard time just trying to lead a regular life, she would have terminated the pregnancy.

      Say all you want about my comment, but I have seen the toll it takes on people.

      You also say that you would not have wanted your son to hear that his condition needs to be eradicated… How do you know? Did you ask him directly? I know that if I had a disabling condition, I’d want to hear that people are trying to eradicate it, so no one else suffers the same fate.
      OP is clearly going to want to kill me after she reads this.

    • Bill says:

      06:11am | 15/02/12

      Your second cousin’s quality of life may be ‘shit’, but it’s still a million times better than no life at all.

    • Tyr says:

      06:50am | 15/02/12

      Really? Stuck in a wheelchair, cant go to the toilet by yourself, can’t feed yourself? I agree with Cheese, I would consider terminating.

    • Rod Blaine says:

      07:00am | 15/02/12

      I’m curious whether Philly’s second cousin shares Philly’s assessment of “You’d be better off dead”. But - assuming just for the sake of argument that Philly does possess the Leslie Cannold-like super-ability to authoritatively decide whose lives are or are not unworthy of living - shouldn’t Philly do the job him/herself? Like George in “Of Mice and Men” or Ned Stark in “Game of Thrones”, the one who pronounces the death sentence should be the one who swings the blade, or the hypodermic, as the case may be. Go on, Philly, harden up and do your own dirty work. At least the pro-death-penalty crowd are always clamouring for the right to fit the noose themselves.

    • marley says:

      08:11am | 15/02/12

      I can understand where Philly is coming from.  I have a niece born with various disabilities.  She’s happy, well adjusted and well cared for by her parents, she’s mobile, able to hold down a part-time job and to travel with them so her situation is not as difficult or as hard on the family.  But she has intellectual disabilities, speech problems and some physical issues, including severe food allergies in childhood, which have required a range of medical and other services over the years. The stress of bringing up a child with serious problems is enormous.

      More to the point, my niece will never be able to live independently. She’s in her 30s now, her parents are in their 60s, and assuring her future is a real concern for them.  Both are still working, though they’d otherwise have retired a few years ago - but they need to leave a sufficient trust fund for her.  That means their own golden years aren’t quite what they would have been.

      Don’t get me wrong:  no one is suggesting that my niece would be better off not having been born.  But I have some understanding of the stresses that having a disabled child can place on families.  And for people who are faced with the prospect of having a very disabled child, I can understand why they might make a decision to abort.  I would never judge someone for making that choice.

    • Bill says:

      08:13am | 15/02/12

      Tyr - so if your wife/husband/mother/father/children were ‘stuck in a wheelchair’ you would suggest ending their life?

      I don’t know enough words to express my disgust at this moment.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      08:26am | 15/02/12

      “... but it’s still better than no life at all.” That’s a major Furphy - Life “is” and dead “isn’t” there is no qualitative (or quantitative) comparison.
      Peter Singer’s thinking on this issue is relevant. As a utilitarian it is not the individual that counts but the ‘most benefit (happiness) of the greatest number.’ It is proper to terminate an ‘abnormal’ life before sentience and replace it with a ‘normal’ life. We need to get away from the sanctity of all and any human life as a doctrine but start to qualify and quantify quality of life. (This is a very hard issue to discuss and my vocabulary might just be a little “off” I apologise for that.)
      People with disabilities, while they evoke my empathy, are a minority with extraordinary lobbying power like no other minority. If say the Muslims had the same lobbying power Australians would simply go ape shit. For a small shop owner to be required to put in a ramp to give wheel-chair access to a minority that might or might not use his shop is about the same as having to provide a prayer-room for Muslims.
      Schools are a classic example of disproportionate minority power. The 12.5% gifted and talented kids (that will learn despite teachers) get specialist programs; the 12.5% learning disabled kids (that won’t learn even with the best teachers) get specialist programs and the great unwashed 75% ‘average aka normal kids get bugger all and have to sink or swim and take their chances with what’s left over.
      No minority should receive differential treatment at the government teat. This is what equality is about. Disproportionate treatment does not solve equality issues.

    • Tyr says:

      09:35am | 15/02/12

      BIll - whoa, whoa, whoa. Philly was talking about aborting a foetus. Not killing someone who has been disabled after they were born.

      Big difference mate. I think you’re a little hot under the collar re: this topic.

      Many people here who are related to a severely disabled person have expressed that terminating a severely disabled foetus could be an option for them they would seriously consider.

      You’ve gone way off buddy.

    • SteveKAG says:

      12:04pm | 15/02/12

      @Dieter…......I have a CP daughter, she is not a minority in the same example as a muslim or a chinese person or a gay girl…....

      It is about giving her the same basic rights of freedom of movement and access as any other normal bodies person…..this is the same for blind or deaf people….

      Sorry but you are way off mark here

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:34pm | 15/02/12

      Philly, I didn’t interpret Sue’s article as an attack on people’s right to know, but rather an attack on blurred objectives, mixed messages and consequent perpetuation of negative stereotypes.

      I have little argument with prospective parents who decide that raising a child with a serious disability is not for them.  However, if that child is borne,  having the message trumpeted from all directions that s/he is a constant source of anguish to loved ones must be devastating.  It’s one thing to promote research aimed at prevention and cure: it’s quite another to focus on prenatal detection as an end in itself.

      It’s interesting that those such as Philly who argue in support of terminating a foetus with a disabling condition, on the basis of a supposed terrible quality of life, immediately segue into a catalogue of the stress and anguish suffered by the parents!  This ignores the fact that the child has an existence separate to that of the parents, and that his/her quality of life is something only s/he can determine.  It is only a short psychological step away from what, in the disability studies field, is called death-making: thinking and acting as if the person were already dead.

      Confusing the parents’ interests with those of the child is evident also in the increasingly common scenario of next of kin demanding that the life of a person with extreme disabilities or catastrophic head injury should be terminated (where there is no AHD in place).  The stated reasons invariably, perhaps inevitably, come down to the feelings of the family—“I can’t stand to see him that way”, “this is no way to live” etc etc. 

      What Sue O’Reilly is saying is simply that living, breathing people with CP should NOT have to go through life under the stigma of being regarded as better off dead.

    • Hicks says:

      01:45pm | 17/02/12

      I agree.

      Given the option to either continue a pregnancy or terminate when the child was going to live a life unhealthy, I would terminate.

      One could construe these actions as selfish. But disability affects not just one but many as Philly said. Taking the perspective of one who would be disabled - surely they’re aware of the burden they place on the system or loved ones. This would affect not only their self-esteem but in turn quality of life. They can’t live it to the fullest as they would want to I imagine.

      On the other foot, it would break my heart to know that a child of mine was in that situation. Trapped in a body that could not be utilised as desired.

      But looking at detection, it is the first step involved in resolution. Detection can lead a way towards cure, or it can give an outright option to abort.

    • Emma2 says:

      04:01pm | 19/02/12

      Dieter: there is a major difference between equality and equity. Look it up. You are so off the mark with your thinking it’s laughable. It’s about giving the same fair access and opportunity to live and participate in a society. We’re not all born equal as you might like to think. Your ignorance knows no bounds!

    • Max Power says:

      06:42am | 15/02/12

      We should follow the lead of Sparta when it comes to dealing with conditions like MS, CP, Down Syndrome etc. If the child is going to be a drain on society and grow up without the ability to live independently, then like Sparta, they should be euthanased.

    • Simon says:

      06:54am | 15/02/12

      So your saying Hitler had the right idea?

    • TChong says:

      07:01am | 15/02/12

      still at the keyboard, in your underwear Max ?
      At least you are now wearing something.
      You’ll need a ciggie after getting ( that post ) off , wont you?

    • Bill says:

      07:06am | 15/02/12

      Sieg Heil! Kill anyone who isn’t perfect!

    • Jason Lynch says:

      07:11am | 15/02/12

      What an ignorant and selfish comment ‘Max Power’.

      Firstly, get the guts to use your real name.

      Secondly, my son, with CP, is in a wheelchair, and relies on services for therapy etc. So he is a ‘drain’ on society? Perhaps he needs more financial support than others, but I assure you he’ll give more socially and personally than a lot of the selfish arseholes in the world.

      While we’re euthanasing all these kids, let’s kill old people and execute people admitted to hospital. Public housing too. Let’s make the world perfect for you.

    • marley says:

      07:31am | 15/02/12

      @MaxPower - i assume, if you as an adult come down with MS you’ll follow your own advice.

    • MarkF says:

      07:39am | 15/02/12

      Simon, TChong and Bill look up eugenics in American and it might surprise you.  Hitler was only a latecomer to that party.  Very disturbing stuff.

    • Faye says:

      07:46am | 15/02/12

      The only drain on society are people like you Max.

    • VVS says:

      08:05am | 15/02/12

      “Max Power—he’s the man whose name you’d love to touch…
      But, you musn’t touch!
      His name sounds good in your ear
      But when you say it, you mustn’t fear
      Because his name can be said by anyone!”

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      08:37am | 15/02/12

      There is a big difference between preventing a futile life and taking a life.
      Max Power is quite right under utilitarian logic. To terminate a disabled or dysfunctional life before sentience and replacing it with a ‘normal’ life is preferable to maintaining a futile life which will be “a drain on the community.”
      As to the question “Why do kids with CP have to wait for three years to get a wheelchair?” Because everybody else who is on the public health teat has to wait three years for a wheelchair. What’s so special about a kid with CP, to differentiate them from an old person whose legs are f….d? If you want the chair sooner buy it yourself or take out private health insurance. Why does everyone believe that all disabilities are the responsibility of the community and that society is to blame. It wasn’t the community or the government or the taxpayer who ‘inflicted’ the condition onto the child or person.

    • Good Grief says:

      09:31am | 15/02/12

      @Max Power

      Only if they “euthanize” the criminals, who use the whole “mentally impaired” excuse for murder and rape, first. In accordance to your view, they are admittedly “impaired” and are a bigger drain on society (from destroying “healthy” members of society) than these children.

    • marley says:

      11:00am | 15/02/12

      @Dieter Moeckel - there may be a big difference between preventing a futile life and taking a life, but Max Power is talking only about the latter.  He’s not talking about abortion, he’s talking about euthenasia.  And some of the conditions he describes (well, MS anyway) are adult diseases.  Well into the “sentience” stage.  My niece, who has physical and intellectual problems, wasn’t fully diagnosed until she was about five, also well into the sentience stage.  Do you seriously think, utilitarian or not, it’s right to “terminate” such a life.  How about Stephen Hawking:  should he have been terminated in his 20s when it was discovered he had an extremely disabling condition?  We would have lost some 50 years of a genius’ thoughts and discoveries, for the cost of a wheelchair and a voice synthesizer.  Doesn’t seem very utilitarian to me.

    • Andrew says:

      11:32am | 15/02/12

      Do you also believe in the Death penalty for criminals Max, I honestly cant see what murderers and rapists add to a society neither.

    • Alison Lynch says:

      12:29pm | 15/02/12

      Dieter - If you want the chair sooner buy it yourself or take out private health insurance. Why does everyone believe that all disabilities are the responsibility of the community and that society is to blame. It wasn’t the community or the government or the taxpayer who ‘inflicted’ the condition onto the child or person.
      You know what the sad thing is? Is that you are actually serious.  Might I suggest you go and do some research into the cost of wheelchairs and walking frames.  Might I suggest you go and do some research into what private health insurance does and does not cover.  People don’t believe disabilities are the responsibility of the community.  What people believe (wrongly apparently) is that people have empathy and that people know how to love and would therefor give a shit that a 5 yr old who has no choice but to drag himself through the gravel while playing with other kids deserves a chance to avoid peeling all his skin off.  I have to ask, are you a parent? Do you know what it means to love someone complete with all their struggles? Do you have a wife? Have you ever experienced love and kindness? Are you capable of looking beyond yourself? That is what people rely on.  THe generosity of others who have spare money floating around to think that maybe one other person may use it better than they will.  But it’s not even that.  We did privately fund our childs 8K wheelchair only AFTER being told of the wait list to funding and then only after AFTER dozens of people started giving us money without us having asked for it and even wanting it.  It is the ability to look at others and see the person, not the disability that drives charities.  You, I believe are incapable of that so I don’t even know why I’m bothering. I don’t want to inflict my son on people. In fact, I’d be happy if he never wasted his cuteness and spirit on the dregs of society like you.  You can sit in your hell hole convincing yourself your biggest problem is “terminology”.  The rest of us feel sorry for you and know that for people like you, there is no hope.  No public grant or fund raising can give empathy.  You have to experience it.

    • SteveKAG says:

      12:46pm | 15/02/12

      can we kill off Collingwood supporters too?

    • Catherine M says:

      01:02pm | 15/02/12

      If you consider the Sparta rational then you would be allowing intelligent, healthy people to live who may nonetheless be a drain on society, ie Andrew Kalajzich and condemning to death persons who may have much to contribute to society despite being afflicted with a disability to death,  Bill Moss and Stephen Hawking come to mind.  My own son may have been disabled both physically and intellectually but to my mind he forced our society to raise the bar on our ethical debate on how we value humanity in all its forms. * No I am not advocating a return to the Death Penality.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      03:01pm | 15/02/12

      Point taken marley.
      I had the same discussion with a head of disabilities - the question of quality of life for the disabled is quite separate from the issue of termination of a disabled life before sentience. Once the person is sentient is is without a doubt the responsibility of someone to give him or her the best quality of life possible. The next question is who is responsible for that quality of life? Everyone is entitle to an equal share of the community’s wealth and no one is entitled to more than another. Ergo if a person is disabled it is his or her responsibility to access the shop not the shop keeper’ responsibility to provide access to it. We come here to the rights of a person on a “Bondi tram” not the extreme, (i.e. wheelchair) just as it applies the every other human right it applies to a general benefit not a benefit for the extreme. Does a fat arced person have a human right to occupy two seats but only pay for one, whereas two skinny people have to pay for two? Does every system have to provide and cater for an extreme disability? We do it for no other minority. I’m sorry blind people cannot expect any special treatment that costs the community substantially more than it provided for people that see. Let’s take another example - my son is extremely talented at golf - does that mean that the community is required to provide him with a golf course? Or is my daughter, who is an extremely talented pianist, entitled to a grand piano and a concert hall.
      Think carefully the analogies are the same; are at the extremities of the Gaussian aka normal population curve.

    • sunny says:

      04:02pm | 15/02/12

      Can’t believe I’m replying to this fucked up post.. but in response to @Dieter Moeckel   “Why does everyone believe that all disabilities are the responsibility of the community and that society is to blame. It wasn’t the community or the government or the taxpayer who ‘inflicted’ the condition onto the child or person.”

      Is it because we like to think we are humans and not animals? Look up ‘community’ and one of the definitions is ‘brotherhood’. Also I don’t think ‘blame’ ever comes into it. A lot of things happen and no-one is to blame.

    • Vicki PS says:

      06:00pm | 15/02/12

      @Dieter:  You keep referring back to utilitarian philosophy.  Your arguments are valid only insofar as our society endorses and operates on a wholly utilitarian model.  I think you must agree that this is not the case.  Indeed, I would further suggest that the majority of people reject “the greatest good for the greatest number” as an absolute yardstick.

      You also repeatedly claim that services for people with disabilities are somehow disproportionate and inequitable, yet you offer no evidence to support this extraordinary and nonsensical assertion.  With 18.5% of Australians having a disability of some type, we are not talking about a fragmentary minority here, but a sizable chunk of the population.

      What’s more, you are quite simply wrong in your belief that “No minority should receive differential treatment at the government teat. This is what equality is about.”  Differential treatment is EXACTLY what equality is about: levelling the playing field, basically.  Or to put in another way, from each according to ability, to each according to need.

      (I can’t resist asking you, Dieter—as a utilitarian, what exactly do you do to justify your space on the planet?  And I think you and your little golf prodigy—such a useful occupation!—might find that many people consider that resources for and public status of sports generally are “disproportionate” ).

    • Misguided Frustration says:

      06:49am | 15/02/12

      >> “When does any form of disability turn into a “disease” to be eradicated?”

      Ok, I must be one of those Evil People™ because I just don’t get this. Surely if we were able to invent one day a treatment that would result in people with a disability no longer suffering from its effects - such that they were able to run around without being in a wheelchair, feed themselves, talk to others without a computer speaking for them etc - that would be a good thing?

      As I understand it, Cerebral Palsy is (broadly) an issue with damage to the brain. Given our ability to repair so many other things, why is it unreasonable to suggest that a “cure” is out of the question (which seems to be your argument here)? Leprosy too was once a “lifelong phsyical disability” (it certainly had a disabling impact on a lot of people who suffered from it and you suffered from it for life) until we understood what caused it and figured out how to treat it.

      Surely wanting to eradicate cerebral palsy is a good thing? Surely we wouldn’t intentionally “give” someone cerebral palsy if we had the choice?

      >> “You may recall the Spastic Centre was responsible a few years ago for a television commercial, aired nationally, in which the pitch for donations featured parents graphically describing how devastated they felt when told their children had CP – with the children sitting alongside them.”

      You’d prefer the ad showed parents jumping for joy when told the news their child had a “lifelong physical disability” that was going to impact on everything they did from that point on, not of course, forgetting the impact on the child themselves and their quality of life? That would be a lie. I’d certainly be devastated. What’s wrong with being honest?

      >> “For decades, disability rights campaigners and activists have fought desperately hard to beat back the pessimistic, negative, medical-model view of disabilities like CP as some terrible, untreatable, incurable affliction from which people “suffer”.”

      Given this entire article is about how you’re “suffering” without a service that provides wheelchairs, how can you argue otherwise? The “treatment” you’re asking for in this instance, is wheelchairs and therapy.

      >> “For instance, would I have wanted my late son, who had CP, to have heard his disability publicly described as a “disease” that needed to be “eradicated”?”

      You would prefer your late son was told how much the world would be a better place if we could just give Cerebral Palsy to everyone? Once again, you seem to be promoting some sort of lie. Surely you’re not suggesting that your son “enjoyed” living with Cerebral Palsy? Wouldn’t he have wanted to be able to live without it, if he could? Why is this such a bad aim to have?

      To me, it appears you’re clearly frustrated at the lack of funding that’s provided to support those who are living with disability - with instead the bulk of it going to researching a cure - but let’s not lie about it. After all, if living with disability is such a wonderful joy as you seem to want to imply, you wouldn’t have written this article at all. There’s no doubt you loved your son and that carers and parents of children and people with disability love those they care for - but eradicating disability is not a bad aim to have. No-one wants to live with a disability - hence why we need wheelchairs, so that we can give those people some of their ability back.

    • iansand says:

      09:56am | 15/02/12

      I agree.  The article appears to be based on a false dichotomy.  Of course people with cerebral palsy, and their carers, should be given support.  But the ultimate aim should be to eliminate the need for that support by eliminating the issue.

      I went to the Paralympics in Sydney.  I was having a drink at a bar.  At the next table a wheelchair athlete was celebrating several medals with his family.  It was a joyful scene, but I couldn’t help thinking that, if I were them, I would give up all that joy if the young man could walk.

    • Peter says:

      10:31am | 15/02/12

      @iansand, it is not a false dichotomy.  It is a question of emphasis.  Not just of funding, but of attitude as well.  That does not make it a “lie”.  Having said that, I think the writer made the point too strongly and which has put people off track.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      06:56am | 15/02/12

      “How is promoting a “vision” of a world without some form of disability, whatever it may be, in any way helpful to people living with that form of disability today?”

      Umm….it’s not meant to be?  They’re not the target audience.  There are other areas of research, support etc….dedicated to helping people already born with the disability. 

      Your argument lacks any logical cohesion, as far as I can tell.  A disability is exactly that, something to be cured.  The very term means:

      lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability;  incapacity.
      2.
      a physical or mental handicap, especially one that prevents a person from living a full, normal life or from holding a gainful job.

      If we can increase peoples quality of life, and work towards that, it’s not an attack on the people that have that condition.

      I have asthma…people are trying to eradicate the condition.  Awesome.  It’s a disability, in that I’m stuck with medication every day, I have to be careful and it might one day lead to death by heart attack.  It’s also terribly minor compared to many things we’re talking about here. 

      You are not your disability.  Moves to eradicate your disability are not moves to eradicate you.  Disabled cultures are not a life by choice, they are a life and culture by a present necessity.

    • carolyn says:

      08:34am | 15/02/12

      Damn right that people living with a disability today are not “the target audience” for messages about the need for people to donate money to fund medical research into preventing and curing that form of disability!!
      That’s the whole point of this article mate! Suggest you go back and read it again, at least twice, because what you’ve missed first time around is that the organisation promoting this message seems to have totally lost sight of who its own"target audience” is supposed to be. The Spastic Centre of NSW was set up - by parents - to provide services and supports to people living with cp today - not to help generations of people not yet born at some far off point in some distant future. And yes, the quality of life of many people with cp, and their families, is indeed “shit” - which is why it would be good if service provider organisations concentrated on trying to provide more and better services, and left all the medical research stuff to medical research organisations. Can you imagine any medical research organisation agreeing to divert funding from some international gathering of medical researchers in some five-star hotel somewhere into paying for wheelchairs and therapy???

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      09:00am | 15/02/12

      Yes, because it would be terrible to one day not need the organisation at all, wouldn’t it…

      Forgive me if I have little interest in prolonging disability.  It does not need to be either or and I would suggest that both the work to prevent it in the future as well as the current care are both vital.  One does not need to devalue to other.

    • carolyn says:

      09:14am | 15/02/12

      No, it wouldn’t be “terrible” at all Tim The Toolman (apt name by the way). It would be great.
      But the point is - again, sigh - that for now, and oh, I don’t know, perhaps the next 60 or so years, cp service provider organisations are very desperately needed.
      What this author seems to be suggesting, far as I can make out, is a phenomenon known as “sticking to your knitting”.
      The parents who built up the Spastic Centre of NSW over decades and decades of hard work and slog and voluntary effort did it so the organisation would provide services and supports.
      Let the medical researchers and those visionaries dreaming/yearning for a day when the world is free from the disease of cp go off and set up their own frigging organisation, and stop parasiting off the history and traditions of the Spastic Centre of NSW.

    • Peter says:

      09:44am | 15/02/12

      “It does not need to be either or ... One does not need to devalue to other.”

      But I think the point of the article is exactly that.  AC believes that one IS devaluing the other.  Get it?  So, really, you agree with him in a way.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      09:53am | 15/02/12

      @carolyn, however one of those services would be to assist in finding a cure or even treatment correct?

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      09:58am | 15/02/12

      Carolyn, why make a new organisation when it makes sense to extend on the skills and support of an existing organisation? You’d end up with a duplication of staff and effort and consequently an highly inefficient use of resources.

      There are limited resources.  It makes sense to build a structure which addresses all issues, not simply one narrow focus when there is a common theme tying them together.  Unless you want money that would go to the cause to be spread among two separate groups of administration, two separate marketing groups, two lots of buildings etc…

      There is nothing wrong with an organisation seeking to both make the life of existing sufferers better as well as seeking to protect future generations from the same affliction.

      While you might want an organisation that is dedicated to a specific aim, it would be counter-productive in the long run.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      10:12am | 15/02/12

      I would say that the article fundamentally disagrees with my stance:

      “There are no natural linkages between present-day disability service provision and long-term medical research. They are two very different things - which is perhaps why, as the CPA actually boasts, it is “unique” in trying to do both.”

      I disagree with this point.  I think there are natural linkages between the two.

      1)  People who understand and work with people who have the disability
      2)  People who have regular observational access to people with the disability
      3)  An administration and organisation that understands the current impact of the disability and how important the research is…that is, grounding it in reality.
      4)  A natural connection in the general populations minds, leading to an understanding that it is a group that supports people who have the condition while also seeking to prevent it from occuring in the future.

      There are far more natural connections than reasons for seperating, which appear to amount to:

      1)  People will be upset at being told they have something others wish to cure
      2)  It has the potential to unevenly distribute the funds.

      If (2) is the issue, fix that rather than breaking a useful alliance.

    • kitteh says:

      12:35pm | 15/02/12

      Uh, Carolyn - have you ever been to a medical research institution or a scientific conference? Let me assure you, medical researchers (particularly scientists) are not living the high life on unlimited funding. They do their job - with long hours, no security, precious little appreciation (as you have aptly demonstrated) and huge educational requirements - for some of the worst pay in the Western world. And considering that most of them are neither disabled themselves nor parents of disabled children, they do it without the intrisic motivator of immediate benefit for themselves.

      Tim’s point that research and service provision are inexorably linked is also correct. In fact, many service interventions for chronic conditions are set up through the tireless research and lobbying of scientists and clinicians. A great deal of research is not aimed at prevention; it is focused on therapy for current sufferers (in fact, the original article seems to have misunderstood stem cell therapy entirely) as well as evaluating the available services and keeping track of census data. Centers such as the Telethon Institute have had huge success in integrating the two.

      I understand the frustration with a lack of services. I have a disability - not as severe as CP, but nonetheless it has altered my life and affected its quality - and there is, quite frankly, very little support for this conditon in Australia. But you know, while I don’t love the idea that my parents should have aborted me had they known, I also don’t love the idea that my needs right here and now should automatically outweigh work that could improve both my future quality of life and that of the many other people with my condition. I’m no martyr; I look forward to more effective gene therapy and pharmacuetical developments for myself - because I would love to be rid of my condition for good. It isn’t who I am.

    • carolyn says:

      08:05pm | 15/02/12

      @ kitteh - yes, I’ve been to both over the years, and while you’re entirely right that “medical researchers are not living the high life on unlimited funding”
      (who is??) I see from the CPA Research Foundation website that a large number of CP medical researchers from all over the world were recently funded to gather for several days in San Francisco, at what I hazard a guess would not have been the local YMCA. The Sir Francis Drake, anyone?
      Google the American Academy for Pediatrics and Developmental Medicine - their last annual gathering was in that well-known centre of medical research excellence, Las Vegas.
      Meanwhile, spare us the violins OK about researchers doing their job “with long hours, no security, precious little appreciation and huge educational requirements for some of the worst pay in the Western world.”  However true, that’s not the point at issue here. As I read it, it’s simply that a service provider organisation should be providing services, leaving the funding of medical research to medical research organisations. Bet you all those semi-starving (according to you) medical researchers out there would find it pretty strange to suddenly be asked to spend some % of their annual budget on buying wheelchairs!
      And yes, while it’s totally correct that research and service provision are “inexorably linked” (pretty weird if they weren’t actually, because otherwise what would any research be FOR?) can you and/or Tim name any other disability service provider anywhere in the world that simultaneously tries to run a “world-leading” disability research foundation? And if so, how come the CPA apparently claims it is “unique” in doing so?  Maybe there’s a reason it’s a “unique” thing to do - because it’s absurd!!

    • Carz says:

      07:11am | 15/02/12

      You know what, I have a son with autism and I wouldn’t change a single thing about him (except perhaps his aversion to cleaning up after himself). I love his quirky ways and amazing personality. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t like to see a way for autism to be prevented. If it could save other families the pain that goes with a disability I’m all for it.

      What I do have difficulty with is the word “cure” in relation to many neurological disabilities. If my son was cured of his autism he wouldn’t be the same boy he is today. It would be like the changes to someone after a brain injury. I would still love him but he wouldn’t be who he was before.

      I also have a problem with people who scream “offensive” over every little thing. No, it isn’t particularly nice to talk about our children as if they were something to be wiped off the earth (and in reality it isn’t the kids they are talking about but the condition) but surely if you could prevent what happened to your child from happening to anybody else, thus saving them years of pain and heart ache, wouldn’t you?

    • Kerryn says:

      07:33am | 15/02/12

      I live with Aspergers, and sometimes I think about what it would be like to be cured.  No anxiety, no panic attacks, being able to look people in the eye properly.  Then I think of life without the other people in my head, without the sensory “highs” I can get just from a rainy day and I wonder if a cure would be worth it.

      At the end of the day, even if I was cured there’d still be other problems in my life, hell, even new ones might be created.  Who knows?

    • Nathan Explosion says:

      07:56am | 15/02/12

      @Kerryn

      I have PTSD, major depression and GAD. I would walk over my own grandmother for a cure.

      Anyone that has accepted the good parts of their condition, like yourself, has my full respect. You are a stronger person than me!

    • PsychoHyena says:

      09:59am | 15/02/12

      @Kerryn I know exactly what you mean, I have Aspergers myself and my youngest is being tested for ASD over the next year. I wouldn’t change him, and I wouldn’t change myself. Thankfully one of my strong points (acting) overrides my poor points (social skills). :D

    • RED says:

      10:34am | 15/02/12

      I wonder if your son feels the same way.

    • Lori says:

      07:48am | 15/02/12

      Some disabilities are caused by curable disease - polio,  damage from measles and rubella.
      Others can be prevented eg folic acid during pregnancy lowers the chance of spina bifida.
      Should we stop mentioning this link so that people who have the disabilities are not upset?

      The advertisements are trying to raise funds from average people who have no real understanding of the disability. To do this, it helps to mention that being affected by the condition is a bit of a bummer.

      I doubt people would dig deep for an ad introducing Little Johnny who lives a wonderful happy life with no problems and a family who is delighted and unaffected.

      As for the -no pre birth tests line - couldn’t the message simply be that it might be your unborn child next, donate to the cause?

      Most people with disabilities would prefer not to have them.
      To provide them with support, and fund research, needs publicity and lobbying to get the money to achieve this.

      Hiding the fact that many people do suffer physically and mentally from their disabilities , and that many families have trouble coping is demeaning.
      Just as hiding the people themselves was demeaning years ago.

    • Peter says:

      09:41am | 15/02/12

      @Lori, what you say is all true, but I think you are missing the point that AC is making.  That is, I think, where we put our emphasis.  Do we emphasize the “negative” side of the disability and urge people to dig deep so that we can eradicate it?  Or do we emphasize the “positive” side, which is that people living with the disability need our help to live full and happy lives?  Do you see the difference?  AC’s point is that the later approach is much more helpful to people with a disability or who are taking care of someone. 

      But that is not to say that we ignore the “eradication” approach to the issue, and that we shoudn’t fund research etc.  It is a question of balance, and I think AC feels that it’s out of whack when we take our eyes of the ball and forget that the goal of the charity should be to help people who are actually living with the disability.  Not the ones who aren’t even conceived yet.

      And, to answer your question, Yes, I do think people will still “dig deep”.  They have done so in the past.  What has changed?

    • Peter says:

      11:15am | 15/02/12

      I do not have any experience with disability.  However, I became friends with someone who is paraplegic because of a freak accident.  He is a better man than me.  He owns his IT business.  Has loads of friends and parties.  Travels around the world.  Essentially, he has the right attitude, as does his family that support him.  And it’s all about the attitude behind the support behind the person.  So i can see why this is an important issue to you.  Research is important, but the people that are here, now, living with disability are equally, if not more, important.  Can’t make the world perfect, but we can help the people who need help, now.

    • Al says:

      07:52am | 15/02/12

      Funny, considering I suffer from 2 conditions that can be considred a disability (Insulin dependant diabetes and Epilepsy) yet I have no issues with, and actively encourage the pursuit of, a future without these.
      I think the authour is making a stretch trying to indicate that supporting research into a cure from a disability is tantamount to supporting eugenics to remove those people from the population.
      The author is missing the point. People with disabilities have rights, however if you had access to a treatment that would completely remove a disability from a developing child you would jump on it and this is what they aim for. The reduction or removal of NEW INCIDENTS of the disability.

    • Catsidhe says:

      01:30pm | 15/02/12

      Would you feel the same way if the rhetoric was describing the ideal of preventing people with the predisposition to diabetes or Epilepsy from being born in the first place? That’s basically what is being described.

      It’s one thing to eliminate the symptoms and mitigate the disability as far as possible, but it’s another when the posters describe not your condition, but your existence as the regrettable thing.

      When they talk about “prenatal screening”, what they’re saying is that you would have been better off not born.

    • bec says:

      08:45am | 15/02/12

      And yet there’s no mention of furthering discrimination against people with Hansen’s Disease in the title of your article?

    • Rev says:

      01:09pm | 15/02/12

      Classic bec, glad someone else noticed!

    • Catsidhe says:

      01:36pm | 15/02/12

      Hansen’s Disease is not congenital, is not developmental, and can be cured.

      I’m sorry, what was your point?

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      08:47am | 15/02/12

      I have two normal children and I would not want to change any part of them. I love their normalcy, their involvement in sport. I loved the way they grew up to become normal adults who contribute to society and have normal children whom I also don’t want to change in any way. I don’t miss any of their disabilities and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

    • Peter says:

      09:27am | 15/02/12

      Angry Cripple, thanks for writing the article.  At first I have to say, I was put off by some of your remarks.  I couldn’t see the logic in them.  Seemed a bit picky.  But having read the comments and thought about it a bit more, I can see your point.  And it’s a good one. 

      The way I see it, we have to mindful that, in going after a disease or disability with a view to “eradicating it” there are people out there who are actually living with it right now and/or supporting someone with it - and they are equally or even more important than the “future” or potential ones we are trying to protect (or stop from being born). 

      So, it’s a bit of a balancing act, I think is what you are saying.  And the charity you mention has forgotten this and needs to rethink the way it is approaching the issue.

    • Sue O'Reilly says:

      10:11am | 15/02/12

      Thank you Peter for making the effort to work out what I was trying to say before commenting, rather than leaping to some off-beam, irrelevant criticism that completely misses the point.
      I’m not arguing against research. I have no problem with very bright people dedicating their lives to finding answers to the vast numbers of things about the human body and brain we still don’t fully understand, or as yet can do little or nothing about. I donate to cancer research charities, my husband having died of cancer. I just wish the medical professional WAS omnipotent and able to prevent or cure all human illnesses, diseases and disabling conditions, as one day in some century to come it might just be.
      But my point is - is getting involved in funding and promoting “global” medical research an appropriate and legitimate role for an organisation established, built up and funded by govts and the public over decades to provide practical, day-to-day, services and supports for people in NSW with cp now?
      That’s all. In my view, it’s not a “balancing act” at all. It’s either/or - as every other disability service provider and disability research foundation/institute in the world seems to understand and accept, apart from the CPA. And that includes the CP International Research Foundation in the US, which split from the US service provider organisation United Cerebral Palsy some six years ago now for exactly the reasons I am putting forward. 
      Also, check out the MS Research Foundation website if you want to see an impressive example of a disability research organisation understanding the need to clearly, openly and transparently differentiate between fund-raising for service provision and fund-raising for medical research.

    • TJ says:

      10:01am | 15/02/12

      I am all for getting tests to determine for any disability to make it easier for me to abort, I would abort if my child would have a guarantee of diminished life and I do not have the financial or mental ability to cope with it

    • Bill says:

      10:17am | 15/02/12

      What test ‘guarantees’ that your child will have a diminished life? And how do you define ‘diminished’?

      The quality of your child’s life depends completely on the way that you treat him or her, not on their physical abilties. 

      Are you glad that you weren’t aborted, TJ?

    • Tyr says:

      10:33am | 15/02/12

      @ Bill - The tests that, you know, prove that the foetus has CP, or Down’s, e.t.c….

      You’re just clutching at straws.now.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      10:34am | 15/02/12

      “What test ‘guarantees’ that your child will have a diminished life? And how do you define ‘diminished’?”

      Someone born into endless pain and agony has a diminished ife over someone who is born normally.

    • TJ says:

      10:45am | 15/02/12

      @Bill - that is the most ridiculous argument, if I were aborted I wouldn’t be around now to know about it and therefore wouldn’t have an opinion would I?

      what about my ability to cope with it? I am aware of my own limitations, do my rights and welfare take second place to a hypothetical???

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      10:54am | 15/02/12

      “The quality of your child’s life depends completely on the way that you treat him or her, not on their physical abilties. “

      So…you’d happily lose both limbs as keep them?  Or begin to suffer from MS?

    • zoe says:

      01:07pm | 15/02/12

      Tj I know of two instances where a couple was told their baby would have down syndrome One aborted a perfectly healthy baby at 32 weeks.  The other had a beautiful baby no downs those tests are not as accurate as you think

    • TJ says:

      01:29pm | 15/02/12

      @Zoe - I know someone who’s mother was told she would have DS, she’s perfectly healthy and no sign of it, it’s not going to stop me aborting if the test proves positive rather than rolling the dice, if I do go to term and it is DS then what would you have me to? I will not look after it, I wouldn’t be able to handle that

    • Sam Paior says:

      05:39pm | 15/02/12

      TJ - if you couldn’t cope with a kid with DS, then you couldn’t cope with having any child. What if your perfectly health three year old got was injured and became the intellectual equivalent of a kid with Downs. Would you then relinquish your parental rights?

    • baddog says:

      10:45am | 15/02/12

      I’m sorry that the author of this article felt compelled to write this article. The feeling throughout is one of rage. I feel the context in which people are trying to combat diseases/illness/disorders et al has been taken well out of context by the author. People are only trying to HELP! No doubt your son was a wonderful, beautiful child, but wouldn’t you prefer it that he had the tools, genetically or otherwise, to live past 21? Why get caught up on the phrasing of hardworking organisations and scientists that are only trying to make life better for everyone? I see no issue in people trying to ‘eradicate’ ‘diseases’. I’m very sorry that your son passed away, surely you would want future parents to not feel the pain of losing a child so young? Please calm down and see the forests through the trees. PWD’s are not treated like lepers in Australia and it’s sad if you genuinely believe this is true.

    • Bill says:

      10:52am | 15/02/12

      @ Tyr - so any unborn child with cerebral palsy (that’s the term, Tyr, not CP. Try using it.), should be killed because it won’t be able to experience life like you and me? Hitler would be proud.

      @ Tim the tool - The life of a human born with cerebral palsy or down syndrome isn’t one filled with endless pain and agony - except to narrow minded bigots such as yourself.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:19am | 15/02/12

      “@ Tim the tool - The life of a human born with cerebral palsy or down syndrome isn’t one filled with endless pain and agony - except to narrow minded bigots such as yourself.”

      Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not understand hyperbole?  Try laying off the personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously as well.

      My point was that arguing that life cannot be diminished by physical ailments is demonstrably false.  If you disagree, you are saying that ones physical condition has no bearing on the quality of ones life.  My hyperbolic example was there to demonstrate this.

      Feel free to posit that people would willingly choose multiple sclerosis and the associated issues over a perfectly healthy body though.  I doubt anyone will take you seriously.

    • Tyr says:

      11:44am | 15/02/12

      Never said that every unborn child who has cerebral palsy (there you go) has to be aborted. I said if it were my child, I would consider the option. As I said before, you’re getting worked up for no reason. Chill out. Also, other people, on this forum, who either are related to, or have given birth to, disabled children, agree that if they had been informed before birth of their kids disability, they would consider it.

      Sites like this allow people to calmly express their point of view. Being hysterical when someone doesn’t agree with your morals is infantile at least.

      Or am I just a bigot that needs to shut up?

      Quality if life isn’t solely derived from how ones parents treat them. Plenty of people in the world have had shitty parents and have had/are living lives with a high quality of life.

      Next rant?

    • SteveKAG says:

      12:12pm | 15/02/12

      Bill read my post further down, i have read many of yours and you are coming from a narrow “right to life” framework it seems….

      I have a CP daughter (this is the acronym for it). I have tackled this very decision before…...please don’t condemn if you have not walked in others shoes.

    • Zaf says:

      11:09am | 15/02/12

      [How is promoting a “vision” of a world without some form of disability, whatever it may be, in any way helpful to people living with that form of disability today?]

      It isn’t, but it is still a valuable thing to do for society as a whole, don’t you think?

      Wrt pre-natal screening/abortion/birth control - I’m sorry, I’m pro-choice, even if that means that some people would choose not to have me.

    • Swampy says:

      11:31am | 15/02/12

      Do you think HIV, Hep C, diabetes & asthma are diseases that need to be eradicated? Then you are a hypocrit. People with chronic diseases are classed as having a disability. People discriminate, diseases don’t.

    • SteveKAG says:

      12:25pm | 15/02/12

      having a disease might disable you to less or more of a degree but you are not medically classed as disabled.
      The term disability is used in government circles to determine car parking spaces, centrelink benefits and home services but medically a disability is something you are born with or something resulting from an accident.

      If you have your leg amputated as a result of diabetes for example you would medically be classified as having a disabiltiy because of the leg, you would still have the disease of diabetes…...

      Need to be very careful here about the distinciton between the two.  CP kids have a disability not a disease.  It is brain damage that affects motor skills cauisng a disability….....

    • SteveKAG says:

      11:56am | 15/02/12

      My daughter is 16, and amazingly beautiful talented girl who has CP.  She is mild however that has still come with so many visits, tests, procedures, surgeries.  At 10 she had 5 surgeries in her right leg, the big one was having her leg hacked off, rotated and plated back together.  She will never walk properly, she walks winged, she cannot and will nto be able to do a lot of things normally but for the most part she is normal, goes to a nomral school, she has two jobs, is in year 11, has a boyfriend, is doing her Deb in a oouple of weeks.

      Sure her studies suffer because of the brain damage and sure she will never be in an olympic sport but she will be able to lead a normal healthyish happy life. She is one of hte most pleasent, caring, thoughtrful and inspiring people to be around.
      She has been through hell and back in her short life and has come out of it with a beter attitude than most of us possibly would have.

      Her mother and I made a decision to make her an only child as we were told there was a 25% increased risk of us having another CP child and a real potential if we did have another CP child the classification would be severe.  We simply could not take the risk for our sake and for the babies.

      We asked about feotal testing like they can for DS but it was not available.
      Wiould we with all that we knew and having the most irreplaceable child you could imagine have taken this option to test?
      Yes we would.
      Would we have termindated based on negative results?
      Speculation of course but we both spoke about it and the answer is yes we would have.  We did not have any more children because of the risk,

      This is just one parents view, this is not about nor should it ever be about the anti-abortion or pro-choice debate.  A child suffers terribly with these disabilities, even when like my daughter they are mild. 
      Parents also sufffered.  When she was 6 months old and we got told that it was CP we were devestated beyond belief.  She was a month prem, she had to be revived on the first night, she had two blood ransfusions, she was an emergency cezarian…......she had already went through so much…..

      You get over that and you settle into what needs to be done but our life and her life was never to be the same…......This decision should never be dictated or decided by the few and parents should never be amonished for their decisions or choices.

    • Tyr says:

      12:34pm | 15/02/12

      That was an excellent post. My thoughts are with parents such as you and your partner who have overcome your daughters debilitating disease and allowed her to lead a life of good quality.

      Hopefully our friend Bill reads this.

    • Tyr says:

      12:35pm | 15/02/12

      That was an excellent post. My thoughts are with parents such as you and your partner who have overcome your daughters debilitating disease and allowed her to lead a life of good quality.

      Hopefully our friend Bill reads this.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      01:29pm | 15/02/12

      I agree, an excellent post.

    • Felicity says:

      12:06pm | 15/02/12

      I really think people who wish to donate to a charity have a right to know where their donation is going and who it going to help.I used to donate to the cerebral palsy assoc until i got a call asking for a donation and i asked if my donation could be directed to services I was told that was not possible, but i could be assured that CP provided services. It would now appear that research will trump services, and there are thousands waiting for wheelchairs,walkers, beds, therapy, hoists etc.. these are human services.  To me it looks like some academic has decided this would a nice little sinecure to research a condition which is not a disease, it is brain damage—- every case is different in severity—- the finest minds int he world including overseas have not come up with an answer, so while people are waiting for all the practical and life-changing services what is being contemplated is to pour money into research instead. 

      Sue O’Reilly is not a hypocrite she is merely pointing out the waste of such an enterprise with no end goal in sight.  The money can be better used to provide for those who already have cerebral palsy to give them quality of life..

    • Dr Bartolo's Ward says:

      12:19pm | 15/02/12

      Good on you Sue O’Reilly for challenging the decision to use donations for research into a condition which has been with us since time immemorial instead of the much needed services for people who have the condition some severely affected which makes daily life very difficult.

      I know so many young children who get physical therapy only until the age of three or so and then are put on a waiting list for government service and can be without any of that vital therapy for years. I would say if the service side of the Association was already meeting the needs for such things as therapy, physical aids, like wheelchairs and hoists and shower chairs etc….. and there there was money left over THEN of course research could be undertaken in good conscience knowing that people are not missing out on the necessities that make life better.

      Many people commenting here do not appreciate that the condition is not CURABLE, it is a condition which is often not detected or detectable.  There are so many wonderful people who have cerebral palsy who achieve so much because they get the help they need and our society, our neighbourhoods and our families would be poorer if they’d not been born.

    • SteveKAG says:

      12:36pm | 15/02/12

      Please stop calling It a condition, pregnancy is a condition. CP is a disability resulting from some sort of brain damage.

      The medical profession still do not know what causes CP.  The most popular seems to be lack of oxygen, this fits in our case as the placenta tore and all of our daughter blood drained into the mothers blood, my duaghter needed two blood transfusions and has CP…..This ‘popular’ theory in our case fits but the medical profession are at complete odds.

      I agree more services are available, i know we were fortunate to be in a special bracket with my duagthterr so never had problems with services and we were also at the Royal Melbourne Childrens Hospital…....one of the leading hospitals in the world for CP treament and research.
      My problem with the organisation the author writes about is that why not diver funds into the RCH of Melbouren for research rather than setting up something additional and dilute funds and resources,,,,,or provide services and allow the RCH to continue doing the research and treatement….......

      We did get to a point thuogh where we had to pay for physio’s ourselves, we could only keep this up for a limited time so i do hear what you are saying.

      We can’t cure something if we don’t know what the cause is…......let’[s not put the chicken before the egg.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      06:10pm | 15/02/12

      “Many people commenting here do not appreciate that the condition is not CURABLE”

      That would be what the research is for, yes?

    • Slothy says:

      12:36pm | 15/02/12

      Sue, I get what you’re saying here and I can understand that there is a need to research prevention, there is an equal need to support existing sufferers in meeting both their physical and emotional needs - those emotional needs including the need to not feel like a burdensome second class citizen.

      However, I’m a little uncomfortable with this paragraph:

      “My son was a happy, cheeky, wise and much-loved person who, precisely because he had cerebral palsy, taught his parents and siblings a vast amount about what really matters in this world, brought us into contact with kind, inspiring and generous people and changed all our lives for the better.” [Emphasis mine]

      I hear versions of this expressed a lot, and while I appreciate the unconditional love that it represents, I feel really uncomfortable when I hear people talking about how much somebody else’s suffering did for their lives. My severely disabled cousin has taught our family a lot about ourselves and brought a lot of joy to our lives, but he will also never develop beyond the mentality of a 5 year old. Your son changed your life for the better, but he also died at 21. While I can see how damaging it is to constantly be told what a burden you are on your family, and the ad that you reference does sound horrifying, I think it is also a little unsavoury to spend too much time celebrating the wonders your loved one’s suffering has done for your personal development.

    • Sue O'Reilly says:

      06:05pm | 15/02/12

      Not just my personal development, Slothy, but his father’s and his siblings and all those who either took the trouble, or were capable of, looking beyond external, outward appearances and seeing what a beautiful, funny, wondrous - and happy - human being my son was, thereby helping break down in our minds so many of the deep prejudices and mistaken assumptions about those of us with disabilities with which most people, including several commentators here, are obviously so deeply and damagingly indoctrinated.
      People with disabilities like CP do not necessarily “suffer” anything, except perhaps the discrimination, prejudices and rejection of others who, we can but hope, may one day learn something about the damage inflicted by ignorance and prejudice (perhaps by becoming disabled themselves??)
      Many people with CP do, however, end up “suffering” - quite severely - from entirely preventable things like dislocated hips and twisted spines if they can’t get access to properly fitting wheelchairs, therapy and exercise (which, by the by, was what parents created and built the Spastic Centre of NSW to help provide). And I see entirely preventable suffering all around me, every day, because this organisation doesn’t have sufficient resources to get anywhere near meeting existing levels of need. Rather than pouring every ounce of their energy into trying to improve service availability and reduce waiting lists, however, they have for some reason decided, on top of service provision, to go haring off down the entirely different path of “taking on the global challenge of finding ways to prevent and cure” CP, instead of leaving that very worthwhile goal to the scores of other organisations and institutes around the world specifically established to fund and facilitate long-term medical research.
      The only logic I can discern is that finding ways to prevent and cure CP is certainly one way to reduce waiting lists for wheelchairs, shower chairs, therapy and other vital services! But prevention is irrelevant to those with CP already and cure is clearly decades away, as the head of the Caifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicine (itself a $3billion organisation by the way) recently stated. And personally, I actually think it is a little “unsavoury” to be encouraging anyone to hope otherwise, pretty much solely for PR/fundraising purposes.
      Fortunately, my son didn’t end up “suffering” any avoidable physical pain - but only because his dad and I were so horrified at the mediocrity and lack of high quality intervention services in NSW, we moved to the UK for 12 years. Not an option available to most families though. Just seems to me that any organisation should seek to do what it is supposed to be doing as well as humanly possible, before it starts also taking on “the global challenge” of doing something entirely different.

    • Sam Connor says:

      12:33am | 17/02/12

      Craig Wallace is going to get it for making me read the comments for this article.  There’s half an hour of my life that I’ll never get back.

      I’m amused that Dieter thinks that HE is a sentient being.  Hilarious.  If you froods would like some perspective on the quality of life for people with severe and profound disability, read about the happiness study for people with locked in syndrome here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41746257/ns/health-health_care/t/many-locked-in-syndrome-patients-happy-study-shows/

      On CPA.  I’ve never been a lover of the charity model/portraying disability as disaster and deficit organisations, and CPA fits just that, for me.  I’m also realistic about the way large service providers work.  In 2005, the organisation was still The Spastic Centre and their mission statement was Building futures ... for people with cerebral palsy and their families.

      Like many other NGO’s, it looks like the Spastic Centre - now CPA - has moved on and is now doing what many other organisations are doing, chasing the buck.  This year’s Strategic Plan boldly announces that they will be chasing the buck to carry out research, but it also says it will be ‘shaping the NDIS reform agenda’.  Nothing in there, mind you, about asking people with cerebral palsy or their families what THEY want from an NDIS, or asking if they want them to carry out research to get rid of that ‘terrible palsy’ (as my child calls it) instead of providing support and changing community attitudes.  Their advertising just seems to reinforce them, actually. 

      And Tim the Toolman - take some time to check out Ramp Up and the writings of a Ms Stella Young, who has OI and because she is clearly a difficult and non compliant type of lass, does not want to be cured.  I know other crazies like her.  Disabled, proud of it.  What a foreign concept to you.  But imagine this - instead of spending your life searching for blame or for a cure, you go out and live it like other people.  You make friends, you go to the pub, you sit in the sunshine or you listen to your favourite music.  You smile because your family is nearby or you watch a sunrise.  What would you rather do?  Spend your life trying to find a cure for your condition, or try and find support to live every second of it because it is all the more precious to you?

      I have had lots of differences of opinions with Sue O’Reilly but the one thing I have always admired is her unfailing love for her family, including her beautiful son Shane.  That is one thing that we will always have in common - being parents of children who we have no desire to change, because they have gifted us in too many ways to count.

    • Therese Mackay says:

      08:46pm | 12/04/12

      well I am really dismayed by some comments I have read here…I met Sue when she edited my book about my quadriplegic husband’s brutalisation and death because of doctors and nurses attitudes such as some of the above - as well I met Shane and my best memory is of a funny and interested young man surrounded by so much love - love that few will ever feel…yes Tyr - my husband could not shower himself, not go to the toilet - but he was a better father to our girls than most, he was a passionate and loving husband, an activist for the social god and our life was more beautiful than I can describe - this may not slot into the compartmentalised world view of some - but he was a miracle as are many disabled and although I would rather have him here beside me today able-bodied - I would not give up one minute of our amazing life together - unless you know you do not know how those of us living with severe disability or severely disabled live and you have no right to judge

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter