My goodness John
A very brave thing you say indeed. I don't get to talk about my own
research much but I think one of my conclusions when examining the
situation of the mothers of people with an intellectual disability (parents
in this case) is that it is extremely stressful to raise a child and adult
with an intellectual disability. What I hope my conclusion leads to
however, is that it is not *having* a child with a disability that causes
the stress, its the conflict of parental and carer (and sometimes wifely)
roles that causes friction along with the expectations that go along with
those roles. The roles of mother (or father but I feel moreso - mother)
and carer are constructed in much the same way that disabilities are. The
one thing that all mothers interviewed concurred with (without
solicitation) was the expression of the loss of self. The barriers to
selfhood included : guilt, feelings of non-deservedness, the attitudes of
other people, the isolation and worrying about the child. The idea of 'my
space' was not existant and there was often resentment toward the child for
this loss.
It seemed to me that respite care as it exists, affords little opportunity
to relinquish stress. It may provide time out but it seems that time is
not the issue. Rather, space is the issue. Acknowledgement and
affirmation seemed to be a much more hopeful approach to supporting parents
than the "band aid over the spurting artery" approach of respite care.
At 09:43 PM 7/12/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Good evening all,
>
>Sticking my neck out, as usual. My wife, who is a nurse and midwife, has
>always opposed abortion as a personal option, without presuming to tell
>others what choices they have to make in their lives. Our daughter's 30th
>birthday is next week. It is now our considered opinion that had a reliable
>diagnosis been possible at the time, an abortion would have been a very real
>option. We love our daughter, very much, by the same token nobody should be
>put in the position where they have to choose to sacrifice their lives for
>others. Ethically and morally it seems wrong, in spite of the virtue
>accorded to suffering and sacrifice in the christion religions.
>
>rgds John
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Barbara Pierscionek <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 12 July, 1999 18:39
>Subject: Re: Free Speech (was Re:Demonising Peter Singer)
>
>
>>Dear Judy
>>
>>I have read with interest your emails and those of others answering you.
>>Rest easy, I cannot see that Peter is being targetted because of his race
>>or creed- I truly believe most people would not stoop so low. However,
>>whether I agree with him or not, it is his courage to speak out about
>>something which is so touches the root of so many lives that the backlash
>>has surged. As one who often speaks out, and has to bear the
>>consequences....I understand both sides.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Barbara
>>
>
>
With best regards
Laurence Bathurst
University of Sydney
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
East Street (P.O. Box 170)
Lidcombe NSW 1825
Australia
Ph+ 61 2 9351 9509
Fax+ 61 2 9351 9166
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Note: This is the e-mail address for my home as well
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is not one shred of evidence that supports the notion that life is
serious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|