what's the point?

[wurf]

i don't know how to go about this and i hope i don't offend anyone, especiallly anyone with kids in this situattion, but i wanna know how yall feel about this.

i work at a residential facility for mentally retarded/autistic/behavioral problem/emotionally challenged/every other fukt up condition u can think of. i've been here over six years now and its starting to bug me. its a waste, a waste of time, money, and resources and let me explain why. i work with the worst of the worst, these are the most extreme cases. most are completely non-verbal and those that can talk have at most a 30-40 word vocab. they are to dangerous to be out in society and most can't even be around their own families without staff around because they will try to hurt them. there are some that even after 20yrs of special training and all kinds of help will never be able to dress themselves, even if u picked the clothes out for them. without proper supervision about 80% of the clients i work with would die sooner rather than later from either poisoning or choking due to the fact that they will try to eat anything they can fit into their mouths. its an impressive achievement if by the age of 21 (the age when we ship them out to a lockdown facility) they can sort by color and learn how to try and ask for shit without being hostile.

please understand that i am not talking about the special kid down the block who rode the short bus or them slow kids from HS in that carpeted classroom behind the cafeteria. u don't see shit like this until u work in a place like this. and my question is not why keep them alive. i've thought about that over and over again and still can't come up with an answer. besides what loving parent would think of doing otherwise. i don't have any kids but if my first born came out with just a head and a foot i'm gonna do all i can to help him live his life. my question is should money be thrown at this?

most of the kids here come from lower middle class to poor famil

---------- Post added at 04:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 AM ----------

the main part of what i was trying to say got cut for some stupid reason and i aint typing it again so please delete this thread. IDK why or how it happened, but i'm doing this shit from my phone so fukk it

[xconcepts]

The thing is that it is still a life, regardless of how or what they can or can't do. Would you be able to take that persons life just because it costs money to take care of them? Do you think the family just wants to give up on that person? They are still blood and most can't just say fuck it and forget about them.

[Joker]

The thing is that it is still a life, regardless of how or what they can or can't do. Would you be able to take that persons life just because it costs money to take care of them? Do you think the family just wants to give up on that person? They are still blood and most can't just say fuck it and forget about them.

X said it best. I too have worked with the mentally impaired and I will say it is not for everyone, I recall one of my client's family members asking me if I liked my job and I said somewhat and she said 'I don't see how you do it.' and shook her head.

Anyway, it's a personal choice and whatnot when you choose that type of career path. It's simply not just for the money, you have to have some kind of sympathy for the people and their families and enjoy it.

[wurf]

my question wasn't about keeping them alive. the part of my post that got cut off was about the money spent. it costs over $200,000 a year per kid to house, feed, medicate, and pay for the staff that works with them. not to mention the long list of specialists that work with them.that adds up to millions (there are 36 kids on my drive alone and over a 300 throughout the campus). all this money comes from the school districts where their parents reside. most of these are inner-city school districts that are strapped for cash. these are schools that have way more students than books, no music programs, and are desperately trying to hold on to whatever teachers they can get, regardless of how effective they are. wouldn't this money be better spent on kids who can actually make something of themselves? i'm not saying completely abandon them, but maybe give up on this dream of them being functional cuz it aint gonna happen. maybe scale back to the minimums and spend that money where it can have actually have a useful impact on society. i did a better job of explaining exactly what i meant the first time, but i guess that shit was too long and thats why it fukt up.

[The God of War]

I'll be back later to comment on this subject. When I get to my hotel room.

[ThePianoGuy]

my question wasn't about keeping them alive. the part of my post that got cut off was about the money spent. it costs over $200,000 a year per kid to house, feed, medicate, and pay for the staff that works with them. not to mention the long list of specialists that work with them.that adds up to millions (there are 36 kids on my drive alone and over a 300 throughout the campus). all this money comes from the school districts where their parents reside. most of these are inner-city school districts that are strapped for cash. these are schools that have way more students than books, no music programs, and are desperately trying to hold on to whatever teachers they can get, regardless of how effective they are. wouldn't this money be better spent on kids who can actually make something of themselves? i'm not saying completely abandon them, but maybe give up on this dream of them being functional cuz it aint gonna happen. maybe scale back to the minimums and spend that money where it can have actually have a useful impact on society. i did a better job of explaining exactly what i meant the first time, but i guess that shit was too long and thats why it fukt up.


Stipping it of it's actual effectiveness, I think it's one of those things where food medication and staff are more "necessary." I'm sure there is also a laundry list of rules and regulations to make sure that the less "competent" are given more funding. And there will always be some bleeding-hearted liberal backing them up to make sure that they are accounted for while the ones who are more ample for leading a normal life can be overlooked because they are in less need for assistance. For instance, someone with a cold can be expected to handle themselves while someone who needs a liver transplant will need more funding.

It's also kind of a slippery slope effect. Because you're essentially saying that we should cut [down] our losses, and focus on the more elite. Which leads to setting parameters about when/where to judge people's abilities. So basically, you're [indirectly] suggesting social Darwinism. I, personally DO see a cut-off point, such as what you are suggesting, but people aren't willing to be intellectually honest, and they throw out a lot of rhetoric about life being precious, and giving analogies regarding killing off old people once they've become "useless." Oh well. Good thing I don't run the country.

[SchlongstaJ]

Interesting topic. I shall gather my thoughts and return.

[The God of War]

OK, I had to wait until I got home to properly comment. And take note that my comments are not directed at you specifically, or out of anger.

The legal system is truly fucked up. Functionality for those with learning/physical/mental/psychological disabilities is really a judgement call on how society portrays their disability. And in that, there are even subsets and varying degrees in those disabilities (such as autism, with Asperger Syndrome). So to basically say fuck it and give up on all of them based on the extreme severity of a few is somewhat disheartening to hear, but I also see your point.

Now look at this from a different perspective. You make money from the care of these people. So isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that since it will cost you your job possibly? And not just yours, many others as well. There are far reaching consequences to what you think may be a simple cut and dried decision. Think of all of the families, related ones, and care givers that are affected by this. There are a lot of lives at stake when a blanket statement is made.

As someone who has worked with children and adults with disabilities, and has family members that have disabilities of varying degrees, of course it brings out certain emotions in me. It has to. But at the same time, I respect your position as you more than likely continually work in the field, and continue to deal with the frustration of how the system plays out like Groundhog's Day. Every day.

[wurf]

i see what ur saying and i thought about that before, but i think the trade-off is worth it. the turnover rate in this field is very very high. most of the teachers at my place of work are fresh out of school and are usually only there for a year before they move on to working at a regular school. most of the direct care staff is only there for a check and will jump at the first opportunity to move on. those that have chosen this as a career path could easily switch over to working at a regular school. and if the money pulled from special needs went to regular schools there would be more opportunities and a need for them to do so. don't get me wrong i appreciate my job, but i could always find another. the health field is full of shortages.

i know its not PC and maybe i'm just flat out wrong, but i think its just too much money being spent just so folks can have piece of mind. and the parents of some of these kids are so delusional its sad. maybe the scaling back of these programs could be what they need in order to snap them back to reality.

[Chelle]

This is a very interesting topic and I can definitely see both sides, especially since wurf seems to be referring moreso to those who are a danger, and will never lead productive lives. Those who can't and won't ever function on their own. It's almost discriminating against the able bodied who are in school because they don't get the funding for arts, and other programs.

It's a tough one....

[parityboy]

@OP

Coming 10 days late to this but hey, whatever. I suppose one could look at it this way: if Jeffrey Dahmer (http://anonym.to?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#Trial) wasn't taken out, he would have died of old age - in prison. How much would it cost to keep him and others like him for a year? Why throw money at it?

To my mind the two situations have a commonality: human compassion. In the case of Dahmer and his ilk such compassion is misplaced...or is it? Can we risk letting it go for one man and hope we embrace it for another? Or must we keep it permanently and see where it takes us?