Autism -ABA Debate

C

Cantona7

Registered User
Messages
120
Has there ever been a more heartless Minister than the current Min for Education.I watched with a mixture of sorrow, anger and repulsion at her display in the Dail last night on a Private Members Motion on the Autism issue facing this country.
Her contribution consisted of reading, in a most dictatorial fasion,what looked like a 7 page ( may have been more) scripted reply to the motion. One could have thought she was discussing robots and not the subject matter, children.
As a parent with an autsitic son battling to secure ABA facilities for my 3 yr old i am obviously biaised on this topic. But i wish the Minister would show some compassion for us and not treat us in such a dismissive fashion.In reply Ruari Quinn, summed up the feelings of all parents going through this nightmare, we pray for the day when our kids can play with their older peers in a common playground. But first we have to teach them how to play...
Tonight the Dail will vote on the motion, it has no chance of succeeding due to the quasi political nature of how we do business in the Dail. Deputies will as usual toe the party line despite having private concerns on the questions at hand. A free vote on this important matter would enable TD's to vote with their conscience. And pigs may fly over Dail Eireann tonight..

Cantona7
 
The issue here is what the Minister is legally allowed to do versus the moral argument. All Government expenditure is voted on in the Dail and outlined in the Book of Estimates. As much as a Minister may want to provide ABA for all autistic children, s/he cannot unless the expenditure has been approved by the Dail.

Whereas in the recent court case, there was a moral argument in favour of providing ABA, the couple had no chance of winning the case (I believe they were wrongly advised in bringing it) as the Minister was not permitted to spend money on ABA - a Minister cannot spend money unless provided for in Book of Estimates of vote of Dail. We live in a democracy and our representatives, for whatever reason, have decided that money is not to be provided in our education system for ABA. The only way this can be changed is if voters elect representatives who are in favour of ABA funding.
 
csirl said:
The only way this can be changed is if voters elect representatives who are in favour of ABA funding.
Click to expand...

My sister has a five year old Autistic girl and while all the local politicians were canvassing for the last General Election we specifically asked what their party's standing was on the Autism situation and ABA funding (this issue has been a hot potato a lot longer than it has been appearing in the newspapers). Of course we were told that all their parties were in total support of ABA funding within the remit of what funding permitted them to do and if elected blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Cantona, csiel is correct. Your understandable emotional reaction ignores the facts. I have no connection with the minister or her party but she seems to be one of the more able members of this government. When emotive issues are raised they have to respond in a logical way having examined the knock-on effects of any actions they are being asked to take. Easy answers are not always the right answers.
I say this as the father of a child with learning difficulties.
 
Gordanus said:
The Minister for Health?
Click to expand...

She asked for the toughest job in government and has put her heart and soul into it. She may or may not be doing a good job but I do not think it's fair to suggest that she is heartless.

In fact I cannot think of any politician from any party that I would describe as heartless.
 
Many of you will disagree with, and object to what I am about to say, however...as a taxpayer without children, I despair hearing about these cases and the money wasted. The worst aspect of the latest case is that after fighting the case and winning, the Government have decided to foot half the cost.
 

Why? I don't have children but I always support someone bringing a legal case if a parent feels that their child's constiutional rights are being infringed. And the cost of such an action should never stand in the way if the case has some merits even if they lose the action in the end. Every person has the right to be heard by the highest courts and if that means the State having to foot to bill then so be it.
 
you have answered you own question there. They lost.
 
ClubMan said:
Surely that's a recipe for a glut of frivolous cases?
Click to expand...

Why? A judge at a lower court can decide if a case has merit or is just frivolous. But for a case like this, why shouldn't the family have the right to go all the way to the Supreme Court to protect what they see as their child's constitutional right. Are we saying that only people with vast amounts of money can run the risk of protecting their preceived rights in case they lose and are left with a legal bill? And I am only talking about Constiutional cases here

I was much more upset with RTE accepting half costs from Beverly Flynn in a libel case than the State paying half the costs in a Constitutional case involving a childs right to appropriate education
 
"The worst aspect of the latest case is that after fighting the case and winning, the Government have decided to foot half the cost."

The state may well have recognized that the prospect of recovering the costs was remote and that the result would be unduly intimidating to other people who might seek to vindicate their rights before the courts, especially in view of the fact that general reportage of the case was (quite understandably) mostly in praise of the plaintiffs and in praise of the merits of their case. I think the approach taken by the state in relation to costs was probably right.

As usual (and, don't get me wrong, quite appropriately), our media are quite happy to give plenty of sympathetic coverage to the plaintiffs who undertook enormous financial risk in bringing this case. There is no coverage that I have seen which gives any credit at all to the plaintiff's lawyers who put in such a huge amount of work, knowing that there was a big risk that they would ultimately not get paid for it. As usual 'hard working solicitor doing the right thing by his client' just isn't newsworthy.
 
I'm confused here, have the plaintiff's lawyers waive their fees?

So the "half the costs" that the government is paying is going entirely to their own legal team?
 
The thing that gets me is that there was a vote in the Dail about ABA provisions and alot back benchers voted for the current regeime ina majority.
Yet news talk had a survey of about 60 politicians 65% disagreed with the current minister's handling of ABA education..
The reality is when these back benchers were asked to vote - they towed the party line...
 

The OP explained in their opening post why this happened

Its a bit unfair to chastise TD's for not voting against their own party on such issues when the consequences for doing so would mean losing their membership of the party and probably their careers. Unfortunately the Dail Whip system militates against any party TDs voting against their party on such issues.
 
when the consequences for doing so would mean losing their membership of the party and probably their careers
Click to expand...
And that is more important than something that is of benefit to those in our state that do not have proper access to the educational requirements they need...
 
Do you really think it's that simple?
Click to expand...
yes it is.. Its called principals - nowo I am completely aware that our politicians don't have any - but is is as simple as voting for something that is of benefit to those with Autism.
Even Mary O Rourke is trying to get more ABA and apparently has invited the minister to a school in Athlone...
 
"I'm confused here, have the plaintiff's lawyers waive their fees?"

I have no idea; however, the plaintiffs, at least as reported in various media, have made it clear that they do not have the money to pay the fees. So it amounts to pretty much the same thing: the lawyers undertook this huge amount of work in circumstances where there was a serious risk of not getting paid, and it now looks rather like the risk has gone against them.

To get back to the main point, in these circumstances it would have been rather pointless for the state to start seeking its legal costs from the plaintiffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register