It's a disgrace..

TestTransmission · 29-01-2008 5:09pm #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0129/autism.html

There is so many families in this situation having to pay fees so their children can have education and hopefully integrate them into mainstream schooling.
My sister is actually a Applied Behavioural Analayst and she works in one of these schools,it's a non profit private school and they do it all with any government funding.
I find it amazing that the politicians can give themselves huge pay rises and gladly not see children getting the education they deserve.

Anyone agree/disagree??

Kiith · 29-01-2008 5:16pm

This is a pretty heavy topic, and this is after-hours, so be prepared for some...unusual responses. Personally, i'd say that the government should fund at least part of this fee, although i dont see how it could possibly cost upwards of €5 million.

Blisterman · 29-01-2008 5:16pm

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

Dudess · 29-01-2008 5:17pm

Very tough. Having done a little journalistic research into the whole area, the general consensus is that autistic children thrive under the ABA system.

Kiith wrote: »

This is a pretty heavy topic, and this is after-hours, so be prepared for some...unusual responses.

Maybe, but serious topics are discussed here too, and with plenty of intelligent and insightful input. Yes, serious topics seem to be idiot magnets but that just adds an interesting dimension to it. So, in short, leave my After Hours alone! :mad:

tallaght01 · 29-01-2008 5:20pm

It's only a disgrace if that type of education has been shown to be VERY beneficial to autistic children.

It may well be. I have no idea, but I'd like to see the opposing arguments, and the reasons why they lost the case.

tallaght01 · 29-01-2008 5:22pm

This is what the story says about the ruling :

rte wrote:

Seán has access to some State-funded ABA tuition at his school in Co Wicklow.

However, Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled there was not sufficient evidence to determine that the model of education provided by the State was not appropriate.

Morlar · 29-01-2008 5:26pm

Blisterman wrote: »

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

I know I will get flamed for this but what the hell. The govt were forced by the parents to defend their position - this ended up costing €5,000,000.00 which the judge decided it would be unfair to burden the parents with. So the govt has to pay their own defence costs.

If the govt simply caved to begin with they would thereby set a precedent whereby any child requiring ANY kind of specialists at any point would have to have one paid for by the state. This would imo eventually boil down to one on one specialists for everything and would eventually be re-challenged to include attention deficit disorder etc

I can see how it is rough on the parents in this case however I can also see that the state is not a bottomless pit of money to hire one on one specialists for every developmental problem that any child may ever have.

AngryBadger · 29-01-2008 5:34pm

I sympathize with the familys situation, however as stated the ruling was that the education being provided was adequate. It's not simply a case of "well that €5,000,000 would have paid for the lads education", if the government caved on this then suddenly they would have a bill of many times this sum to provide an education they have judged to be unnecessary.

Lux23 · 29-01-2008 5:38pm

ABA works with some autistic children and if it is having a definite affect on them, then the government should either provide ABA teachers or pay a big portion if the fees in these schools.

My brother is autistic and at nearly 20 has never said more than a couple of words. I wonder if he was born 2 years ago what he could have achieved? Its sad. At least if you have a child like that these days there are people out there who know what to do with them.

TestTransmission · 29-01-2008 5:53pm

ABA has been proven worldwide to improve an autistic childs/teenager with social skills and linguistic skills.
I have been told this first hand by ppl who work in this area(they have witnessed it themselves).Their point is that if the money is provided for these kids at an early age,they will sooner be integrated into mainstream schooling and of course then college.This will actually then cost the government less money in the long run,as they will develop into hard working developed adults(paying taxes like everyone does).
Im just sorry that more ppl just dont feel this way..

Sleepy · 29-01-2008 6:01pm

Is it just me or is it pretty stupid to run up a legal bill of 5 million when there's no guarantee you'll win either the case or costs?

I'd also like to see the breakdown of that legal bill - no doubt it's the usual extortion by the legal profession. I don't blame the government for this one (rare, I know), I blame the greedy prick who let this couple run up that amount of debt with them.

Simple option for the family - don't pay the lawyers, who's going to go after them for the bill? It'd be terrible PR for any legal firm.

Mr. Incognito · 29-01-2008 6:02pm

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism, it merely rewards socially acceptable behaviour and discourages unacceptable social behavor. It's not a "treatment" per se as the government contents more of a training, for lack of a better analogy like teaching your dog to be obedient.

On the linguistics point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis

Language: ABA and discrete trials are seen as less effective for improving the ability to use language to communicate effectively

I can see how it would be beneficial for parents to have a more obedient child but ABA is not a "cure" for autism.

TestTransmission · 29-01-2008 6:08pm

SetantaL wrote: »

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism, it merely rewards socially acceptable behaviour and discourages unacceptable social behavor. It's not a "treatment" per se as the government contents more of a training, for lack of a better analogy like teaching your dog to be obedient.

On the linguistics point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis

I can see how it would be beneficial for parents to have a more obedient child but ABA is not a "cure" for autism.

One last post ,what exactly would you say should be done with children with autism?........nothing...just let them rot.
Im not saying im some type of expert or trained on the subject but i dont believe everything i read in wikipedia

Mr. Incognito · 29-01-2008 6:16pm

Hey- I'm not expert on social intergration nor am I am I in any position of power, all I'm highlighting is why the Supreme Court doesn't class ABA as an "education", merely conditioning. But then again, wouldn't it be great if there was a public outrage, the government funded ABA so the autistic kids would sit quietly down the back and your sister gets a large raise. Yipee.

FakeRedHead · 29-01-2008 7:36pm

SetantaL wrote: »

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism .

You are mistaken.

ABA most definitely is a treatment for autism. It is the main educational therapy that is used to help those with ASD learn.

It is not about obedience training. It is about breaking down learning into small parts and rewarding the child when that part is mastered. Many children with ASD don't have the urge to learn as typical children do and have to be encouraged to do so with reinforcers or rewards.

It is enormously successful as a therapy for autism especially if used when the child is very young. I have seen a number of children who had no language or learning skills at age two or three reach typical level in most areas after two years of intensive ABA teaching.

Not all children with ASD are this lucky. It depends on the nature of the autism there to begin with. But at least it gives them a chance.

It costs approximately €45,000 pa to educate a child using ABA methods, substantially higher than the unproven 'eclectic' model the Dept of Education currently favours.

Those who begin ABA before the age of 3 are often able to enter mainstream schooling at age five with very little additional supports.

By denying children the chance to receive ABA therapy, the government is being shortsighted. Instead of giving these children the chance to lead full independent lives they are risking them being a burden on the state as adults.

Nightwish · 29-01-2008 7:42pm

My sister is an ABA tutor. She first worked for the Saplings school, which gets very little government funding. Now she works privately for 2 autistic children, 1 of which has improved so much can now go onto mainstream school next year. If he didnt have early intervention ABA he would never have been able to do so.

I find it appalling that the government dont entertain the ABA teaching model. My family tried to make it an election issue in our area. We were paid a lot of lip service by the various politicians who of course didnt do anything. I feel so sorry for the O Cunachain family. My sister and her colleagues were in Dublin last year with them to show their support. There will be a lot of families with children now further disadvantaged because of the ruling.

tallaght01 · 29-01-2008 8:07pm

Does anyone know the studies that show ABA is working well?

It's all very well one person saying they do, and others saying they don't. But where's the hard data?

I've not seen data either way, but I'd be very interested in reading it.

kona · 29-01-2008 8:11pm

jackncoke wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0129/autism.html

There is so many families in this situation having to pay fees so their children can have education and hopefully integrate them into mainstream schooling.
My sister is actually a Applied Behavioural Analayst and she works in one of these schools,it's a non profit private school and they do it all with any government funding.
I find it amazing that the politicians can give themselves huge pay rises and gladly not see children getting the education they deserve.

Anyone agree/disagree??

yes and no.

yes the kid should recieve a proper education to whatever standard is achievable with a kid with this problem.
No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

also the parent are crazy over the fact they have to pay legal fees.

for €5m they could have built their own school, employed trained teachers and charged other parents in the same boat for their kids to attend too.
id say they would have gotten a grant too

FakeRedHead · 29-01-2008 8:13pm

The definitive study was done by Lovaas in the US and published in 1987.

Nothing comparable has been done in the UK or Ireland yet (and never will be if the government gets its way).

This is a summary of the Lovaas study.
http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=528&a=3345

These are some other studies showing the same findings.
http://www.lovaas.com/research.php

Can anyone find a study showing the 'eclectic' model is superior or that ABA doesn't show results?

nesf · 29-01-2008 8:17pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Does anyone know the studies that show ABA is working well?

Bringing in the, "one teacher, one student" point might be more productive given the forum it's in. Or perhaps the schools are not hospitals argument for a change.

It's becoming a sacred cow at this stage.

WhiteWashMan · 29-01-2008 9:07pm

from AH

Nevyn · 29-01-2008 9:16pm

kona wrote: »

yes and no.

yes the kid should recieve a proper education to whatever standard is achievable with a kid with this problem.
No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

So you disagree with the dept of educations inclusive eduction model ?

Nevyn · 29-01-2008 9:16pm

Blisterman wrote: »

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

The government does not see it that way, as it would set a precedent to provide it for all children on the autism spectrum that would need it.

DublinWriter · 29-01-2008 9:22pm

jackncoke wrote: »

Anyone agree/disagree??

They'll just have to get in the queue behind kids requiring speech therapy, orthadonics, cystic fibrosis sufferers while Bertie & Co. gives away €60 million of our tax money to the UK government to promote N.I. as a business venue.

FakeRedHead · 29-01-2008 9:41pm

kona wrote: »

No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

Autism is a spectrum....there a million different varieties of it.
Some people with autism have lower than average IQs, some have much higher than average.
The government isn't suggesting inclusion of every child with autism into mainsteam.
It depends where they are on the spectrum.

There are a number of options depending on the type of autism:
1. ABA schools (very few places....expensive).
2. Autism 'electic' units of 6 attached to special schools (cheap).
3. Autism 'eclectic' units attached to mainstream schools (cheap).
4. Mainstream school (the cheapest).

And why am I slightly offended that this topic was moved from AH?
Scientology can be 'mainstream' but not 'autism'?
Is that going to get me banned.....I'm new here :rolleyes:

fly_agaric · 30-01-2008 1:18am

Morlar wrote: »

If the govt simply caved to begin with they would thereby set a precedent whereby any child requiring ANY kind of specialists at any point would have to have one paid for by the state. This would imo eventually boil down to one on one specialists for everything and would eventually be re-challenged to include attention deficit disorder etc

Autism is a bit more serious of a condition that "ADD" or "whateveryerhavingyerself disorder"!

<sarcasm>But anyways, good to know the Irish govt will always fight tooth and nail to make sure special pleaders who might cost the good ship IrelandInc money which could be wasted better eslsewhere shut up + crawl back under their rocks where they belong..:)</sarcasm>

Morlar · 30-01-2008 11:48am

fly_agaric wrote: »

Autism is a bit more serious of a condition that "ADD" or "whateveryerhavingyerself disorder"!

Yes yes thats exactly what I said autism and 'attention deficit disorder' are exactly the same - you didnt change a thing there.

30-01-2008 7:39pm

The courts cannot intervene to help this child. I really wish the media and so many ill-informed people would let up on a system that would love nothing more than to help children in this situation but simply are not allowed to.

Marc Blacam and Conor Mahony have written on this and though both argue that the situation is not ideal but that the court cannot usurp the power of the executive to control the public purse. ( See, particularly, Mark de Blacam “Children, Constitutional Rights and The Separation of Powers” Irish Jurist (2002) )

As for those who said that the parent's legal team deserved not to be paid because they "took advantage" of them; this is a spurious argument. Solicitors and barristers are required to inform their clients of all the potential pitfalls and costs in taking a case like this. The Government were equally required to use their full resources to defend this claim as it is immensely dangerous precedent to set. If the Supreme Court were to grant an injunction in this case requiring education to be provided it would have two main effects:

1) It would set a precedent whereby all similar claims had to be given similar rulings and thereby tying the Government's hands potentially into the region of 100's of millions over an unlimited time frame, taking these funds out of the Government's powers to distribute for the public good no matter what the economic climate.

2) It would trigger an immediate Constitutional crisis over seperation of powers and probably, and I really do not feel this is an exaggeration, cause the collapse of the current constitutional set-up as it pertains to the relationship between the Oireachtas and the judiciary as the judiciary had usurped Executive authority ultra vires.

Ultimately, sad as it is, the courts are not the proper power for this. The ballot box and the media are the proper tools in a democracy to rectify this situation. The courts do not deserve the vitriol currently directed at them.

Sleepy · 31-01-2008 3:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As for those who said that the parent's legal team deserved not to be paid because they "took advantage" of them; this is a spurious argument. Solicitors and barristers are required to inform their clients of all the potential pitfalls and costs in taking a case like this.

Why is it a spurious argument? Any provision of credit in business is subject to terms and conditions. Would a bank be allowed to provide a customer with a loan to the tune of 5 million knowing the only way that customer can repay it is if they win a bet with their bookie?

Of course they're not, it's irresponsible lending and the banks are prohiobited from extending speculative credit of this nature for the very reason the legal representation in this case shouldn't have: they've put their clients in a position which will surely bankrupt them.

I'm not a legal expert but from what you're saying there was never any chance the couple in question could win the case as it wasn't a decision the courts had the power to make. Surely the couple then have the right to refuse to pay the legal bill as their legal team were guilty of malpractice in agreeing to take this case before the courts?

31-01-2008 8:15pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Surely the couple then have the right to refuse to pay the legal bill as their legal team were guilty of malpractice in agreeing to take this case before the courts?

First off the legal team were not guilty of malpractice. The previous case law in this area suggested that costs would not be punitive on the applicants though there is an argument that there was a strategy to make the costs an issue to prevent cases like this from becoming more common as the problem continues to exist. I actually believe the court may have been attempting to help the issue along, refusing to award costs in an attempt to bring public pressure to bear on the issue. From a technically legal standpoint the family's legal team knew full well the possible ramifications of their action and accepted it.

From a legal standpoint the courts were technically right in the refusal to award costs. This area of law is well established and if the case failed it would be unreasonable to burden the respondent with the costs just because they were more financially capable of paying them. In a civil action against a non-State funded respondent this would be outrageous and the precedent surely carries through to taxpayers funds?

For those reading this and who aren't too up on the law you can read the judgment at www.courts.ie (it's not up yet but it usually takes a few weeks) or look at the very similar judgment in the case of Sinnott v Minister for Education, albeit the costs issue was not as relevant, just in terms of provision of educational facilities in vindication of socio-economic Constitutional rights.

Sleepy · 31-01-2008 9:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

From a technically legal standpoint the family's legal team knew full well the possible ramifications of their action and accepted it.

This is what I have issue with, whether the family were prepared to go 5 million in debt or not, the legal team do not have the right to grant them that amount of credit when they have no realistic chance of repaying this unless they're granted costs in court.

Banks are open to litigation if they engage in reckless lending. If an institution which is licensed and regulated by the state can't grant this level of credit without extensive credit checking and a thorough examination of the borrowers ability to repay the debt, I fail to see how a solicitor has the right to allow someone go so far into the red without having to accept that if they lose the case they'll have to write this off as a bad debt.

tallaght01 · 31-01-2008 11:03pm

fakeredhead, I had a look at those links you provided.

The Lovaas method seems to reasonably effective, giving relatively normally function to roughly half of the children prior to entering mainstream school at the age of 7.

Now, the gaps that leaves in terms of question, to my mind are:

1) How does it compare to other methods? ie the methods that are currently employed

2) Are they claiming they can cure half the cases of autism with ABA?

3) His studies involved 40 hours per week, one on one teaching. Now that's going to be VERY expensive. Are there studies that show that less ABA (in terms of hours per week) are effective? Because they seem to have given the child in question some access to ABA. How much do most kids get from the state?

It's a very good method, if the studies are anything to go by (and it's important to note that the links you've supplied are a website's interpretation of the studies) then it would be interesting to read the original papers. It would also be interesting to see why the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the state provision in this case was insufficient.

I guess it's a case of looking at what returns you get for the amount of money invested. That is, sadly, the reality of modern day healthcare in ireland. For example, will a programma of ABA for 5 autistic kids be provided at the expense of, say, psychiatry services for 40 kids?

Interesting topic though.

FakeRedHead · 01-02-2008 12:51am

tallaght01 wrote: »

How does it compare to other methods? ie the methods that are currently employed

Well, there isn't really an answer to that as there haven't been any other peer-reviewed studies on other methods of autism therapies.

The method that has been employed in Ireland since the mid 1990s is ABA but no studies were done on its effectiveness here (short-sighted).

In the last year or so the government has opted for the infinitely cheaper 'eclectic' approach, a mismash of different systems, none of which have ever been researched for effectiveness.

Yes, about 47% of those involved in the Lovaas study reached normal functioning levels after ABA thus relieving the state of the further expense of maintaining those as adults in institutions (costing up to €450,000 per year in Ireland).

The idea is to spend the €45,000 on ABA between the ages of two and five (when the window of opportunity for real improvemt diminishes) and half will not need any additional funding thereafter.

It's a interesting condition, in that so much of it can be eradicated with the right treatments. In the US it's now classified as a temporary rather than permanent condition.

There aren't any studies on the difference between doing 20 and 40 hours of ABA. I imagine a huge amount depends on how well trained the parents become in ABA also.

I know many parents who have remortgaged their homes in the hope that their child would be one of the 47% to recover and live a normal life and some have fully recovered.

There are curently 350 Irish children in ABA schools and the same number awaiting places. These aren't huge numbers to fund.

psych · 19-02-2008 6:00pm

i am an aba tutor and i am astounded by the complete lack of knowledge surrounding aba and autism in the previous posts. Firstly aba does not attempt to 'cure' autism, such a statement is ridiculous and whoever said that aba just aims to lower unacceptable social behaviour and increase acceptable social behaviour is as ridiculous. Applied Behaviour Analysis is a science, it is observed and measured and huge amounts of data is collected to support the effectiveness of aba. the aim of aba is not to make a child with autism more socially accepted!! yes aba does aim to decrease challenging behaviours but not so children are socially accepted but so that these behaviours no longer place a ceiling on the childs learning capabilities. children with autism are developmentally delayed in many areas including academic and aba schools aim to provide these kids with the pre-requisites to many areas such as writing, reading, maths etc. i could go on and on about what aba does but i urge anyone with outlandish ideas to what aba does is to visit a school, spend a day experiencing at first hand what is involved and i promise you it will be an eye opener. people fear what they do not understand and i believe this is the case with a large proportion of people who condemn aba or disregard it

fly_agaric · 19-02-2008 8:24pm

Morlar wrote: »

Yes yes thats exactly what I said autism and 'attention deficit disorder' are exactly the same - you didnt change a thing there.

I did not alter your quote. You said

If the govt simply caved to begin with they would thereby set a precedent whereby any child requiring ANY kind of specialists at any point would have to have one paid for by the state. This would imo eventually boil down to one on one specialists for everything and would eventually be re-challenged to include attention deficit disorder etc

You mentioned Autism and ADD in the same paragraph when they are not on the same planet imo then you try and blame me for it!
I just can't believe that the way law works is so ridiculous that the severity of the problem would not be considered in a future situation.
If the govt. also don't believe that sort of slippery slope argument they must be fighting so hard because they actually don't want to spend the money involved in this particular case.

fly_agaric · 19-02-2008 8:44pm

psych wrote: »

the aim of aba is not to make a child with autism more socially accepted!! yes aba does aim to decrease challenging behaviours but not so children are socially accepted but so that these behaviours no longer place a ceiling on the childs learning capabilities.

Yes, I presume the aim is actually to enable many children to at least function in society later on whether they will be "socially accepted":rolleyes::rolleyes: or not.

psych · 19-02-2008 9:03pm

yeah!! like what exactly is the definition of being socially accepted?!? alot of people out there who haven't been diagnosed with anything and appear 'normal' may feel they are not accepted by society!!

20-02-2008 3:00am

fly_agaric wrote: »

I just can't believe that the way law works is so ridiculous that the severity of the problem would not be considered in a future situation.
If the govt. also don't believe that sort of slippery slope argument they must be fighting so hard because they actually don't want to spend the money involved in this particular case.

The law here has nothing to do with the Government, it is the Constitution that is the real issue. If the courts allowed this action it would require the Government to fulfill a massive responsibility in terms of expenditure with absolutely zero discretion in how that was done. Furthermore, should the Government, due to economic or other considerations, fail to fulfill that duty, it would give rise to a civil action against them for failure to vindicate a constitutional duty, costing the public purse more.

This argument is emotive and very worthwhile, however there is a fundamental naivety to it. The demands on the public purse are numerous and great. If the court ruled that the Government had this obligation to provide specialist services that will consequently impact on their ability to spend in other areas of health, education, an garda siochana, infrastructure development, etc.

We all may have good causes to ply for cash from the public purse but we elect people to choose how it will be distributed. We are a democratic republic(not a democracy - I abhor the misuse of the term) and as such if you do not like how your representatives are spending our money then pick someone else. I think you will find no AG with a right mind would advise the Government that allowing this case to go uncontested would be a worthwhile exercise. The right of the Government to determine the distribution of the public funds cannot be interfered with.

psych · 20-02-2008 6:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The right of the Government to determine the distribution of the public funds cannot be interfered with.

i agree Kayroo that the Government have many demands being made on them to spend money in various areas of our country and inevitably the purse strings are tight. but in my opinion and the opinions of many others if the funding is granted and increased in aba now and that kids are given this service provision at a young age the cost on the economy in the future will be greatly decreased as many adults with autism wont need to be cared for on a full time basis and will have become self sufficient. if the Government realised that spending a little more now would save them in the long run there wouldnt have been such a major issue made of this whole aba thing!!

jady88 · 21-02-2008 1:47pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's only a disgrace if that type of education has been shown to be VERY beneficial to autistic children.

It may well be. I have no idea, but I'd like to see the opposing arguments, and the reasons why they lost the case.

Why not just read it then...

Anyway to be way too generalizing they lost because it was decided that the state had to pay for sufficient or good education and not the best. Which is kind of fair in a way i mean otherwise why couldn't we all demand to be educated at Gonzaga?

Hrududu · 22-02-2008 1:10pm

You mentioned Autism and ADD in the same paragraph when they are not on the same planet imo then you try and blame me for it!

His point, to me seemed to be that they were not on the same level at all. But that if the governement caved in one area then children with any type of disorder at all would have a precedent set. Including something like ADD.

22-02-2008 4:32pm

psych wrote: »

if the Government realised that spending a little more now would save them in the long run there wouldnt have been such a major issue made of this whole aba thing!!

I think my point is being lost slightly.

I wholeheartedly believe the Government should spend this money to assist with ABA and other effective teaching methods in order to give all citizens the greatest opportunity to fulfil their potential as human beings.

I also wholeheartedly believe that the courts cannot ever be the ones to make them do that as some suggested they should have. My point is really not one of policy but of procedure. Going to the courts was a mistake by the family at the heart of this case. The ballot box and public forums of debate are the correct avenues of action.Vox populi, vox dei after all.

It was not possible for the courts to make the ruling sought, it was not a travesty of justice.

The only good that case did was to place the issue in the national psyche.

Sangre · 22-02-2008 4:40pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Is it just me or is it pretty stupid to run up a legal bill of 5 million when there's no guarantee you'll win either the case or costs?

I'd also like to see the breakdown of that legal bill - no doubt it's the usual extortion by the legal profession. I don't blame the government for this one (rare, I know), I blame the greedy prick who let this couple run up that amount of debt with them.

Simple option for the family - don't pay the lawyers, who's going to go after them for the bill? It'd be terrible PR for any legal firm.

I'd hazard a guess Sleepy that its the cost of bringing in medical experts to testify on behalf the party.

Any case involviging medical issues are extremely expensive because of the experts fees. Normally they have to be flown in and paid for it, along with paying for any work they missed. Damn those extortionate lawyers!

fly_agaric · 25-02-2008 1:28am

Deleted User wrote: »

The law here has nothing to do with the Government, it is the Constitution that is the real issue...
We all may have good causes to ply for cash from the public purse but we elect people to choose how it will be distributed. We are a democratic republic(not a democracy - I abhor the misuse of the term) and as such ... I think you will find no AG with a right mind would advise the Government that allowing this case to go uncontested would be a worthwhile exercise. The right of the Government to determine the distribution of the public funds cannot be interfered with.

I think I'm understanding. The courts should not tell the govt how to spend the peoples' money?
However, don't the rulings of the courts in cases where the state is involved often entail alterations in how the govt. spends taxpayers' money?

Hrududu wrote:

His point, to me seemed to be that they were not on the same level at all. But that if the governement caved in one area then children with any type of disorder at all would have a precedent set. Including something like ADD.

That's what I was disagreeing with. Forgive my legal ignorance but would a loss really have meant the state would have an obligation to provide lots of other therapies/education which might be demanded by other groups?

Deleted User wrote: »

if you do not like how your representatives are spending our money then pick someone else.

Sounds so easy but...:)

Sleepy wrote:

It'd be terrible PR for any legal firm.

Well, you know what people say about bad publicity...

jady88 · 25-02-2008 3:54pm

No the courts don't really ever direct the government to spend their money in a certain way which is most definitly what was being asked here. Obviously some cases will involve some change in government but not to the same level as this was asking a complete change in budgetary policy.

As for your comment about the future impact of a loss, then yes it would most definitly have had a major influence in future cases.

Why should one child be afforded the absolute best education when the rest of our nations children's are told to put up or shut up.

nesf · 25-02-2008 5:52pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think I'm understanding. The courts should not tell the govt how to spend the peoples' money?

If they could then it would make an even bigger joke of our democratic system.

25-02-2008 7:19pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think I'm understanding. The courts should not tell the govt how to spend the peoples' money?
However, don't the rulings of the courts in cases where the state is involved often entail alterations in how the govt. spends taxpayers' money?

The courts cannot direct government policy on educational spending. To do so would be to remove all discretion in this area of spending from the Government. Educational spending is determined by legislation in the form of the budget and Article 15.2.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann states:

The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas

Given this it is not possible for the courts to usurp that authority, to do so would be in breach of the separation of powers doctrine upon which the constitution is, in part, based. For a good discussion of this read Dermot Keogh and Andrew McCarthy's book on the History of Bunreacht na hEireann.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Forgive my legal ignorance but would a loss really have meant the state would have an obligation to provide lots of other therapies/education which might be demanded by other groups?

This case concerned the Constitutional right of the child to this form of education. If the court held that the child had such a right then so too would every child in the State. So, yes, it would have lead to an obligation on the State to provide services to all similarly afflicted children.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Sounds so easy but...:)?

A former Archbishop of Dublin once said that the truest plague of our times is apathy. I never said it was easy, I just said it was how these things should be done. Go out and campaign and convince your friends to vote for someone else. Decisions are made by those who turn up, so make more people who agree with you turn up and then you get to make the decisions.

FakeRedHead · 25-02-2008 7:20pm

jady88 wrote: »

it was decided that the state had to pay for sufficient or good education and not the best. Which is kind of fair in a way i mean otherwise why couldn't we all demand to be educated at Gonzaga?

It's not comparable at all.
The difference between the 'eclectic' model for children with autism and ABA is much greater than the difference between Gonzaga and a state school for a typical child.

ABA (one to one tuition) gives children with autism a chance to make progress, to learn to speak, to lead a life in the future.
The eclectic units ensure that the child will lose the best years they have for making progress and will leave the unit at much the same level at which they entered.

The eclectic method is cheap but untested. There is no data, no studies on it, no other country has abandoned ABA for it.

For those of you so worried about spending money on children with ABA, you can look forward to spending infinitely more on a future generation Mary Hanafin is ensuring will need institutionalised care as adults, as they were denied ABA as young children.

nesf · 25-02-2008 9:26pm

FakeRedHead wrote: »

It's not comparable at all.
The difference between the 'eclectic' model for children with autism and ABA is much greater than the difference between Gonzaga and a state school for a typical child.

Our school system is there to provide an education, not treat illnesses or conditions though. The broader benefits of ABA are really outside the scope of the duties of the Dept. of Education.

jady88 · 25-02-2008 10:45pm

FakeRedHead wrote: »

It's not comparable at all.
The difference between the 'eclectic' model for children with autism and ABA is much greater than the difference between Gonzaga and a state school for a typical child.

Actually it is, even by saying that it was a much greater difference you implied a comparison. Also many "typical" children as you put it could deal with an education system much different and far better form of education than the average classroom. You have also overlooked the difference between the lower level of schools in this country and the Gonzagas of the country.

The principle is the same, one does not have an inherent right to the best of education merely the right to an education that suffices, and simply having a medical condition is not justification for over turning that principle.

It's a disgrace..

Comments