Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Room Four: School Related Topics #3469
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    According to the Ministry of Education's policy manual, the funding provided for a classroom aide is as follows:

    Level 1: $32,000
    (A) Dependent Handicapped
    (B) Deaf/Blind

    Level 2: $16,000
    (C) Moderate to Profound Intellectual Disabilities
    (D) Physically Disabled or Chronic Health Impairment
    (E) Visually Impairment
    (F) Deaf or Hard of Hearing Impairment
    (G) Autism Spectrum Disorder

    Level 3: $8,000
    (H) Intensive Behaviour Interventions or Serious Mental Illness

    I guess most of us belong to category G, and get the Level 2 funding. My question is, do you know any child with severe autism (but no physical disability) who has been put into category A and gets Level 1 funding?

    Jemma
    email: lee dot jemma at yahoo dot com

    in reply to: Room Three: Discussions about Government Topics #2046
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Instead of funding adequate treatment, this is how the government will spend money for your child.

    Jemma

    ———-

    Autistic son locked up in house contaminated by grow-op:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/07/bc-disabledgrowop.html

    in reply to: Room Three: Discussions about Government Topics #2066
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    "I will still hold the government's feet to the fire," she said.

    This is so sad.

    Unfortunately, parents are parents' biggest hindrance.

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room Three: Discussions about Government Topics #2072
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    It sounds like junk food and bicycle rides are dangerous enough for a national strategy, but autism is too insignificant to be mentioned.

    You can see the report here:
    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/child-enfant/advisor-conseillere/index_e.html

    Jemma

    ———-
    http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=14811

    Canada needs national strategy to prevent injuries in kids and youth: report

    Mar. 25, 2008

    Provided by: The Canadian Press
    Written by: Anne-Marie Tobin, THE CANADIAN PRESS

    TORONTO – Canada should have a national strategy to prevent injuries in children and youth, says a report commissioned by Health Minister Tony Clement and released Tuesday.

    "Preventable injuries is the No. 1 killer of kids in this country," says Dr. Kellie Leitch, who wrote the report after being asked to review programs, identify gaps and come up with new initiatives to improve the health of children and youth.

    "I was astounded with how many parents agreed with me, how many parents knew exactly what needed to be focused on for their kids."

    The paper, entitled A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children and Youth, also calls for improvements in mental-health services and setting targets to reduce the rate of childhood obesity from eight per cent to five per cent by 2015.

    Canada isn't doing as well as it could in these areas, the report argues.

    Among 29 nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it notes that Canada ranks 22nd when it comes to preventable childhood injuries and deaths, 27th in childhood obesity and 21st in child well-being, including mental health.

    In a letter that accompanied her report to the minister, Leitch said Canada is doing "surprisingly poorly" in these areas when compared to other OECD countries.

    Leitch is calling for a wait time strategy to make sure children with mental problems are cared for in a timely matter.

    "The earlier these children are seen, the higher the likelihood that they'll lead productive normal adult lives," she said in an interview.

    In a statement, Clement said he welcomed the report and looked forward to reviewing it.

    Leitch was appointed last March, and spent the first part of her mandate travelling across the country and meeting with parents and people in organizations that are related to children and youth health.

    She reviewed about 500 documents, and had responses from more than 7,200 parents to an online questionnaire.

    "It's really a bringing together of what Canadian parents, children and people in the child health field believe is the direction that the government of Canada should be going," said Leitch, who is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in London, Ont.

    Leitch recommends a longitudinal cohort study to provide data to help understand environmental factors that have an impact on health. This would involve repeated observations of the same children over a period of about 10 years.

    The recommendations to counter obesity encourage after-school programs and call for a ban on junk food advertising on programming aimed at children under 12 by 2010.

    In the area of incentives and supports for parents, she said the new children's fitness tax credit aimed at parents with kids in certain recreational programs, such as soccer and hockey, is a move in the right direction.

    "Well, if we could include helmets as part of the children's fitness tax credit, you know, that might be an opportunity to empower parents to do the right thing," she said.

    In addition, she called for the federal government to enact legislation to restrict hazardous substances in products designed for children and youth, such as lead and mercury.

    And it should encourage all provinces to make booster seats mandatory for children aged four to eight until they weigh 80 to 100 pounds or until they are 52 to 57 inches in height.

    "I think any movement toward a national co-ordinated approach to addressing injury is very much welcomed," said Shawn Feely, program director of IMPACT at Children's Hospital in Winnipeg, a centre that conducts research on injury prevention.

    "Injuries definitely do have a pattern, and when you have a pattern these things are predictable. But there's still a lot of things that need investigation to find out exactly what is happening in some of the interventions."

    Falls by toddlers are a frequent cause of hospitalizations, and motor vehicle crashes can claim lives. Among older kids and adolescents, there are concerns about suicide, assaults and self-inflicted injuries, Feely said.

    Pamela Fuselli, interim executive director of Safe Kids Canada, said she was "thrilled" with the report.

    "I think the national strategy certainly is something that we have been asking for for a few years," she said.

    In particular, she applauded the recommendation for a tax credit on helmets.

    "We know that some of the lower-income families have some struggles as to buying safety equipment or they have, obviously, different priorities," she said. "And so anything that makes access to safety equipment, protective equipment is of benefit."

    in reply to: Room One: General Topics Discussion #5466
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Personally, I am tired of the media talking about autism treatment without talking about science, regardless of WHICH type of treatment they choose to present. Even a presentation on Lovaas ABA is not very exciting if no one talks about the data behind it.

    Before you tell me how much science there is behind biomedical treatment, ask yourself whether or not you know the difference between science and technology. If a treatment uses the most advanced biomedical technology, but no one has compared the results against a control group, then we're not talking about science.

    A control group does not necessarily mean a group of children receiving no treatment at all. It can be a "no biomedical" group, to be compared against the biomedical group. That's a lot better than no proof. The problem is that treatment providers don't need to do the experiment because the public is happy to pay good money for unproven treatments anyway.

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room One: General Topics Discussion #5109
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Hi Dave Chan,

    I am so happy to see a post from you. After witnessing the return of the Empire, I have been feeling disillusioned and depressed. It really helps to get a word of encouragement from one of the old Jedi knights.

    To those who don't understand what I'm saying: you should hook up with one of the old-timers for a history lesson. The conflict over autism in this province is a truly a story of good against evil.

    It is up to God whether the triumph over the Dark Side will happen within our lifetime, but it is up to us to do our very best. Like Dave says, "Do, or do not. There is no try."

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room Three: Discussions about Government Topics #1701
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Oh boy oh boy some of my favorite people will be at the symposium: Tony Clement, Pat Mirenda… great minds who really care about our children. I must go and collect autographs.

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room One: General Topics Discussion #5131
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Hi Jamie,

    The history of autism funding in BC is intimately connected to the history of the Auton case. I am not sure about all the details, but here is a bit of info to start with:

    March 1999 (Auton #1):

    In August 1998, families applied to the BC Supreme Court for certification of a Class Action Proceeding, against the government for not providing ABA treatment. Judge Allan dismissed the application for Class Action certification, and allowed the families to proceed with a non-class-action lawsuit.

    July 2000 (Auton #2):

    The BC Supreme Court decided that:
    – Autism is a serious mental disability. The inability of the petitioners to access that treatment is primarily an issue of health care, not education or social services.
    – The Crown provides no effective treatment for the medical disability of autism.
    – The Crown discriminates against the petitioners contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section Section 15(1) of the Canadian Constitution, by failing to accommodate their disadvantaged position by providing effective treatment for autism. It is beyond debate that the appropriate treatment is ABA or early intensive behavioural intervention.
    – The remedy is to be decided later. See Auton #3.
    * Note that the court decided not to mandate "Lovass" ABA, and this gave the government a lot of room to maneuver.

    February 2001 (Auton #3):

    This is the case that would decide how much treatment amounted to "Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention." Before this decision, in November 2000 the BC Government submitted the plan for a pilot project to the BC Supreme Court. I think this is the EIBI scam headed by Gerard Kysela, with only 20 hours of intervention per week. The government then hired Pat Mirenda to fake a study and declare that Kysela's program is adequate. Judge Allan released her final decision that:
    – Accepted the Crown's proposal as an effective treatment program for children with ASD under six years old.
    – Indicated that the Crown's decision to provide the program only to children under the age of six was reasonable based on the evidence at trial.

    October 2002 (appeal of Auton #2):

    In February 2001, the BC Government went to the BC Court of Appeal to reverse the Auton #2 decision. The families submitted a cross-appeal:
    a) To provide individual funding to families of children with autism to be applied to their treatment program of choice,
    b) To fund future costs of the therapy no matter the age of their child (beyond age 6).
    The BC Court of Appeal decided that:
    – The appeal is dismissed.
    – The cross-appeal is virtually dismissed.

    November 2004 (the final appeal of Auton #2):

    In November 2002, the BC Government went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal Auton #2. In May 2003 the court accepted the application. On Nov 19 2004, the court handed down the death sentence to the children.

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room One: General Topics Discussion #5155
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Regarding the UWO study: I wouldn't hold my breath just yet. The researchers injected a substance directly into rats' brains, and the rats acted wierd. That's a far cry from finding a link between diet and autism. It looks more like an effortless and inexpensive way to get a lot of attention.

    I would much rather see the researchers work with two groups of children, all of which are receiving the same behavioural intervention. The control group gets a normal diet, while the other group gets a gluten-free casein-free diet. After a couple of years, they can compare the progress of both groups.

    But who is going to go through all the expense and effort, if there is no guarantee of getting a ton of attention in the media?

    Jemma

    in reply to: Room Two: Behavioural Treatment Topics #335
    Jemma Lee
    Participant

    Dear Carmen,

    Please be aware that the Family Centred Practices Group does NOT practice science-based treatment, despite their claim that they use "Lovaas-style ABA." I strongly advise you to seek out some knowledgeable FEAT BC parents to help you find a legitimate behavioural consultant. (While you're at it, you can ask them about Gerard Kysela's role in the government's war against families of autistic children.) I know you must be eager to start the treatment, but a little more knowledge in the beginning can save you a great deal of pain in the long run.

    Sincerely,
    Jemma

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 41 total)