[Isaac]

Hello everyone,

This post may seem a bit off topic, but it really isn't.

The piece (link below) is about the special bond between a profoundly disabled child and the amazing special-needs therapist in her life. The story is about a teacher-child relationship that's 120 years old now, but it will never have an expiry date. I'm sure you'll recognize it's timeless quality.

The article confirms, in a very powerful way, what we already know: making the seemingly impossible possible … is possible! But it takes huge one-on-one effort, dedication and talent.

We don't say it often enough to those who work so hard to save our kids (likely because we're so stressed out … to the max) but our debt of gratitude is enormous.

Isaac

Follow link to article here –> http://tinyurl.com/yt8ln5

[Isaac]

Hello everyone,

Speaking to the recent post by Kathy Belrose ("school problems"), here are some thoughts.

Appropriate in-class support for children afflicted with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) is no longer discretionary on the part of school districts in British Columbia. This is now a settled matter of case law in B.C., after a 2006 superior court ruling in the province (The Hewko case; please see http://tinyurl.com/36jbyp for more details).

Significantly, the provincial government did NOT appeal the landmark case, so the precedent stands, effectively as law in B.C., to protect the rights of children with autism in the public school system. The meaning of the ruling (important to stress) is to ensure COMPETENT, meaningful in-class support to enable equal access to education for children afflicted with ASD.

I would encourage parents to please consider use of the 'Hewko vs. BC' precedent for your own child, even if this means hiring your own lawyer at some point, to more effectively "communicate" the profound meaning of this important legal precedent to the local (typically myopic … often malevolent) school district.

School districts naturally want to ignore this case, pretend the B.C. Supreme Court Hewko ruling never happened, and that it could never possibly apply to them (yeah, right); please disabuse them of the notion.

The 'Hewko' ruling was made for you! Now this "Bud's" for THEM!

[Isaac]

Hello Everyone,

A recent legal battle for autism medical insurance in New Jersey is a stark contrast between the government-run health insurance plans in Canada and the private health insurance plans in the U.S.

Let me explain.

In Canada, as you know, there was a long legal battle (the 'Auton' case) that was intended to force a health insurance "company" (the B.C. Government Medicare plan) to fund medically necessary autism treatment. The case ran from 1998 through to 2004. The children lost. No autism health insurance for them.

In the United States, there was a recent legal battle to force a health insurance company to fund medically necessary autism treatment. The case ran all of 24 hours — the U.S. judge summarily ruled in favour of the disabled child's legal right to health insurance coverage for the cost of medically necessary autism treatment (Intensive Behavioural Intervention, A.K.A. Lovaas-type A.B.A).

Why such a huge difference in the legal process (and conclusion) between Canada and the U.S., one might reasonably ask, on something so vital as health insurance for seriously disabled kids? There are two key factors, in my view.

When government owns both the health care system and all the institutions that SHOULD keep health insurance fair and honest (e.g., the Supreme Court of Canada), there is a clear conflict of interest (think "fox guarding the chicken coop"). On the other hand, when government is independent of health insurance (e.g., New Jersey) there is no incentive for government to corrupt the legal process to deny health insurance to disabled children.

Moreover, and key in this instance, is that in the U.S. there is federal and state law known as "mental health parity" legislation that makes it illegal for a health insurance provider to deny treatment because a health problem is mental in nature (e.g., autism) rather than physical.

The recent case in New Jersey for autism health insurance relied upon U.S. mental health parity law. Canada has no such anti-discrimination, mental health "parity" protection from provincial health insurance abuses, likely because the governments that SHOULD be writing such safeguard legislation are also running the health insurance plans!

The New Jersey article is available at the link below.

https://featbc.org/downloads/NorthJersey.com_09_14_07.pdf

[Isaac]

Hello everyone,

Bill Good, of CKNW radio, did an autism-related Op-Ed piece recently.

The salient excerpt:

“A warning to any politician, of any party … be prepared for a very determined battle in your riding, if you continue to ignore the plight of families who struggle with autism.” [CKNW, May 26, 2007]

The opinion piece is worth hearing in its entirety.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YEtCIt9RPbo

Isaac

[Isaac]

Hello Everyone,

A FEAT BC delegation traveled to Atlantic Canada recently (the "FEAT BC Goes Coastal" tour) to meet with concerned families and key politicos, in the ongoing effort to establish medically necessary autism treatment under Medicare. A CTV News story related to the tour is available at the link below (highly recommended).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7CjYfYueE

Isaac

[Isaac]

Hello Everyone,

Following up on recent commentary shared in this forum ("Canada's autism health policy amounts to all of a new website … AND, a symposium!" http://tinyurl.com/2jhyot), we learn today, yet again, that things are quite different South of the border.

The legislature in the State of Wisconsin, has proposed a new law intended to MANDATE health insurance coverage for autism (http://tinyurl.com/32erkq). Two obvious implications of this development are that a) Wisconsin's polity clearly deems autism treatment to be a health issue (not social services or special education), and 2) they view it as a reasonable notion that health insurance companies be legally required to provide coverage for the cost of autism treatment.

Meanwhile, back in Can'tada, the health insurance "companies" can rest easy, since they (the provincial governments) are both the overseer of health insurance AND the provider, all rolled up into one bloated, inefficient socialist package. Put another way, the proverbial government 'fox' is guarding the Medicare 'chicken coop', and kids with autism don't even get to visit the farm.

It's a serious problem that there is no proper, effective health insurance oversight in Canada. It is shocking to know that over 30% of the health budget is squandered. And that’s quite a big number, when one considers that fully 1/3 of the typical provincial budget goes to health.

However, Health Canada does assure us that they fully understand the urgency of the national autism epidemic and that they are "moving forward" on this important issue, with a new web site … AND, an autism symposium!

I wonder how much mileage this kind of government dithering and cynical spin would garner over in Wisconsin?

Isaac

[Isaac]

Hello everyone,

Here is some poignant political commentary I've come across recently, offered herein for your perusal.

— > http://tinyurl.com/2jhyot

Isaac

[Isaac]

Debra, thank you for sharing your letter to the Vancouver Sun with our group; its message is right on target!

It always makes me laugh when I hear critics of Lovaas-type autism treatment (Intensive Behavioural Intervention … IBI) say, "well, Lovaas treatment doesn't work for EVERYONE — and it doesn't cure — so it shouldn't be funded by government." The key point often missed in the rancorous public policy debate on this issue is that no physicians, or even government health policy hacks (to the best of my knowledge), have EVER said that an effective, science-based drug or surgical intervention that may not "work for everyone" (or cure) should nevertheless not be covered under Medicare for ANYONE, or utilized to ameliorate a disorder to some extent.

For Medicare coverage of cancer treatments, there is no impossible standard set for unanimous agreement amongst all so-called "stakeholders" regarding what treatments to use or fund. There is no excuse of a schism in the cancer community used to exclude public funding for treatment. These flawed arguments seem reserved only for our children.

Sounds like a policy double standard against children afflicted with autism, you say? Of course it is, and it's raw, naked discrimination against an identifiable group of Canadians, with only the translucent fig leaf of justification being that the disorder happens to have no physical manifestation and is not treated in a hospital or in a physician's office.

The "it-doesn't-work-for-everyone" argument is precisely the type of absurd logic that permeates the autism treatment debate in Canada, and it's consistently applied by opponents of court-affirmed, medically necessary treatment (core health need) of children afflicted with autism.

In my view, until all of Canada's governments rid themselves of the deeply rooted, social services mindset regarding autism, progress on getting health insurance coverage for this devastating neurological affliction will remain an uphill battle. Moreover — and this is a crucial point — until the legions of truly nasty health policy academics in Canada (think B.C. Office of Health Technology, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada Policy Branch, Donna Greschner-Steven Lewis in Auton at S.C.C.) are forced to formally recant biased autism treatment "research" and end their systematic obstructionism regarding public funding for autism treatment, little if any progress is likely on the Medicare for autism front anytime soon.

Isaac

[Isaac]

On the heels of Canada's second — and shameful! — Supreme Court of Canada ruling intended to further the systemic exclusion of autistic children from any meaningful protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we again have a chorus of opinion flowing from our community (and into mainstream press such as MacLeans's) regarding the need for broader, more vigorous political action on a national level, to further the cause of public funding for medically necessary autism treatment.

In this vein, I would highly recommend a video of the recent Families for Early Autism Treatment rally in Ottawa (November 2006), kindly recorded by an Ottawa dad, Richard Clowater, and led by FEAT's stalwart on the Hill, Mr. Andrew Kavchak.

This rally, in my view, represents what political action is all about, with its amazing support from families and an impressive list of speakers in support of the cause.

The video of the event is about 29 minutes in length and can be viewed at this address:

–> https://featbc.org/ottawarally.html

The clip may take a minute or two to set up in your browser before you can click on the play button.

Isaac

[Isaac]

Hello Everyone,

The 'Peach Arch News' (Vancouver area) has published a thoroughly outrageous — and exceedingly mediocre — editorial piece on recent political events in Ottawa, vis-à-vis Canada's ongoing autism wars at the federal level (Bill C-304).

We've known for a very, very long time that most of B.C.'s political class of journalists suffers from a SEVERE lack of intellectual rigor, particularly where provincial and federal autism health policy matters are concerned. In the Peach Arch News, we see only the latest example of this problem.

FEAT-BC's response to the Peach Arch News' tripe was printed in today's paper (March 14, 2007), mostly in it's entirety, with the exception of only the final phrase: "this is not a threat, it's a promise."

Isaac

———————————————————-

Peace Arch News Editorial: "Help Pleas"

Mar 06 2007

Politics can seem a blood sport at times, but it doesn't mean all the players would be wise to get dirty.

Take the most recent dispute over the Canada Health Act.

Parents of children with autism have been demanding for years that two types of treatment be funded – applied behavioral analysis and intensive behavioral intervention. They report that these treatments have proven successful in 40 per cent of autistic children, and therefore should be covered under the Canada Health Act.

A Feb. 21 vote in the House of Commons defeated a private member's bill, C-304, that was purportedly intended to include these procedures in the act. The bill failed 155-113, with parents raking over the coals the Conservative MPs who voted against it.

Some vowed retaliation at the polls. Others angrily called individual MPs derogatory names. Some question the integrity of anyone who does not support this particular bill.

The MPs who voted against, including Russ Hiebert (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale), said the wording of the bill would undermine the Canada Health Act, as well as the provincial governments that are supposed to govern our health system. By naming autism as the only affliction or disease in the act, the bill is "flawed."

The parents' argument is sympathetic. They are the ones on the frontline, trying their best to deal with their child's disability and provide support.

And the Conservative argument, albeit legally sound, does little to help this distressful situation.

The parents, however, could also do more to advance their cause. No one should judge them for taking this issue personally. Nothing would be more personal than getting in between a parent and a child's well being.

But by wading into the political arena and throwing muck on politicians with name calling and aspersions, they risk putting off objective members of the public who might support the cause.

Gaining this support is integral to finding a solution. Perhaps a bill will come forward that guarantees the treatment of all citizens with any serious disability, without naming specific afflictions.

Or perhaps it will be decided that provincial representatives are at the only political level that can effect change.

The parents can help find the solution, but only if their pleas fall on sympathetic ears.

———————————————————-

F.E.A.T. of B.C's Response To The Editorial

March 10, 2007

Editor,
Peace Arch News.

Dear Sir:

Re: "Help Pleas"

Your March 6th editorial concerning the emerging political involvement of parents who have an autistic child or children indicates clearly that you simply don't "get it". You're stuck in an outmoded, and unhealthy, understanding of the relationship between those who would govern and those who are to be subject to such governance.

Canadian citizens have long ceased to be vassal-like supplicants, bowing their heads and tugging at their forelocks as their betters instruct them on what they might expect to receive by way of ex gratia beneficence from the all powerful State. It is not only the right but the duty of all Canadian citizens and, in particular, parents of disabled children to demand responsive performance from their elected representatives. If one or another bloviating politician fails to meet the expectations or betrays the trust of their electors, they deserve to be summarily consigned to the ash can of history. We have a moral obligation to rid the body politic of these less than useless individuals.

You claim the federal Conservative's position is "legally sound". Wrong again. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its 2004 Auton decision, told parents of autistic children that they must look to parliament for a solution to their demands. The operative statement of the relevant law, however, remains that of Justice Saunders, of the BC Court of Appeal, who stated, in Auton, that autism is a "socially constructed handicap". What a damning indictment of our politicians and their backroom or bureaucratic advisors.

You suggest that parents of autistic children who wade into the political area risk "putting off objective members of the public who might support the cause". Again, you're way off base. Shortly after the Supreme Court's watershed decision in Auton, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that fully 89% of Canadians supported Medicare coverage for the treatment of autism. It is only our myopic political class, superbly manipulated in "Yes, Minister" fashion by the blinkered bureaucracy, that opposes a fair and equitable solution to this pressing public policy issue.

Over the past decade, parents of autistic children have spent countless hours in futile meetings with elected representatives and senior bureaucrats, and have spent yet more time, and money, battling with one government or another before the courts. We are now doing what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us to do: we're getting political.

You claim that parents' pleas must fall on sympathetic ears in order for them to succeed in their quest for justice for their children. Wake up! This is 21st Century Canada. We're through with pleading to anyone, let alone people whose salaries we pay. Either existing MPs, regardless of partisan affiliation, respond to reasonable demands being made on behalf of our children or we will move Heaven and Earth to replace them with others who will do so. That's not a threat, it's a promise.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Lewis,
Founding Director, FEAT-BC

[Author]

Posts