QUOTE(loveapple @ Jul 24 2006, 03:41 PM)

I am not sure that this is the right place for this topic, but here goes.
We adopted a baby with DS, he is now 21 and he will never be able to live independently. I was on an American DS forum and I asked what would happen to their children when they could no longer care for them. They all said that they expected the siblings to take over the role as it was their duty. I was castigated to hell and back, and have had to leave the forum because I said that there was no way I would expect my children to care for my son when I was no longer able to do so. Our daughters love him to pieces, but they have their own familes and careers to think of. Caring for our son is a 24/7 job. Do any of you have a child with DS and would you expect their siblings to care for them in later life?
loveapple, I appreciate the situation. I have a close friend who is the single mother of an autistic son, who many suggested to her be institutionalized. She fought hard to keep him with her and not worry about those who look down their noses at her when he has a tantrum in public, as a teenager. Yet what is his future after she dies?
I'm going to call your son's condition "trisomy 21", because I am so gunshy of parents wanting their child's condition to be called something just so and thinking ill of me if I miss the mark. This is so much more the case with trisomy 21 than with cerebral palsy, where children can be just as dependent. I'm not sure if the issue is the same thing that really sends some parents of kids with trisomy 21 through the roof, which is to mention that their children don't have a static disease. They mature, but then they get worse. When last I was up to date with this, their life expectency is decreased and they all have changes in their brain similar to Alzheimer's Disease eventually. So caring for them as an adult into their 30's and 40's can become more difficult as they get worse. It's something to consider regarding who will do that.
Of course care can start with a family member, then shift to something more formal if necessary, but I don't think there's some hidden principle to who cares for anyone with 24/7 needs. Care can be loving wherever it is. Care can be oppressive to the caregiver in all sorts of situations. I don't see anything wrong with you and your daughters deciding this subjectively. Whoever feels it in their heart to care for him should, but I don't see a principle of love that says that anyone should care for him if they don't feel up to it. I suppose I'd get ripped for saying that on the forum you mention. I already was once when I cared for a teenager with trisomy 21 who had a seizure with a fever. Her mother wanted me to say she's fine. It's just a seizure from a fever. Instead I said I was concerned at how old she was to be having a seizure with a fever, that it's not normal and wanted to get an EEG and have her on an anticonvulsant until then. Not only did she say no, but wrote a letter to the referring physician saying I had basically called her child a "Mongoloid idiot". Some parents aren't seeing everything realistically. I think what you wrote makes sense.