*stares*

[conuly]

Remember this woman? The one who suffocated her son? I will agree that there should've been more help. But the way these articles are written....

She had put her life on hold for more than three decades to care for Patrick

So, because she can't live her life, she's the one suffering (not him)?

On the day she killed him, her son had been listening to the same Elton John CD for the whole day, and screaming "Elton".

I hope, I really do, that there was a lot more going on, that the article is written by a couple of inebriated monkeys. Because in my books, the fact that somebody is playing the same music over and over again is *not* a justification for murder. Not even the kind of murder you feel really bad about afterwards. To write a sentence that begins to imply that is completely unconscionable. Oh, yeah, we've all had those moments where we've said "if I hear that again...", but when you actually *mean it*, it's time to call 911 (or the British equivilant) and say "Send over the police, I'm about to snap".

If Markcrow's case was a one-off, we could perhaps just express our horror, and then turn our attention to the next news item.

Nobody's expressed horror. All I've heard is "oh, that poor dear".

But it's less than two years since Bill and Wendy Ainscow took sleeping pills and walked into the sea in Tenerife after years of caring for their daughter, who suffers from Aspergers Syndrome and can't stop spending money.

Yeah... their adult daughter who says she doesn't hold that diagnosis, and who, regardless, has adult parents who should have, before attempting suicide (and advising her to do the same!) have stopped giving her money. Pay her rent, buy her food if you're so worried about her and feel you must, but you don't hand money to people who'll spend it on junk.

Comments

[conuly]

Honestly, the way he's written about, it sounds like the guy had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and this was a gift to society to do him in.

At least we can say "well, they focus on the main issue, which is that yes, the woman should've had more help", but... when I first posted about this, somebody commented that she lived in a wealthy-ish area. So I don't know.

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

Hi! I was the one who commented that Mrs Markcrow couldn't have been exactly poor, since she lived in a picture-postcard village. However, what I possibly failed to point out was that she may have been too well-off to qualify for free help; I believe the NHS (National Health Service) has an income or savings threshold for such help, with the demand that you pay for the help if you're over that level. Mrs Markcrow may well have thought herself trapped in a choice between paying for qualified help for her son, and keeping her savings intact for her advanced old age.

That said, I agree with you - she should have made every effort possible to get that essential help which meant that she could have continued to live with Patrick. Having to listen to the same music over and over again must have been quite annoying (I have no problem with it myself, but I see how some people must feel), but why did she not go out for a walk, or (upon feeling homicidal thoughts) why did she not phone the NHS Helpline or the Samaritans? More importantly, once her son had gone to sleep and all was quiet, instead of killing him why didn't she disable the stereo system? Quick snip of the scissors and that's that. Or take that particular CD and hide it somewhere, if it was Elton she couldn't stand?

Like you, I get the feeling she didn't explore every option to keep her son alive before she took such drastic action. And, like you, I find such articles slightly creepy: under the veneer of concern there's a definite hint of "Hey, if it had been me in that situation I'd have been tempted to off him; wouldn't you?" Whilst an attempt to empathize is usually laudable, this was not a powerful abusive husband, this was a mentally-challenged son. Completely different situation, and one where she could have paid cash-in-hand for someone local to mind Patrick whilst she got out of the house a couple of times a week.

I must say, I didn't like this:

Even the decision to extend flexible working rights to carers - which will allow them to ask their employers for flexible hours - may prove a double-edged sword to those for whom work represents respite, and who may now feel obliged to spend more time at home.

Oh right. So by giving carers the option to work the hours they please, the government is in fact forcing them to work less? Again that sense of the invalid-as-millstone, and the carer as someone who is doing it against their will. I hope it doesn't look as if I'm suggesting that everyone should be selfless and angelic! What I mean to say is that nobody is making carers feel "obliged" to spend more time at home. The only thing carers are "obliged" to do is to keep a member of their family alive - and, if they can't do it alone, they should scream the place down until they get the help they need. What's scary is when newspaper articles insinuate that carers no longer have that obligation to keep their more inconvenient family members alive. Like you state, once that attitude becomes entrenched, can we honestly call ourselves civilized?

[conuly]

Yes, I remember you'd said she might not have qualified for as much help as otherwise. The officials now are saying she didn't take the help she could've - I don't know how true that is. Official people will say anything.