Comments on: An Appointment with Dr. Death

By: latisha

latisha — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:15:54 +0000

this makes no sense to me. if the services are to help improve and better, why not keep going if from ‘early intervention’ it seems to be working? seems like a case for not against. i just don’t get it. it’s like making people go late on their mortgage before you can help them if they get laid off or whatever. (not that we should if they made bad choices etc, okay this is a much bigger stupid story…) anyway, i just don’t get it.

By: My Name is Sarah

My Name is Sarah — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:45:02 +0000

Amy , This is Joyce. This is a dilemna for sure. It is a damn game we all play. For certain reasons we want the test scores high, but for others we want them as low as possible. Makes no sense. I can share that at the conclusion of Pre-k Sarah’s IQ scored 72, at the time our state used 75 as the cutoff so we were ok, by 3rd grade it dropped to 68, and then by middle school to 52 and that is basically where it has stayed. As you can see from Sarah’s blog she performs on a daily basis much higher than 52, but since she turned 18, we need the score to stay low so she will “pass” or is it “fail” the psychiatrists test to continue receiving SSI, which is what we now use to pay for her therapies. It is such a ridiculous game and I used to feel guilty about it too, but then I just decided what the hay – who’s got time to fight the system.

By: elewinnek

elewinnek — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:04:09 +0000

So you’re feeling dirty because you know you’re probably rigging the test-results downwards, in order to negotiate a system that’s already ridiculously rigged?

Don’t feel dirty for that. I realize that The Ethicist might say otherwise, but I think you’re acting wisely. The stupid Arizona system wasn’t set up for such a generously-delivered test as Sophie’s last one. And the tests are all bogus anyway.

By: amysilverman

amysilverman — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:36:36 +0000

Hey Christa — Not too nosy at all! Sophie does qualify for school services (which are pretty limited). But for the state developmental disabilities system, she needs one of four diagnoses: autism, epilepsy, cerebal palsy or mental retardation. The MR diagnosis requires an IQ test demonstrating that her IQ is below 70. I completely agree with you (and so do others) that this is ridiculous — Sophie has a lot of issues that related to her developmental disability, Down syndrome, that are not necessarily cognitive-based. And I’m told this is a weird blip, in any case, that early intervention (ironic, huh) has inflated her IQ temporarily. That’s why I’m fighting for her to keep her services. But — well, we’ll see…. To answer another of your questions, the doctor can’t prescribe longterm habilitative therapies.

By: christa

christa — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:17:00 +0000

Amy, help me understand, and I hope I’m not being too nosey, but why can’t Sophie’s dr write a script for the services? B/c you want the services you’re referring to above are through the school as opposed to the ones Sophie gets access to through private insurance? I know you’ve mentioned Dorcas the PT and the British OT which I assume Sophie gets through a private insurance benefit. Even if her IQ is not low enough to get the MR label, doesn’t she still have delays that would warrant therapy servives? How does an IQ number dictate services? Like there are no smart kids with coordination, balance, fine motor, language, etc. delays?