Josie had seizure for 15 mins before EMT arrive- People Mag

[SassyPants]

I hear "...He/she has "Downs"...." quite often and it seems acceptable.

On the other hand, someone who does not have Down's is where it gets tricky. It seemed like there for a while people found ".. on the autism specturm" to be a blanket catch-all for any other condition. This is just in my non-medical day to day conversations with people. I never quite agreed with that.

The Syndrome was named for the researcher, Dr John L. Down[ person who discovered the trisomy].

[bluebird]

Ahahaha!!! Seriously this thread...with my participation noted..needs to have a diagnosis

[momof2treasures]

Where we live developmental disability is the catch all term for people with cognitive disabilities of varying degrees despite the cause. When a person is trying to qualify for services, they go through the office for people with developmental disabilities. My child's early intervention team usually says things like a person in need of services or exhibits delays , when necessary to put forth such a label. The reason MR is offensive is because of widespread use of the word "retard" as an insult. So changes were made, and it doesn't hurt to stay current. It's just like outdated racial terms. Sometimes you hear these terms from a grandparent not said to be offensive, but yet it's awkward all the same. I've not heard the "r" word by a single professional I've been around including doctors .

[Ofglen]

Please note, that I am vague about my job and education (and just about everything else!) as I always strive to maintain anonymity on this website. That being said, I just finished an advanced degree and work with children who have special needs. I think the most important "rule" when talking about people who have impairments, of any sort, is to use person-first language. The purpose of that is to acknowledge that everyone is first, primarily, and at their core a human being with both strengths and weaknesses. In language, this translates to saying something such as, "A young child, who has Autism, and his family ..." rather than "An autistic child and his family". The reason is to emphasize that the "he" in the sentences is a child BEFORE he is Autistic. "He" has more in common with being a child than with every single other person on the ASD spectrum.

That being said, my preferred term, is to say that "a three month old with exceptionalities". The term exceptionalities can be applied both to people who are gifted and to people who have various struggles. It is something that families appreciate and many people in the fields of Early Intervention, Special Education, etc. have begun to use instead of "special needs". That way, conversations can be held, even in public, while dignity for all is maintained as "exceptionalities" does not divulge any information about a person that could be interpreted by the average human as being either "good" or "bad".

Side note: language is important to me. I understand that many others will not agree with my person first language "rule" or decide to use the term exceptionalities and while that's fine, please respect my viewpoint too.

Hi,

Most disabled people actually prefer identity first language, and it's a hot topic actually. I went to a meeting when I was out of town for business recently- the topic was accessibility in the arts (I work in arts and arts education), and I was shocked to hear the abled speakers (why were there abled speakers??) teaching the disabled attendees, many of whom were rolling their eyes, to use "person-first language".

Now, I'm guessing this must vary some by location and age, but for the most part, disabled people prefer identity first language. This allows me to

1)Remain vague about whether I have one or many disabilities (which is very important to me)

2)Allows for simple, uncluttered sentences

3)Allows me to avoid drawing excess attention when I mention my disabilities (let's face it, person with a disability/with disabilities is just longer)

and...

My disability is not some side note, it's not just "with" me, it's an inherent part of me. Frankly, I'd be a completely different person if I was abled and neurotypical. I'm not a person with a disability/with disabilities. I'm a disabled person. I am disabled. I own these terms and use them deliberately, and they're important to myself and many other members of my community. As I said before, when people ask for person first language, of course I use that language for them, but most disabled people do not prefer that.

Here's a great essay from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network on Identity first Language. It's important to note here that some, but certainly not all, Autistic people identify as disabled. But I think it really helps explain why identity first language is so important to so many people. It also highlights the fact that person first language is mostly used by caregivers and people who are trying to be supportive of disabled people- not disabled people ourselves.

autisticadvocacy.org/identity-first-language/

Here's a great quote from the essay:

"But why are we self-advocates so opposed to this terminology? Aren’t we all about de-emphasizing and correcting inaccurate, misleading, and harmful stereotypes and attitudes? Right? From that other perspective, you would think we would support the use of person-first language, because we want to be seen as people with equal rights, value, and worth to non-Autistic people. But we don’t. Because when people say “person with autism,†it does have an attitudinal nuance. It suggests that the person can be separated from autism, which simply isn’t true. It is impossible to separate a person from autism, just as it is impossible to separate a person from the color of his or her skin."

Also, please don't use the term "exceptionalities" unless someone specifically asks you to. It's beating around the bush and talking down to us. Don't be fooled. We all know what exceptionalities means. That word has connotations as well. It sounds to me similar to "differently abled", which is horribly rude (http://www.autistichoya.com/2013/08/dif ... abled.html).

What's wrong with the word disabled? It's not offensive. It's not bad. Why don't you call autistic children and adults "Autistic"? That's not offensive. You're right about not using the term "special needs" though. Here's a quote I saw on "special needs" recently:

"Disabled people don’t have special needs. We have very reasonable human needs. Our needs include freedom from abuse, violence, and mistreatment, the right to autonomy and self-direction, the right to represent ourselves, equal opportunity for education and employment, the right to accommodation, and societal inclusion and acceptance.

The need for accommodation isn’t a “special needâ€. It’s a basic human right. It’s a leveling of the playing field that allows us the same opportunities and chances as non-disabled people." - Amythest Schaber, neurowonderful.tumblr.com

Also, I'm having trouble with indents, bolding, quoting, etc. (nothing happens when I click), so sorry about my formatting.

[RosyDaisy]

Excuse me, but did the TOU change? I thought the "r" wasn't allowed. No snark, serious question.

[colors_outside15]

Hi,

Most disabled people actually prefer identity first language, and it's a hot topic actually. I went to a meeting when I was out of town for business recently- the topic was accessibility in the arts (I work in arts and arts education), and I was shocked to hear the abled speakers (why were there abled speakers??) teaching the disabled attendees, many of whom were rolling their eyes, to use "person-first language".

Now, I'm guessing this must vary some by location and age, but for the most part, disabled people prefer identity first language. This allows me to

1)Remain vague about whether I have one or many disabilities (which is very important to me)

2)Allows for simple, uncluttered sentences

3)Allows me to avoid drawing excess attention when I mention my disabilities (let's face it, person with a disability/with disabilities is just longer)

and...

My disability is not some side note, it's not just "with" me, it's an inherent part of me. Frankly, I'd be a completely different person if I was abled and neurotypical. I'm not a person with a disability/with disabilities. I'm a disabled person. I am disabled. I own these terms and use them deliberately, and they're important to myself and many other members of my community. As I said before, when people ask for person first language, of course I use that language for them, but most disabled people do not prefer that.

Here's a great essay from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network on Identity first Language. It's important to note here that some, but certainly not all, Autistic people identify as disabled. But I think it really helps explain why identity first language is so important to so many people. It also highlights the fact that person first language is mostly used by caregivers and people who are trying to be supportive of disabled people- not disabled people ourselves.

autisticadvocacy.org/identity-first-language/

Here's a great quote from the essay:

"But why are we self-advocates so opposed to this terminology? Aren’t we all about de-emphasizing and correcting inaccurate, misleading, and harmful stereotypes and attitudes? Right? From that other perspective, you would think we would support the use of person-first language, because we want to be seen as people with equal rights, value, and worth to non-Autistic people. But we don’t. Because when people say “person with autism,†it does have an attitudinal nuance. It suggests that the person can be separated from autism, which simply isn’t true. It is impossible to separate a person from autism, just as it is impossible to separate a person from the color of his or her skin."

Also, please don't use the term "exceptionalities" unless someone specifically asks you to. It's beating around the bush and talking down to us. Don't be fooled. We all know what exceptionalities means. That word has connotations as well. It sounds to me similar to "differently abled", which is horribly rude (http://www.autistichoya.com/2013/08/dif ... abled.html).

What's wrong with the word disabled? It's not offensive. It's not bad. Why don't you call autistic children and adults "Autistic"? That's not offensive. You're right about not using the term "special needs" though. Here's a quote I saw on "special needs" recently:

"Disabled people don’t have special needs. We have very reasonable human needs. Our needs include freedom from abuse, violence, and mistreatment, the right to autonomy and self-direction, the right to represent ourselves, equal opportunity for education and employment, the right to accommodation, and societal inclusion and acceptance.

The need for accommodation isn’t a “special needâ€. It’s a basic human right. It’s a leveling of the playing field that allows us the same opportunities and chances as non-disabled people." - Amythest Schaber, neurowonderful.tumblr.com

Also, I'm having trouble with indents, bolding, quoting, etc. (nothing happens when I click), so sorry about my formatting.

[momof2treasures]

At the risk of offending ( I'm sorry) but just because you have a disability of some sort , including autism, does not mean you have the type of developmental disability being discussed here. You are both very articulate people, and most likely would not be given the label "mr" or "Id" or any other similar term. Feel free to correct me. I'm not saying you don't have a disability, and I don't think anyone here is saying disabled is an offensive word. I think we are mainly speaking about people with that specific type of disability which generally correlates with a lower iq and an inability to really speak up for themselves.

[LittleOleMe]

HI TO JUST Ofglen.

You and I are clearly very, very different people. That's fine, but you do NOT speak for ALL people with exceptionalities. Case in point, myself. Frankly, I find YOU HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. Not only that, but also you are the MOST condescending person I've had to interact with in years. Please read the following post that I already posted to someone else and don't talk down to me when I have overcome more in life than I really hope anyone else ever ever ever has to

"... I don't consider myself extremely resistant to not using current terminology. However, current terminology is always changing and I have found that the more progressive language you use, the happier and more respected people feel, which changes, for the better, how they interact with you.

On a personal note, I identify with the term "person who has exceptionalities" because, as you know, my upbringing was incredibly less than ideal. If someone were to list all of my "official" DSM diagnoses, I would be mocked and scorned and treated like shit. However, the large majority of those diagnoses stem from the hellish, cultish, abusive childhood I endured. If you look at a diathesis stress model, it makes perfect sense. Yet, I go out of my way to go to pharmacies where I won't be recognized by anyone because I cannot let anyone see how many medications I currently need to live a "normal" life.

The truth is, my life was and is exceptional and so am I in both "good" and "bad" ways. If I were only labeled as a person with special needs, I would be hurt because of all the work I have put into healing. I got out, I found an anti-brainwashing specialist (yes, they exist), and I got an education. (Note: this is why I am always hopeful for the Duggar and Bates children. If I can do it, so can they. I'm not a leghumper - I hate those parents more than words can express, but I do have hope for their children!). I've also gone through years of therapy and schooling! I am a person with flaws and with strengths. I don't think it's right to label me as a person with special needs just because I have some special needs. I would rather be looked at as a WHOLE person, in person first language, and referred to as someone who has exceptionalities. It's an increasingly widely used term and I am comfortable with people referring to me in that way.

Additionally, I view it as a sign of respect. For example, I changed my name when I fled. If someone were to find out my *old* name, I would be HORRIFIED. If I told you my old name and you began calling me that, I would cry and not respond because it's not who I am anymore. I have remained in touch with a couple people --- the people who helped me flee. Almost all of those individuals call me by my "now" name - the one I identify with; however, one person for the life of him/her simply cannot remember what I am now called. In that one case, I simply quickly say, "you used to call me ______" so he/she knows who I am and then remind that person to call me by my name. He/she is usually unable to do that because he/she cannot remember as it's too hard since he/she knew me for too long by another name. As I love that person basically as much as humanely possible, I let it go, but it's only in that ONE case and because I know, without a doubt, that we share a deep bond of respect. Aside from that one person, if anyone were to ever, ever, ever call me by that other name it would be disrespectful and hurtful. Although it is not on that strong of a level, that is similar to how I view "special needs" and official DSM names. I'm more than them just as I am more than who I was.

No one here has to agree or understand with any of that, but it's where I am coming from, which, yup, is not the best place. But then again, I got out :dance: "

THANK YOU!! I cannot even begin to take apart what ofglen wrote and point out how extremely self righteous and patronizing it is. But I will bring up the one part that really stood out to me. Why were there abled speakers at a conference about disabled people?? Are you fucking kidding me?! You are constantly talking about "able-ist" speak and the most offensive shit being spewed here, is from you. Some of the most hard-lined activist for disabled people I know are abled people. It's the parents and the children and the friends of disabled people who get shit done, generally people the disabled person cannot do it themselves bc they're mute (is that still an okay word for you?) or wheelchair bound or are unable to convey their thoughts in a manner than anyone else outside of a therapist or extremely close family member can understand. I have seen teenagers volunteer with extremely disabled people and become very close friends with them to the point where that's what they ended up doing with their lives. They spent their entire summers running special summer camps. They went to college to get degrees to help people in certain fields. They travel two hours one way to help advocate and then plan the building of playgrounds that can accommodate wheelchairs. They have taught me - someone who deals with family members with disabilities - a whole lot. We have traded books on different disabilities with each other. They are great and amazing people. But since these people are completely abled bodies, I'm guessing they aren't allowed to do those things. Bc the girl in the wheel chair who communicates by hitting her forehead on a keypad to spell out the words that turn her thoughts in sentences, should just fucking do it herself right? She shouldn't have any help by someone who isn't disabled themselves. I guess the deaf kids down the street should figure it out for themselves, too huh? The other kids in the neighborhood shouldn't stand up and help other people understand that the girls aren't ignoring them, they just can't hear. No they're not faking; they're identical twins and one is partially deaf while the other is fully deaf, so you just haven't learned to tell them apart yet. But hey, they shouldn't have anyone else standing up for them at all. They should just learn how to talk - bc everyone who is deaf and learns how to speak does it in such a way that absolutely everyone else can understand them - and stand up for themselves dammit.

You seriously need to step off your high horse and STFU.

[LittleOleMe]

At the risk of offending ( I'm sorry) but just because you have a disability of some sort , including autism, does not mean you have the type of developmental disability being discussed here. You are both very articulate people, and most likely would not be given the label "mr" or "Id" or any other similar term. Feel free to correct me. I'm not saying you don't have a disability, and I don't think anyone here is saying disabled is an offensive word. I think we are mainly speaking about people with that specific type of disability which generally correlates with a lower iq and an inability to really speak up for themselves.

At the risk of sounding more snarky than serious, I think she is saying disabled is an offensive word. Certainly seems that way from the way. And apparently those people with lower IQ and an inability to speak up for themselves should just get over and it and figure it out, bc at a conference for disabled people, there should be no abled speakers.

And you're completely right that a developmental disability (which is difference than a developmental delay) is not the same thing as most autistic spectrum disorders. The most severe cases would be I suppose, but that includes people who can't function at all on their own. And obviously no one here is at that level themselves.

[colors_outside15]

At the risk of offending ( I'm sorry) but just because you have a disability of some sort , including autism, does not mean you have the type of developmental disability being discussed here. You are both very articulate people, and most likely would not be given the label "mr" or "Id" or any other similar term. Feel free to correct me. I'm not saying you don't have a disability, and I don't think anyone here is saying disabled is an offensive word. I think we are mainly speaking about people with that specific type of disability which generally correlates with a lower iq and an inability to really speak up for themselves.

I don't find you to be offensive so please don't worry - this is such a safe haven for me and the fact that you apologized in advance says a lot about you. I do not struggle with Autism as you mentioned, but aside from stating that (as I felt it was semi-asked - though their is nothing wrong with being a person who has Autism), I'm not comfortable sharing my exact diagnoses

Let me preface saying what bothered me (I figured I might be asked, but was too fiery last night to be cool headed at all and state my problems clearly) by saying a few of the wonderful realizations I have had on/about FreeJinger. In general, this is what I have gathered from people on this site:

1) Many had difficult childhoods - some escaped from various cults/fundamentalism/etc.

2) 99% of people are as thoughtful as possible and very clearly value education; thus, many are what I would consider to be "highly educated"

3) People want the best for children born into fundamentalism

4) People are supportive of one another

Here is what I found to be EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE about whatever the person is whose name starts with an "O":

1) Talking down to me as if I know absolutely nothing about people who have disabilities and people who identify with that community

2) Giving me quotes to read in an obnoxious way when I have worked my ass off to get an education as that was clearly never going to be supported by my "family". I consider myself to be well read at this point in time and if I wanted a quote, would grab one of my many, many books

3) Stating that many people want to be referred to as disabled. I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to agree with that and frankly, it's just not true. Every person I have met, who has struggles of any sort, wants to be separated from what society would call their problems and recognized for the person who they inherently are rather than a disability/their disability(/ies). If I were to call any of the hundreds of people I know with disabilities "disabled" - they would be hurt. I know many people don't think that's an offensive term and most people I know do not get upset when people, who are typically developing/"normal", use that terminology. However, within the group of people they have let into their whole lives, their private lives, and trusted enough to share their diagnoses -- it's a different story. They do NOT want to be viewed as disabled. They want to be viewed as people, who are just like everyone else, with good qualities and flaws; yet, at the same time, quirky and in need of different tools and resources than others in society. They want to be known as PEOPLE FIRST. I know hundreds of people with disabilities, hundreds of families who have children with exceptionalities, and NONE of those people want to be called a disabled person. Stating that because you are a disabled person, who teaches, and that's how you want to be referred to is absolutely fine. If it's your opinion, and/or all the people who you know, want to be referred to as disabled, that's fine. If someone asked me to do that, I certainly would. However, I think "O", that in trying to be so progressive about having disabilities and owning those words, you have made a blanket statement that others want to own those words. While perhaps owning those terms is helpful to you ... I just :pull-hair: I can't argue with that and won't. As I said, if that's what someone asked me to say, I would, but if I said that, I'd probably lose some friends and in the case of children ... lose jobs.

4) Telling me obnoxiously not to use the term "exceptionalities" as it's "beating around the bush". Using the term exceptionalities raises many people's self-esteems. They would rather be talked about as someone with exceptionalities than as a disabled person or a person with special needs. By switching terminology, people are empowered by this term and families have begun embracing it and loving it - especially families who have young children. When children are young, many parents do not want labels yet -it's why they do not go to psychiatrists. They don't want their three year old labeled and called by that label and not seen for the wonderful qualities their three year old possesses.

5) I AM NOT A DISABLED PERSON. I am a person who has disabilities. I am a person who has had an exceptionally difficult life. I am a person who has been highly traumatized many, many, many times. I am a person who has overcome mountains for decades. I am a person, who has done everything in my power, to heal and to treat what can be treated. Just because I have a laundry list of DSM diagnoses does not mean those are the qualities that define me. I am able to separate myself from my disabilities and I do and that makes me PROUD. I see myself as a whole person and as someone just like everyone else, but I need a little more (medication, testing time, therapy, workbooks, support groups etc etc etc) to live a "normal" life than others and that's okay - it doesn't make me disabled - it makes me different, but then again, everyone has differences.

I do not ever want to be spoken down to especially on a site that is helping me to heal. I do not want quotes shoved in my face as if I do not have any knowledge about not only something that is part of my personal life, but also something that is part of my professional life, and something that is part of almost all of my dear friend's lives. "O", you made me feel like an unread, mindless child in your post. Do you know I was a mindless, brainwashed child? No, you probably didn't, but many people on this forum do know and accept that about me. When you work for YEARS, as I have, to get your mind back, you don't want to be spoken to as if you don't have a brain or aren't educated. You don't want links thrown at you. You want to be supported, cheered on, and acknowledged for all that you are and all that you have accomplished. I do not want people here to call me disabled or to view me as a "cult child". I want to be known for who I am now and treated with dignity and respect. "O" you talk about people with exceptionalities wanting basic human needs. That's what I want too and I feel as if you took that away from me. I hope that's not what you wanted to do, but as you made me cry, I figured I should at least tell you why I found you so offensive in hopes that you will refrain from that in the future. No one on FreeJinger has ever made me feel that way and if they did, I wouldn't be on this site. I love this site and the support it provides. I don't want that to be taken away from me.

[shedemei]

I think it's unrealistic to expect everyone on FJ to know a poster's history and for FJ to be a safe haven for those specific people and their specific issues. It's going to be hard for you to be happy if you expect that.

I totally get the "abled people at a conference for people with disabilities" comment. Isn't it wearying to go a conference and not see enough representation and perspective from the very people the conference is dedicated to? Sometimes people in the majority just need to butt the hell out of places where other voices need to be heard.

[SassyPants]

No one was guaranteed a life free of being offended.

All we can control are our responses (VS reactions).

[Mama Mia]

Using the term exceptionalities raises many people's self-esteems. They would rather be talked about as someone with exceptionalities than as a disabled person or a person with special needs. By switching terminology, people are empowered by this term and families have begun embracing it and loving it - especially families who have young children. When children are young, many parents do not want labels yet -it's why they do not go to psychiatrists. They don't want their three year old labeled and called by that label and not seen for the wonderful qualities their three year old possesses.

I especially agree with this part. I know that the labels really, really negatively impacted my kids who had identified issues. Because people would just see the label and not all the rest of everything that made them who they are. They didn't see the brilliance or the humor or the compassion or any of that. And more importantly, I think it hard for the kids to see it in themselves.

[SassyPants]

However, a "label" issued after a thorough assessment is often required in order to secure needed services and appropriate medical/psychosocial treatment plans.

So, it's really hard.

You need to be identified as handicapped in order to secure the placard...and from the looks of things, MANY people want that placard-well, then you have to accept that label as part of who you are.

You cannot expect the special treatment(s) and then get offended when others' place a label to identify why you are getting the special treatment (s).

[Mama Mia]

However, a "label" issued after a thorough assessment is often required in order to secure needed services and appropriate medical/psychosocial treatment plans.

So, it's really hard.

You need to be identified as handicapped in order to secure the placard...and from the looks of things, MANY people want that placard-well, then you have to accept that label as part of who you are.

You cannot expect the special treatment(s) and then get offended when others' place a label to identify why you are getting the special treatment (s).

Gee, why didn't I think of that! You're right! That super special parking permit TOTALLY means that the first and most important thing that should identify me is that I can't walk. :roll:

Obviously in obtaining " special treatment" you have to have an actual reason, and that reason has to be identified. But what is the big deal in asking that the language used places the condition requiring the accommodation second and the person first? It's just a simple change in terminology and grammar. Why is that so hard? Obviously some people, as Ofglen stated, prefer it the other way around.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

nd I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the "person with exceptionalities" terminology! I had never seen it before,but it make SO much sense. I will try to remember to use it. Although I'm sure it will take time and " special needs" will be my fall back phrase until it becomes habit.

You might be interested to know that in high school (early '70's) I volunteered in a home for special needs children. It was called "The Home for Exceptional Children." I thought then (and I still think) it was an odd choice because exceptional is shorthand for "exceptionally gifted." There was a great deal of confusion surrounding that choice of name.

[txmommyof4]

In the military the EFMP (exceptional family member program) is the catch all program for families with someone having special needs. They have tried to force me into the program for about 10 years for my severely asthmatic 13 y/o but i keep refusing. So yeah, exceptional is definitely a term used for disabilities for some time.

[SassyPants]

Gee, why didn't I think of that! You're right! That super special parking permit TOTALLY means that the first and most important thing that should identify me is that I can't walk. :roll:

Obviously in obtaining " special treatment" you have to have an actual reason, and that reason has to be identified. But what is the big deal in asking that the language used places the condition requiring the accommodation second and the person first? It's just a simple change in terminology and grammar. Why is that so hard? Obviously some people, as Ofglen stated, prefer it the other way around.

IMO, you are looking to be offended, which is YOUR choice.

Carry on.

[Mama Mia]

IMO, you are looking to be offended, which is YOUR choice.

Carry on.

And IMO it's just much easier for you to believe that the world, and what's considered acceptable , doesn't change over time.

Just over the course of my lifetime ( and yours, I believe we are in the same age range) there have been hugely significant changes. Look at the changes in not only terminology but civil rights for a variety of groups of people. Would you have this much difficulty with acknowledging and incorporating requested terminology changes for, example, racial or ethnic identifications?

[happy atheist]

Excuse me, but did the TOU change? I thought the "r" wasn't allowed. No snark, serious question.

!	{TEXT1}:
	In this case "retarded" is being used in a medially accurate way, and so is allowed. That doesn't meant it's a great term, it just doesn't violate TOU. When used as a slur it does violate TOU.

[Rita]

My objection to the parents being away is that they spend so much time espousing being together as a family. They have school together, church together, always have a buddy, do book tours together, even being self-employed so that they can spend more time together. It's that hypocrisy of being a family unit at ALL times, except when the parents then spend enough time away from their children that it is noticed on TV and social media.

[RosyDaisy]

Thanks for the clarification, happy atheist.

Back to Josie's seizures. I wonder if she had a head injury from falling and nobody noticed, or they noticed and she seemed ok. I mean the little ones are quite rowdy. Isn't it true that symptoms of a brain in jury don't manifest immediately after the injury?

[Trynn]

Have we heard anything new? Is Josie ok?

[Jessica]

Reading the title of this thread felt like dropping a brick in my stomach. My 5-year-old had febrile seizures that only lasted just short of 2 minutes and his lips had turned purple! I can't even imagine it going on for 15+ minutes! And I want to punch the snot out of whomever called the camera crew. Seizures are SCARY! And, at least with my son, not pretty to watch--eyes rolling back, drooling all over yourself. How awful for Josie to have this all on film for the entire world to see. This is shameful!

[Cleopatra7]

Have we heard anything new? Is Josie ok?

I'm assuming that Josie is okay since there hasn't been any new information that would suggest otherwise. However this incident suggests that something seriously wrong could be occurring to her on a neurological level, even if she seems fairly robust on camera. I hope that she is getting some kind if help off-camera, but I'm not optimistic. Somehow I think JB and Michelle think that as long as Josie can do one day do basic housework, simple arithmetic, and read at a third grade level then she'll be "normal."