Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Sad -

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    So Sad -

    A new blog post - Only registered and activated users can see links., Click Here To Register...
    Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
    Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com


    #2
    Wow! A fascinating article (the original article you linked to)...I think I will be thinking about that for the rest of the day and then some. On his blog, he commented that now, he feels the parents should be told, but that he would encourage them not to see the child. Horrifying how they 'experiemented' on the child though, with tying off the extra fingers. I do not agree with that at all. He described how the child felt the pain, well duh! I agree with what you said Donna about better communication regarding palliative concerns at birth. I know our experience was horrible and could have been done so differently (and better). One would think there would be protocols in place for such tragic events....ie bring in the social workers and doctors and meet with parents, provide good explanations of prognosis and explore together all options/outcomes. I complain all the time how poor, even now, the communication at the hospital is. It took 2 years for me to get hooked up with the palliative team...and I had called and called and asked. I can't imagine how it is for people who are less persistant. I don't think smothering the infant is right though either...like you said, a very sad situation....

    Lisa O.
    sigpicLisa O: mom to Caitlin (14-CP, VA shunt, seizures), Brandon (12), Tyler (10), Logan (7)...my babies are all getting so old!!

    Comment


      #3
      I am so sorry that your birth experience with Caitlin was so painful and difficult, Lisa. And yes, every hospital should have a palliative team in place ready to meet with parents to assist in making those crucial first medical decisions (and those decisions that come after of course too). So sad for everyone and clearly this doctor is haunted years later.
      Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
      Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

      Comment


        #4
        ((((((Donna & Lisa))))))

        While taking into account that this incident occurred over 50 years ago, an era with which I am familiar, I still find this doctor's attitude disconcerting.

        Although he protests that this baby was not a baby, this baby was a human being. The infant wasn't a cat or a dog, or an alien being, or a monster. The infant had enough brain cells to feel pain, to cry, and to live without nutrition or fluids for several days. The infant was born with human parts, and most likely had a gender, which the doctor doesn't mention.

        The doctor titled his article, "Cyclops Child." CHILD. He also refers to the infant as a child, but generally as "it." Nonetheless, he did recognize that this infant was a "child," a human being, at least in the composition of his telling of the story.

        The doctor sets himself up as the decider of all things ~ whether the parents should be told about their child, how much they should be told, whether they should be prevented from seeing and holding their child, and whether they should be consulted on how the child should be treated or allowed to perish.

        At the end, 5 decades later, the doctor states:

        "I knew then, and I still think now, that the right thing to do would have been to kill that baby. It wasn’t really a baby; it just sounded like a baby—that's what I tell myself. But I would like to stop thinking about it."

        This doctor lost all credibility and every ounce of my sympathy for him, with his final sentences.

        THE RIGHT THING TO DO would have been to inform the parents that their infant child was born with severe deformities and that the child's prognosis was dire with a life expectancy of a few hours to a few days, depending upon what the parents chose for their child.

        The parents should be counseled gently about their baby's deformities, giving the parents the opportunity to see their child or not see their child by THEIR choice, not one made for them by someone who feels it "would be better" for them not to see their child.

        The parents should be advised of available medical procedures to offer sustenance, such as a Gtube or TPN, comfort measures, and the option of removing life support and hastening passage with morphine or any other assistive drugs.

        It is unethical and immoral to prevent these parents from knowing everything about their child, as well as their options, and allowing them to make the choices for their child.

        First, these parents are going to grieve the death of their child for the rest of their lives, whether their child died at birth or a few days later, or even a year later. This is THEIR child, who they awaited, whom the mother carried under her heart, who they loved in utero.

        They have a right to know that their child survived birth, but with severe, life-taking anomalies. They have a right to see, hold, love their child.

        These parents were deprived of those rights, and if they are still living today, they are grieving for that child. I feel certain of that.

        It is up to no one, other than these parents, as to how that child should have been treated, or whether that child should have been killed.

        To this day, the doctor still claims that he would have killed this child. That is the wrong answer, doctor.

        Smothering? That is murder. It doesn't matter what initials you have after your name.

        Who gave this doctor the right to make that decision? First the parents were robbed of their right to know that their child lived, and then he removes their right to know that their child died, and how their child died.

        Medicine is a wonderful thing, and we are all grateful for it. But it can be abused, and doctors can think they are God, and they can, obviously, manipulate any medical situation as they determine suitable.

        Too many physicians are all science and do not see the patient as a whole being. They only see the disease, or the condition, or the test results. Through the years, they lose their impartiality. They become judgmental and think they know it all.

        And then they make statements like, "the right thing to do would have been to kill that baby. It wasn't really a baby."

        Well, "doctor," yes "it" was a baby. And it isn't the dark ages of the 50's and 60's anymore, it's 2012. Time for you to become enlightened.

        It's been 41 years since I gave birth, but I know this: no matter how my child looked, or whether my child was born with 12 eyes and 18 fingers, and only had moments to live, I would want to see him or her and have those moments to love my child. And any doctor or anyone, who prevented me from my right to have those moments, would rue the day.

        And, even though a child was born 50 years ago with anomalies he can only describe as monstrous, and the child's parents were never told the truth about their child, and they have grieved without knowing the truth, perhaps lost other infants to the same condition, if it's genetic, and he still thinks that murdering the child was okay, it all comes back to the poor doctor. At the end, it's all about him and that he would like to stop thinking about it.

        My approach to life is to combat a negative with a positive, because that is the essence of life. This doctor could have devoted his life to the study of birth abnormalities, or how to counsel grieving parents, or parents of newborns with medical issues, or children with terminal illnesses. But he didn't.

        If you want advice on sexual matters, evidently, he's your guy, based on my perusal of his website.

        So, his sad refrain that he'd like to stop thinking about the infant he dubbed "Cyclops Child" brings it all down to how he has suffered with this for 50 years. The man has learned NOTHING!

        Forgive me for ranting and raving! I vividly recall many occasions, when doctors treated me like I didn't exist and my viewpoint was extraneous to their opinion of my sons. I know how intimidating and egotistic doctors can become, as I am a walking victim of dozens of them.

        And he can moan all he wants about how hard this was on him, while still believing that murdering the child was the right thing to do, without any regard to what that child's parents endured and still endure. It isn't about him. Never was.

        If that child could feel pain, then I'm sure that he could feel love. But he was left isolated, out of view of other parents, but in view of nurses, who listened to him cry, but couldn't/wouldn't help him. He was starving, and they could have stopped that pain, easily. Most of all, he was deprived of his parents and their loving, caring touch. No one should die this way.

        So terribly sad and tragic on so many levels ~

        I pray that lessons are learned from this story for all parents. Don't let anyone else decide for you.

        Love & Light,

        Rose
        Mom to Jon, 49, & Michael, 32, born with an undiagnosed progressive neuromuscular disease. Angel Michael received his wings in 2003. Angel Jon received his wings in 2019. In 2020, Jim, their Dad, joined them.

        Comment


          #5
          Agree. Agree. Agree. But things will not change until there is an common understanding that the bond between new parents and baby is inalienable and you are right - there is no such a thing as 'it'. All are equal because all are the objects of their parents' love (or the potential of it). Eva Kittay commented on the blog post and I wrote back as well - after thinking about the ethics, I think that even if the parents recoiled from their baby, a staff member then should have stepped in to cradle the baby in order to demonstrate his dignity as a human being (by giving him comfort). What is lacking in this doctor's view is LOVE. Love has too often and too long been left out of clinical decisions but this is the doctor's grave error and he still feels the pain of behaving unethically 50 years later (as he should). The loving bonds between babies and parents, between any vulnerable charge and ourselves have been considered out of place in a clinical conversation. This is the great error that dehumanizes and degrades all of us.
          Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
          Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

          Comment


            #6
            Amen, Donna.

            But I'm not convinced that this doctor feels the pain of behaving unethically 50 years ago, when he states that he still thinks that killing the baby was the right thing to do. This doctor is a psychiatrist. He should understand the importance of love, of the connection between parents and baby, of proper approaches to this situation by all hospital professionals, of counseling for the couple, of recognizing the humanity of the baby and the baby's right to dignity. And, as I said, he could have turned that negative into a positive in a variety of ways in his profession as a psychiatrist.

            Love must be part of any clinical conversation, but I've often experienced a lack of consideration of the love my children and I share among medical practitioners. Now, we are blessed to be respected by the medical professionals for our love for our children. This was a long time coming, and I only pray that we are teaching them to treat all families with the same appreciation. They do to the greatest extent, I feel.

            Whew! This topic really got me ramped up! I'll go check your blog for Eva Kittay's and your comments.

            Thanks for continually challenging my brain, Donna.

            Love & Light,

            Rose
            Mom to Jon, 49, & Michael, 32, born with an undiagnosed progressive neuromuscular disease. Angel Michael received his wings in 2003. Angel Jon received his wings in 2019. In 2020, Jim, their Dad, joined them.

            Comment


              #7
              Hi!

              Yes, love the topics that make me think...what would I do?...challenging my brain... I do feel a bit sorry for the doctor, if you remember in the article, he was only an intern for that situation so it was the attending (or whatever the heirarchy was) who made the decisions. I don't think he had any power to change anything. One would think that would shape his views even more towards a more correct way to handle difficult situations like that though. Hard to say! It still bothers me how they made him tie the extra fingers...why cause the baby pain when it was dying anyway? Sucks how the intern felt unable to speak up against the main doctor. I am sure those attitudes persist today.

              Lisa O.

              ps, I only use 'it' as they didn't say which gender
              sigpicLisa O: mom to Caitlin (14-CP, VA shunt, seizures), Brandon (12), Tyler (10), Logan (7)...my babies are all getting so old!!

              Comment


                #8
                Hi guys, this story is just so sad in so many ways, as we have all said. I mourn this sweet baby and I'm so sorry for the pain inflicted upon him/her and the awful neglect. It breaks my heart. Our voices together talking about our love for our beautiful children will hopefully nudge public prejudices toward a kinder direction.
                Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
                Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

                Comment


                  #9
                  ((((((Lisa))))))

                  Yes, I would imagine that the same attitude persists today toward interns and their superiors.

                  To me, there are many ways that this doctor, as an intern, could have responded then, without annoying his superiors. He could have covertly attended to the baby, held and comforted the baby, etc. And I can think of a dozen ways or more that he could have directed his career to embrace this experience into his practice as a physician.

                  I just don't see where or how this doctor learned anything from this experience. And that is sad too.

                  ((((((Donna))))))

                  Yes, it is so important that our children are seen, heard, and respected as the beautiful individuals, which they are.

                  And you are so right that if the parents couldn't cope with their child's condition, then someone in that hospital should have been assigned to care lovingly for the baby, until the baby passed. Our hospital is fortunate to have volunteers, mostly senior Grandma ladies, who sit in the NICU with the babies, feed them, hold and cuddle them, love them. And God bless those dear ladies, who probably do not balk at any deformities or abnormalities, because their hearts are filled with love.

                  As a society, we should be judged by how we treat those who are less fortunate, those who are vulnerable.

                  "The Least Among You ~ They Are the Greatest."

                  Amen.

                  Love & Light,

                  Rose
                  Mom to Jon, 49, & Michael, 32, born with an undiagnosed progressive neuromuscular disease. Angel Michael received his wings in 2003. Angel Jon received his wings in 2019. In 2020, Jim, their Dad, joined them.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Rose, do you think our young people today feel the same compulsion to nurture babies who need to be held or to comfort those less fortunate? Are these values still prevalent? And where were those values in the generation of the doctor who wrote the article about the Cyclops Child? Do you think only women held these values of compassion acted upon in daily life (silently, unpaid) in his generation? Lisa? Any ideas about these questions?
                    Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
                    Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think it might be easier in today's world...we can google cyclops child to be able to see what the condition really looks like. (I admit it, I did) A person would be able to prepare for seeing the condition in 'real life'...to get over the shock of it and be able to provide comfort. I don't think it would be a surprise today like it was at the birth back then...they would see the deformity on the 18 wk ultrasound. Hopefully at that point, doctors/nurse/social workers would discuss things over together with the family and everyone would be prepared instead of the doctor in charge making a splitsecond decision to lie at time of birth. It's been my observation that women seem to have the values of compassion more often than men. I always think about that when I am at the hospital-how many more moms I see vs dads. I know for sure in my own home, the caregiving is mostly done by me. Though Brian does a lot with the boys. I always wonder if Caitlin were a boy, would he do more stuff with her or would it still be me? I think there are young people out there that are very compassionate...I am lucky Brian's sister has a special bond with Caitlin. Nothing bothers her at all! She sees the child not the medical condition. Even when C was in her hip surgery frame, she was over here helping lift and entertain C. And his brother's wife volunteers and spends time with a boy with downs syndrome. can't think of any male caregiving examples in my life...I remember when Brian's grandma was in a nursing home it seemed like his mom & aunt were always there and the uncles were not. Anyway, I would hope that in today's world, if such a baby were born and had decision made not to treat, that there would be protocol in place to do comfort care....like Donna suggested, the volunteer baby holders, etc. Especially since nowadays, it would not be a surprise at birth. I think that doctor in the article had to think of the baby as not human to justify how poorly they all treated the baby....and that was wrong.

                      Lisa O.
                      sigpicLisa O: mom to Caitlin (14-CP, VA shunt, seizures), Brandon (12), Tyler (10), Logan (7)...my babies are all getting so old!!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Lisa, yes, sigh. You are right about men, women, today's medicine vs years ago. Some things have changed and some haven't. Clinical medicine is still essentially a male domain and only infrequently do you see 'love' or 'emotion' or 'real caring' in medical discussions when its taken into account as a real factor in healing, not a token nod to family who cannot be relied upon to be dispassionate in decision-making.
                        Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
                        Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

                        Comment


                          #13
                          ((((((Donna))))))

                          Do young people today have the nurturing instinct? Yes, but generally, I see a lot of detachment and selfishness among today's youth. Bullying is a very big problem in our schools. Communication is limited to texting, using abbreviations rather than words (which is ruining our language, I think), and young people are connected to some kind of technological device every waking moment. The computer games, which I see advertised on TV, are terribly violent and war glorifying. Not good stuff for our future generations.

                          Due to funding cuts, our educational system is suffering dreadfully. So we aren't producing thoughtful adults. The world is so messed up, but everything is easy for today's youth, because they don't have to think.

                          When I was a teenager, I unofficially assumed the role of caretaker for a young man in our church group, who was a couple of years older than we were. He and all three of his siblings were born with DD. Two of his siblings died very young, and he was the oldest child. His father was our Asst. Pastor.

                          I kept track of this young man on all of our church outings, during our meetings, and any church gathering. It just happened to turn out that way. I didn't volunteer. And I became a tad bit resentful as I got older that I was missing out on the fun of just being a teen in the group. I couldn't let loose on my own, because I had to keep an eye on him. So, I shared that with our adult group leaders and asked them to take some of that responsibility off of my shoulders. They did, and apologized for taking me for granted, but I still couldn't stop feeling responsible for this young man.

                          Years later, Michael transferred to another County program, and this young man, now middle-aged, worked at the school as a volunteer. He remembered me, and he followed me whenever I was at the school for Michael, chatting up a storm and asking me to marry him.

                          Do young people today do these same things? Well, my neighbor's daughter does. She started her careproviding when she was only 10, looking after the smaller children in our neighborhood during our get togethers. As a teen, she started an accelerated nursing program, and she continues now to pursue nursing. She cares for a 90 year old woman, who lives in her own home, and she works at a convalescent hospital, whose patients are primarily elderly. She helped her grandmother care for her dying grandfather, and now she and her parents live with her grandmother and are there to care for her.

                          When I think about the Volunteer Grannies in our NICU, I realize that they've had a life time of experience to build up all of the love they have to give these wee ones. Maybe they were like me and my neighbor's daughter, who had that caregiving bent at an early age, or maybe they acquired it through their years of loving their children and grandchildren. However they got it, they give it back tenfold.

                          When you ask where were the values 50 years ago that allowed this child to suffer and his parents to be deprived of information, I don't have an answer. Medicine was rather secretive then.

                          People actually whispered the word, "Cancer," as if saying it was like cursing or the death rattle. Mental illness was treated with shock therapy and lobotomies. Women were having hysterectomies, like they were going out of style. And valium and its other friends (Milltown, Darvon) were being doled out like candy to housewives.

                          No one dared question a doctor. Doctors were revered and treated like demi-gods. The doctors began to believe their "press," if you will. They embraced that power, so they could get away with telling you that your baby died, and that it is best if you don't see "it," and a couple would accept that as truth. People were not informed at all about health issues, and they did not even contemplate disputing a doctor's orders.

                          On the gender questions ~

                          I am seeing more female doctors cropping up in our hospital. Young, enthusiastic women, with intelligence and compassion. I like that.

                          We also have more male nurses now, which is also good.

                          Many nurses have commented to me and Jim about how unusual it is to see the Dad visiting, let alone spending the night at bedside and advocating for his son. Jim is there every night until morning for Jon in the hospital, then comes home, so that I can spend the day/evening with Jon.

                          But I don't fault men, who aren't more nurturing, either, because that's generally not their role. And many men, when they are thrust into a nurturing situation, are uncomfortable, because they feel like they are out of their element. They want to fix it. They can't, and they may not have been guided in how to express their emotions. It's quite frustrating, I would imagine.

                          We cry. Men, not so much, because they think that's a sign of weakness.

                          Ouch! My thought process hurts! That's enough for now! Especially since I've been writing this in spurts for awhile, and it might not make a lot of sense. But I hope you get my drift ~

                          Love & Light,

                          Rose
                          Mom to Jon, 49, & Michael, 32, born with an undiagnosed progressive neuromuscular disease. Angel Michael received his wings in 2003. Angel Jon received his wings in 2019. In 2020, Jim, their Dad, joined them.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Of course I get your drift, Rose, you are as eloquent as always and I agree with ALL you say!!! Funny you should mention the gender issue, it's the subject of my new blog post. I would love to know about what you think - I believe that caregiving is still principally a women's issue and that we are at risk of being exploited. But what is our role in speaking up for ourselves as you did in the youth group? Who will take up the slack in caring? I think we just need get a lot better at sharing the care in a network. It's so tricky!
                            Donna, Mum to Natalie (22), ablebodied, kind and beautiful and Nicholas(26), severe CP, non-verbal, tube fed, multiple surgeries, chronic pain, happy kid except when the Liverpool football club or the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team are losing!
                            Check out my blog: http://www.donnathomson.com

                            Comment


                              #15
                              ((((((Donna))))))

                              I Googled The Cyclops Child, just to get a flavor of what is being said about the article around the internet. Here's a sample of what I've found:

                              Dr. Neuman's addendum to his article ~ a response to readers' comments:

                              Only registered and activated users can see links., Click Here To Register...


                              Mom of child with autism gives her opinion of The Cyclops Child article:

                              Only registered and activated users can see links., Click Here To Register...

                              (Plus 250 comments)


                              Article in The Atlantic about Cyclops Child by an M.D., who is critical of Dr. Neuman:

                              Only registered and activated users can see links., Click Here To Register...


                              It appears that Dr. Neuman doesn't have a lot of fans. If he was seeking absolution by writing this article, he failed miserably. And he still maintains at the end of his addendum that he would like to stop thinking about it. So, again, it becomes "all about Dr. Neuman."

                              He defends calling the child a monster, because that was an acceptable term used at that time. He still maintains confusion over whether the child was a human being and deserved respect and dignity.

                              Dr. Neuman states that the mother might have been "crippled" by seeing her infant. That was her decision to make. She should have been told about her child's condition, gently and compassionately, then asked what she wanted to do. She could have chosen not to see her baby, and that was her choice to make, but an arrogant doctor deprived her of that right.

                              Dr. Neuman's argument that the child could not be fed may be inaccurate. Surgically placed feeding tubes started in the mid to late 1800's. So, they definitely existed in 1960. It couldn't have been placed endoscopically for this child, if they even had that capability then, but a method most likely existed to insert a feeding tube at that time. For hydration, the child could have been hooked up to a saline drip IV. For that matter, the child's mother could have pumped milk, and it could have been put into an IV bag and fed that way. Or, if not the child's mother, then a wet nurse could have provided that nutrition.

                              I'm not talking about life sustaining measures for this child, who obviously couldn't survive into childhood. I'm talking about comfort measures to prevent the pain of dehydration and starvation.

                              The infant lived for 13 days. Thirteen days of pain and isolation. I am dubious of this doctor's claim that he held the baby every day for 13 days. If he had done so, he certainly would have developed some kind of affection for the child. How do you cradle an infant, even an infant whom he disregarded as an infant, for 13 days and not feel a bond? Dr. Neuman doesn't describe those feelings at all in his recounting of this child.

                              If his purpose was to begin a discussion about ethics, then he succeeded; however, the ethics we're discussing are the ones that he still seems to lack.

                              What kind of psychiatrist doesn't realize that every mother, who loses her child, is devastated permanently by that loss (his word: crippled ~ another archaic term)? The child's age doesn't matter, nor does the child's illness or the reason for the child's death.

                              As a psychiatrist, Dr. Neuman should understand that the truth is what every parent wants, however painful the truth is, because lies compound the questions and the turmoil surrounding their loss.

                              And, imagine this ~ You are the parents of this child, and you are still alive (your age is late 60's or early '70's). You are surfing the internet, and by some odd circumstance you land on this story. You think back to the time your child was still born at St. Vincent's hospital in New York. You realize that this infant is your child.

                              What if you had a funeral for your infant? If your child lived for 13 days, then whose child did you bury only a few days after you gave birth?

                              What if you'd also had several miscarriages, and perhaps another "still born" child?

                              I can think of more scenarios, but even if this couple continued on with a normal, typical, fairly contented life, their anger would be justified to find out that they had been deceived about their child.

                              I know what I would do. I would retain a fantastic lawyer, then I would sue whomever I could sue, directly or vicariously. With the money from the lawsuits, I would establish a foundation to protect the rights of parents and send lobbyists on their behalf to persuade our legislators to establish a specific moral and ethical protocol for physicians and medical staff to follow in the case of an abnormal birth.

                              Do we have the right to dictate how physicians and medical personnel respond to our crises? I think so, since we are the reason why they are employed and thus paid. And, they have taken an oath to "first, do no harm," and we have a right to expect them to keep that oath.

                              Can we legislate and regulate the medical care industry with regard to situations, such as these? Given the number of malpractice lawsuits filed annually, I'm thinking we can.

                              In 2012, a mother can tell a court and jury, "the doctor told me my baby was dead, and that it was better for me not to see my baby. When I demanded to see my baby, he asked me to trust him, and he refused to let me see my baby. I don't even know what they did with my baby, because I was discharged from the hospital, and not allowed to go to the nursery." I feel fairly certain that she would win her lawsuit.

                              I'm not a litigious person, but most of the time, the only way that things change is through laws. A case like this one could be precedent-setting and lead to stricter oversight of life and death decisions for everyone, regardless of their age.

                              Of course, the odds of the parents of this child reading this article and recognizing that it is about their child are pretty remote, I suppose. But not impossible.

                              Donna ~ please post about your new blog entry so we can discuss it in a new thread! Thanks!

                              Love & Light,

                              Rose
                              Mom to Jon, 49, & Michael, 32, born with an undiagnosed progressive neuromuscular disease. Angel Michael received his wings in 2003. Angel Jon received his wings in 2019. In 2020, Jim, their Dad, joined them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X