In all seriousness, Nora should just tell Clint about the kiss. It was just a kiss and just once.I actually for some reason like Bo and Nora together. I don't blame Matthew for being angry. Think about it, he was tricked and he was lied to and taken away from all his friends and his enviornment. He really had his hopes up to walking again and in an instint his parents take it all away from him.

It is sort of a crappy thing to say that being in a wheelchair is worse than death I agree. It's probably just the anger talking. He has a good chance of walking again  and his parents just took that away, I think most people in his situation given the opportunity would take it.

My two cents on it.

Edward--it is easy for me, as a somewhat fully functioning adult, to say "Oh, Matthew, being in a wheelchair isn't that bad--it's not like you are dead, or anything."  And I can see Bo and Nora being terrified that something will go wrong.  As a parent, you are always terrified something might go wrong, and it doesn't even have to be surgery.  That said, Bo and Nora saying to hell with what the court said--you spent all that money for nothing because we are going to do what we want to anyway, is wrong on so many levels.  Why can't the PSA ever be about faith?

I'm sorry, but if you are not willing to make sacrifices for your child, you shouldn't have one.

Replies: (list all replies)

I'm at a loss because it just seems like a no-win situation. How could you have faith in someone who has only performed the surgery two times and both were failures? I can say OK, go ahead and have the surgery, while I'd be dying inside knowing I may have just sent my child to his death. And if he did die, I'd want to kill myself. Can't anyone here at least give Bo and Nora a break because they're just terrified of losing their son? Everyone here acts like they're doing something deliberately evil. (Edward)

I give them a break, do I count? apparently, none of us have experienced what it's like to be confined to a wheelchair, but as someone who does live with a disability (and I do dislike having to adopt the word) life does go on. it certainly isn't the same, and it has taken time to adjust to-my sight started going about eight years ago and there is very little left (it isn't functional/useful in any way that would make sense to most people with normal vision) and no doubt I have more adapting/acceptance to deal with. One thing I know for sure, thoug, it that, as much as I'd like even SOME of my vision restore--it isn't worth taking anything other than low level risks to regain. I went to a college that had a fair number of physically disabled students and when I first went there, I thought 'I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair.' About a year later, when I got to know some of them, I found out that they were thinking that they'd rather be dead than be blind or visually impaired. That was very (forgive the pun) eye opening to me. vh

vh: ICAM! But that is a big reason why I wish TPTB had taken a different direction w/this story & show Matthew coming to terms w/his life's 'new normal', rather than waiting for this magical 'cure' to restore his life. I'd have much rather seen him finding out that there are people living full, productive lives in chairs & w/other 'disabilities', instead of perpetuating this myth that everyone in a chair (or w/any disability) is SO limited in their lives. If, in a year or two, the injury hadn't healed on its own THEN there could have been a discussion about surgery. Then Matthew could have reflected on how ignorant & fearful he was going into this & how much he had grown in that year. But TPTB chose the low road, yet again. eom

---

Posted by: cgeminime2
Date posted: Wed Oct 21 15:45:00 2009
Message:
Personally, I think it is ridiculous for everyone to believe that Matthew would embrace being in a wheelchair. It has not even been a year since his accident. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that a very high majority of wheelchair bound victims, who were injured in the past year or two would choose this surgery if given the opportunity.

Replies: (list all replies)

There's a big difference between not embracing and equating it with death. Maybe Bo and Nora are being overprotective, but I just don't get why what they're doing is evil or makes them horrible parents. I would be terrified to let my child (yes, Matthew is very, very much a child, not near an adult) undergo a very risky surgical procedure that could end up killing him. (Edward)

Matthew is still in his initial stages of grief and I believe it is perfectly normal for him to equate being in a wheelchair as a fate worse than death (especially as an athlete). cgem eom

Matthew feels its a fate worst than death and thats all that counts. Bo and Nora have no defense. They don't want him to die. Okay? So whats next. What if Matthew wanted to make a cross-country trip in his wheelchair for some sort of charity. Do they say no to that because its dangerous. Supposed he wanted to sky dive. Do they say no to that. What if he wants to do target shooting and go hunting? Is that a big fat no because he may die. The two are being unfair and forcing Matthew to live the life they want him to live.

---

Posted by: Rhonda
Date posted: Wed Oct 21 15:18:24 2009
Message:

Well, he would've had the "damned surgery" by now if his parents hadn't put their fears above the needs of their son and the rule of law to which they supposedly have dedicated their lives. I'm behind Matthew 100%. If I were him I'd never trust my parents again. I'm sure Bo remembers how it felt when Norah betrayed him with Sam "for his own good." It destroyed their marriage and the relationship has never been the same since. And it never will be.

Replies: (list all replies)

If Matthew turns against his parents, even after he got the surgery and regained the use of his legs, that would just make him evil. I don't get the overall demonizing of Bo and Nora for being terrified of losing their son. (Edward)

Its one thing being terrified of losing your son, its another thing to make your son terrified of you. These two have gone overboard and if they can't see that, they don't deserve to be parents. Just because you're terrified about something doesn't mean you have to act on it. The only reason they didn't want that child to have the surgery was because they didn't like the doctor's overly confident attitude. I say what the heck is wrong with a doctor with confidence.

Confidence is one thing. Arrogance is another. The surgeon who did my unnecessary surgery told me that 'if you don't have it you will be dead in 5-6 yrs'. Five to six yrs later I found out, from another surgeon, that the 'necessary' surgery was actually about as unnecessary as you could get! A surgeon shouldn't have a problem w/the patient getting one or two second opinions. I'm not for scaring a child, but at 15 you are old enough to have most of the facts & even be part of the decision making process. eom

---

Posted by: Wanda Wolek
Date posted: Wed Oct 21 14:51:53 2009
Message:

IA that Matthew likening being in a wheelchair as worse than death is rather disturbing.  I understand that it's part of the grieving process - anger and depression - and I originally felt that his attitude was proof he wasn't thinking clearly or maturely about the surgery.

However, the court ruled in his favor and Matthew didn't just seek out "any hack" to do the surgery, but the doctor Greg Evans recommended.  He wants the surgery.  He's been consistent about that.  Bo and Nora are dead wrong with what they are doing now, and it's bringing all of Matthew's anger toward the forefront.  I just hope that the writers don't sweep this horrendous parental betrayal of trust under the rug after this storyline is resolved and Matthew has the surgery.  I want to see Matthew refuse to live with either parent - wouldn't it be a hoot if he moved in with David? - and pretty much cut them out of his life for a while.  Would I want that in RL?  No, I'd want the family to get therapy.  But this is a soap and that kind of family break is what drives story for years.

Replies: (list all replies)

But the doctor that Dr. Evans recommended has only done the procedure two times and neither was deemed successful. Neither patient started walking again. Who's Matthew going to blame when it doesn't work for him, if he survives it? (Edward)

Maybe Matthew won't blame anyone. Maybe he would finally be able to come to terms with his disability. But Bo and Nora took away his ability to find that out. I understand they are frightened, but that doesn' justify what they did. As lurdane put it, if Bo and Nora did that to me, they should hope I would react like Matthew. This is really about more than the surgery; this is about a child growing up and having the right to make decisions for themselves. Bo and Nora not only took away Matthew's chance for the operation, they took away his autonomy. They could have handled it so much better. Right after they lost the court case and found out Greg wouldn't do the surgery, they should have sat down with Matthew and stratigized but instead they just did an internal happy dance. Wanda

I agree. Maybe he won't blame anyone. Maybe he will feel great that he took a chance and that his parents allowed him to feel like a human being instead of their possession.

But Matthew is already blaming others. Without serious assistance from some professionals prior to the surgery, he is just going to be playing the blame game again after the surgery--wither way it goes. Surgery isn't going to fix his real problems, some serious therapy on the other hand...

---

Posted by: Miss.Bear
Date posted: Wed Oct 21 14:12:41 2009
Message:

He's not all bad. Remember he defended the joint to antidrug Bo and Nora? I'm not going to get on Matthew's case he's cool in my book.

Now, Jack and Shane different story.

---

---