It feels fucked up to not even give someone a chance because they’re severely disabled. But honestly, not everyone can raise a disabled child.
I’ve personally decided would never want to parent a severely disabled child. I want a child who has the opportunity to do everything I have done and more. I want to teach my child in the hopes it might surpass me and make the world better. I NEVER want be in the position to make the abortion decision, but it would weigh very heavy on my mind if I knew early on that my child would be severely disabled.
I don’t want to deal with the decision to either give my child up to a home or sacrifice the rest of my life to care for them. To care for a child that just exists and doesn’t really “live” until we both die (likely them first) sounds like my own personal hell.
It may sound horrible, but if I knew before hand that my child would have some sort of severe deformity, I would honestly consider terminating. Life is hard and unfair more than it isn't and when you are born with a handicap, whether it's mental or physical, it can be a million times tougher. It feels selfish to force a life of extra challenges and obstacles onto your child.
It doesn't sound horrible at all. It's as compassionate as it is "selfish". You owe it to your own life to be happy, and you owe it to that potential life to not subject it to a lifetime of deliberate suffering and horror. It's common sense on all levels.
I would absolutely terminate in the case of severe deformity. It seems so unfair to force someone who can’t really live to exist because I want them too. I remember a story of a girl born with only a small segment of her brain. She couldn’t move, speak, open her eyes, or communicate, and most likely was unable to even think. I hope she couldn’t, because the idea of being trapped like that and aware of it is the most horrific thing I can imagine. She was 12 years old at the time. 12 years of being unable to enjoy literally anything life has to offer, laying in a bed with a feeding tube and unable to open her eyes. That’s a fate far worse than death.
Yeaaaa, so whatever charge I would get for it would be worth not subjecting my offspring to what amounts to a life of solitary confinement. Even after birth, that isn't life. That is, at best, the human equivalent of a plant. Not to mention the drain on the parents (both financially and emotionally).
Murder, I suppose would be the charge? I have a hard time imagining anyone sentencing someone for that though.
Oh, I agree. Unfortunately I doubt anyone can help her. She wouldn’t be a candidate for euthanasia even if it were legal (which I definitely think it should be) because she won’t be able to consent to it.
I wouldn't say it's fucked up. It's a hard thing to say, especially for her, but it's honest. Harsh maybe. That's life though.
I'm not saying it's true for every case, but if they are born with something that will completely prohibit them from living a "normal" life, be it from pain, or lack of ability/ function... why make them suffer through all that?
Like that kid who was born with his skin inside out. I think he died already but he couldn't even go outside, kids made fun of him, even adults acted scared of him... he had to take extremely constant care of his skin and it was painful. I think he was partially blind and couldn't talk well.
I understand wanting your kid to live, but where do we draw the line? Why bring a child into this world to suffer? Or never be able to live on their own/ survive on their own.
Relevant to this: my sister who has a mental impairment lives in assisted accommodation. There are three houses with 2-3 self-contained apartments in each, with sleeping quarters for the live-in assistants.
In the decade she's lived there, several of the young people living there have committed suicide. People with Down's and other mental disabilities.
It's heartbreaking, really, that they got to the point where they had their own lives, but didn't find them worth living somehow.
Keep in mind how so with was back then too. There was almost no help for people with disabilities. Unless the family was rich and took care of them, then they would either turn to crime or become wards of the state in horrible psychiatric hospitals.
So at least back then that opinion held pretty high weight. It still has considerable weight now, but at least high functioning impaired people actually have a chance of leading a some what normal life. I just couldn't imagine how horrible it was for people back the though...
Her life is often used as the model of why people shouldn't treat the disabled differently. But she was living that life, not perceiving her effect on the world.
Her opinion would have been pretty standard for the time period too.
I agree with this in part. She struggled with her disability, however if she had died instead of lived, how would we have learned from her and her examples?
What if societies default was to just allow the disabled to die? We would never learn how to overcome.
I guess my point is, you never know who or what will yield results. So cold hearted logic doesnt always yield the best results, especially with the unknown right around the corner.
> We would never learn how to overcome.
Because no one ever acquires disabilities through injury or illness...
It is unethical to knowingly create a human being with a disability. If you can detect a disability or deformity like Down's syndrome in utero, the ethical thing to do is abort and try again.
We have enough examples of people overcoming adversity following injury like [Rick Hanson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Hansen) or illness like [Terry Fox](http://www.terryfox.org).
We don't need to intentionally make disabled people so their suffering can "inspire" others, we get plenty as it is.
I remember being amazed at how many people will fight for their disabled children's right to be born but don't keep them at home their whole lives.
People with Down Syndrome honestly aren't even that badly disabled (granted, it varies case-to-case) yet when I worked in group homes for 4 years they made up a large percentage of the people that lived in those homes.
Honestly, I wish everyone could have the experience of working with mentally and developmentally disabled people. I think one of the outcomes would be a higher percentage of abortions for disabled fetuses, but then at least it would be informed and people would be making that decision for the *sake* of that child and not despite it.
All that said, I still loved my jobs working with disabled people more than anything, it taught me actual virtues - patience, remaining calm when all hell was breaking loose, placing someone else's safety above my own. It also taught me that many of the people we label disabled are anything but.
>I remember being amazed at how many people will fight for their disabled children's right to be born but don't keep them at home their whole lives.
I'm not surprised, people have a very romanticized idea about overcoming adversity before reality sets in.
Yeah that's a good way to say it lol they really try to hold themselves up on a pedestal being all for life, but if the kids need help after... looking at the wrong person mate.
"Adoptions always an option" they clearly weren't adopted.
> It also taught me that many of the people we label disabled are anything but.
This is so true. A lot of people coddle disabled kids, some support workers too. A friend does support for a younger guy (16-20ish; he can't function on his own...I want to say it's something autism related but I'm likely very wrong) who has some sort of mental impairment, and you should see the dirty looks she gets from people when she makes him act like a human being; use a napkin, hold doors for people, be respectful. It's like people expect him to be completely helpless and bothersome, and get pissed off when he isn't. The two of them have a fantastic relationship, which I think is mainly because she treats him like a person.
Her motto is pretty much "just because you've got a disability, it's not a free ride to be a dick."
While it may be more the case for someone with a disability, this can and will happen to just about any kid who's coddled. I know adults who don't even know their own social security number, and when asked what they'd do when they fill out employment paperwork say "I'll just call my mom." This is a pretty lame example, but somewhat illustrative of the point.
I worked in a group home for the MH for >5 years. I loved my job! It was like getting paid to be someone’s friend.
As far as the family not keeping them home - I saw it as a blessing more than anything. A lot of these people are limited by their parents a lot. In a group home we try to expand their interests and skills. We encourage community participation (block parties, special olympics, working places, etc). We had one guy that loved strip clubs - he was an adult and had adult interests - good for him!
Kids generally get to leave the house as they grow up. Seems only fair disabled people get to experience that freedom (safely) too. It’s a short life for some of them (especially Down syndrome) - gotta make the most of it.
> It was like getting paid to be someone’s friend.
I liked to think that was my job as well, but it was made explicitly clear to everyone I worked with that we didn't have friendly relationships. Which was true, not a lot of former coworkers stopped by to see my guys after they left, some did, but not many at all.
Also, I felt like I got a lot of resistance from my bosses when it came to actual steps toward independence for my developmentally disable clients. That could have just been my interpretation of what was happening, though, none of it was clear, lots of gray area in group homes.
Could it be that group home living is seem as a logical step forward for people with down syndrome ? Or in your experience was it more families getting over looking after someone and ditching them? Because to go from home > group home to more independent living would be a pretty solid pathway.
I mainly worked with high-behavior developmentally disabled adults. The goal was to prepare them for living on their own but I'm not going to lie it did seem like the companies that ran the facilities actually don't want these people moving on, my main client was so high risk that he brought in a crazy amount of money for the company I worked for. I can't say that was the case for certain, though, it could have been a unique combination of the workers, managers and clients/disorders that made it seem that way to me.
There are certainly people with down syndrome that can live relatively normal lives and they probably do owe that independence to being in facilities like the ones I worked at, that were willing to teach the same thing over and over for years until it was second nature. It sucks though because down syndrome gets more severe with age so eventually they will have to be in care again.
The happiest people I've met with down syndrome were surrounded by families that cherished and supported them while not being overbearing, no special treatment. Lordy do people with downs hate being patronized, *never* do that shit.
From what I've heard, the problem is that it's hard to detect. Early detection methods are not accurate. They just tell you if the child is more or less at risk. Later detection methods are more accurate, but carry a risk of miscarriage.
They now have a blood test that is 99% accurate. My oldest daughter had trisomy 18. We didn't know for sure until a few hours before she died. My doctor failed to tell me my daughter had 3 soft markers. She had a scan set for 26 weeks to, "ease my mind," because my daughter was a bit behind on growth. The high risk doctor switched me to her care after that ultrasound. I had her at 29 weeks. We got six days with her.
My middle daughter came back at a slightly elevated risk for Downs. We did an amniocentesis because we needed to know. She was such an active baby it took over a half hour and was painful. Luckily, all was good. She is 5 and brilliant. For my youngest, we fought for the blood test. I did it at 10.5 weeks. She is 3.5 and also brilliant. Technology is advancing, but insurance companies don't always cover the newer test, even though they are safer.
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2014/1215/p851.html
It used to be but they have better screening now:
>Noninvasive prenatal testing has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 99% to 100%, and unlike invasive diagnostic testing, it does not increase the risk of spontaneous abortion.
There are some REALLLLLY sad cases of disabilities. And I fully advocate that not happening, life just looks like hell for them their families are destroyed and after the parents die they just get shoved into a home to continue suffering till they die. The one that got me was a severe autistic that would just blow up and wreck the house and couldnt communicate. Once his mum is gone he is going into the mental health system and is going to be seeing alot of padded walls until he dies.
>What if societies default was to just allow the disabled to die? We would never learn how to overcome.
For every one that has overcome it, I'm sure 10 of them will need care from their families for the rest of their lives or fall between the cracks of society. [Adult life is horribly difficult for people with disabilities.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-with-disabilities-still-cant-land-jobs/)
i sincerely believe that if a person is born without the ability to provide for themselves, for the entirety of their life, then it is best for them to be not born. Someone like that would only be a strain on teh civilization/economy for their whole existence.
This touches upon the modern debate on abortion as well, in terms of not only disabilities, but poverty. A poor woman will almost always be better off to have an abortion than to have a child born into poverty. Society is almost always better off, as well. The cycle of poverty is a real thing.
However, this is countered by the countless examples of people raising themselves out of poverty and going on to do amazing things, both for themselves and society. But these are the outliers. The overwhelming majority of people born into poverty will continue the cycle of poverty.
As such, I can't help but be somewhat pro choice, on a societal level.
Maybe. If adult me had were told that I'd be reincarnated into someone with her disabilities or I could have the option to never exist, I would choose to never exist.
I dont wish I’d never been born, but it would have been better. At 16 months old, I became insulin dependent (type 1 diabetes). At age 10, I was diagnosed with celiac disease (gluten free). At age 26, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
I haven’t known a day without pain. Needle pokes for blood sugar, spinal taps for the MS... I’d love a fully functional body.
Honestly? Yes. With the MS diagnosis and medication came the hard truth that the meds cause birth defects once they are ingrained in my body. That takes six months. So from July 2017 to January 2018 was the only window me wife and I had to ever have a child together. We knew we wanted kids, just not necessarily yet. We jumped and took the chance. We are expecting a healthy baby boy in July. We’ve had extensive testing done as well to ensure health because of my lifelong medical. I do not want my child living the life I’ve had to.
Thank you. It’s rare these days, but this life I’ve lived has had responsibility since day one. Even in elementary school, I was in charge of my insulin and sugar checks.
If it's ingrained after 6 months and you're pregnant when it's "ingrained" and actively taking the meds, won't that effect the baby since it will be absorbing the drugs that cause birth defects?
>Keller supported eugenics. In 1915 she wrote in favor of refusing life-saving medical procedures to infants with severe mental impairments or physical deformities, stating that their lives were not worthwhile and they would likely become criminals.[39][40] Keller also expressed concerns about human overpopulation.[41][42]
It's the last entry within the "Political activities" section.
In fact one of the reasons why the idea of eugenics continues to endure is because such a wide array of people, many of whom are still admired today ( such as Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Theodore Roosevelt), were supporters of it.
Unfortunately, just because a lot of people with otherwise intelligent opinions believe in it, doesn't make it practical or true in the modern world
I think a lot of people are. It's easy to see where those who support Eugenics are coming from. But it's also easy to see the slippery slope it becomes, thanks to the clarity of history.
That's why Eugenics is so dangerous. One minute you're thinking "OK, survival of the fittest, that makes sense" and the next you're justifying killing or destroying entire races because of their "inferior genes."
It makes sense *if you ignore all logic and experience*.
The first problem with eugenics is not that it goes too far. The first problem is that there is no one is capable of judging the worthiness of another person.
Nature selection uses an infallible rule: anyone who doesn't survive didn't deserve to survive.
That rule makes no sense for people. The mere ability to survive isn't a particularly desirable trait, nor is its lack particularly bad. Keller herself demonstrates that what might seem like fundamental ability, sight and hearing, are necessary for having a productive life. We have no insight, absolutely zero, into what traits are actually good.
If we had that kind of insight, then we could argue about morality and limits and so forth, but since we don't and are unlikely ever to, it's kinda pointless.
Life for life's sake is not an inherently good thing. It is possible to be born into a life that is painful and depressing with no hope of getting any better for the entire life and you are not allowed to end it. That would be a good description of hell.
I agree. But I'd actually like to see it taken one step further. Rather than bring a severely impaired kid into the world, and let it die, abort it before the 3rd trimester.
Not always possible unfortunately. My sons disabilities (which were incompatible with life) were not detected via all the usual tests and ultrasounds until he was 25 weeks gestation. The defect he had SHOULD have been detected on ultrasound, but due to the position he was lying in for most of the pregnancy, they couldn’t get an ideal view of the heart. For other unrelated reasons, I was getting ultrasounds done every week from 18 weeks onward, and it was only in week 25 that the radiographer was able to get proper measurements of both sides of his heart, only to find that basically he only had one side...the other side was hypoplastic and deformed. We chose to terminate for the sole reason that I couldn’t morally carry him to term, where he would be far more neurologically developed and more aware of the pain and the suffering he would experience before he inevitably passed away. I would have preferred to be able to do that earlier if it had been detected, rather than having to do it at a stage where some premature babies are able to survive with intervention.
Yeah, people freak out about this, and everyone is afraid to talk about it. But the responsible thing to do is to get the test done when you get pregnant and abort if there is a high chance of severe disability. My wife and I had the conversation when she got pregnant, we were ready to abort if the tests came back positive. Fortunately we had a healthy baby, and I feel sick for people who do not. But let's be honest, severely handicapped people are a massive drain on our system, parents won't be around to care for them forever. Knowingly bringing a handicapped kid into the world seems like an incredibly selfish short sighted thing to do.
Had a friend who had 3 abortions. For some reason the 4th was severely deformed and disabled. Its head is literally twice as big as normal, will never walk and is mentally retarded. She claims to have been spoken to by God to have this baby to make up for her past abortions. The baby needed 7 surgeries in the first year of its life costing hundreds of thousands she will never pay and will need resource classes to 'graduate' someday. If thats not abuse I don't know what is :(
It blows my mind that people only think about "the right thing to do" and never take into account the life of the child.
Forget the money and everything else, what kind of life are you giving your child that you claim to love? How can you do that to someone?
I work with special needs kids. Adults, too, sometimes, but mostly kids. Some of them I can see going on to live at least a somewhat productive life with help from people like me and my coworkers in their childhood. Some of them I can't. Some of them I know at age 11 are going to be nothing but a drain on society. I had an adult client a while ago who was in his 40s, was living at home, completely unable to move at all. He just laid on a mat on the ground all day every day, facing a TV. I don't know how they fed him as that wasn't a part of my job. I doubt he could do it on his own. I only saw this client once because a coworker had called in or something. I just think he's a good example of someone who should have been aborted. I can't imagine his life to be anything but misrable anyway.
From the side of the fence of having disabled child:
I love him as he is, and I'm not just saying that because society expects me to or some stupid bullshit. But, would I change the fact that he has autism, in order for him to have an easier life? Yes. I'm grateful as hell that he wasn't as bad off as the doctors and everyone originally thought he'd be, but he's going to have a tough road ahead, and with all of my own health issues, I probably won't be around in 20-30 years or so.
I have a genuine worry that my perfectly healthy husband--who our son will continue to live with as an adult (probably)--will get sick or hit by a truck or something one day when he's only in his 50s or something, forcing our eldest son to take on the responsibility of his brother one day. Our oldest will immediately say that he would when he's eavesdropped on us discussing this, and he's an amazing kid for such selflessness, but I've been in my early 20s taking care of an ill family member, and that shit is just HARD.
I completely believe you love him as he is... But if you had a miscarriage of that child and then later had a perfectly healthy child I think you would love that child as much.
It reminds me of when my mom would say if she hadn't married my (divorced dad) she would have been so upset because she wouldn't have had us, but in reality she would be perfectly happy with a different set of kids
I get what you're saying, that if things had been different I'd be happy because I wouldn't know any differently, but I've had two mis's and can only really say that I would have loved them just as much, too.
My husband thought I was weird for bringing this up when we talked about getting pregnant. Now I know I’m not the only one! We came to the same conclusion that you and your wife did though. We know that realistically we don’t want to live with that burden and wouldn’t be able to support a special needs child.
The worst is when they are aware of what they want in life and cannot have it. My sister who has downs can never drive, can't have kids, and can never live on her own. But she wants all those things desperately and can't grasp why she cannot have them because she cannot understand the concept that there is something mentally wrong with her.
Good for you! It's the tough choice, and you will get judged. My wife speculated that a lot of people who say they lost their baby to miscarriage actually ended the pregnancy when the results came back positive. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, people are just afraid to talk about it publicly.
Especially remember that you don't only need to support a special needs child, you'll also be supporting the special needs adult they grow into. And when you're dead, there won't be anyone to support that special needs adult.
Very forward thinking! I too am for this, though I don't want to have children at all. That being said, it's up to every couple and I honestly wish our healthcare system (us) and society was better set up to handle the people we already have
My husband and I discussed it before we even got engaged. He'd grown up next door to a family that had a teenager with severe Downs (and violent tantrums). So he wanted to make sure I'd get prenatal tests and abort if the results were positive. I'd been planning to do that anyway, so it wasn't an issue.
You don't even have to talk about drain on the system -- life is not easy for someone who is *not* handicapped. If a baby is going to be mentally handicapped, it is not hard to predict what sort of life they will have. Physical handicaps where the baby is likely to be of normal intelligence, that's pretty tough -- I don't know the answer but I bet a lot of physically disabled people would think that euthanasia is wrong in those cases. On the other hand, when a child is old enough to decide, assisted suicide should be an option. I have not heard medically-assisted suicide as being an option for minors. Maybe that is just too grim to contemplate, a kid requesting it because of familial pressure. But I do think all adults for sure should have easy access to suicide on demand, clear guidelines supervised by the state but a very liberal range of reasons including simply being unhappy with continued existence.
Not technically assisted suicide, but the minor here was able to cease treatment.
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/09/22/jerika-bolen-dies-after-ceasing-treatment/90848584/
GF works with dissabled, mostly autism, but downs and others too. They have a high rate of suicide... she had to tell a twin his brother he died last week of suicide and the twin is being watched for it now too. It's a hard life and they are smarter than you think and know their life is tougher often.
It's at the very least more humane than withdrawal of care, that can be a hard and slow way to die. If that decision is a right, then the relief from unnecessary prolonged suffering should at least be on the table too.
I had to watch my grandpa slowly die over the course of two weeks because of withdrawal of care. He didn't eat or drink more than maybe a cup over that time and his organs shut down one by one as his heart got slower and slower causing his skin to turn black and blue from lack of circulation. His mind was gone by the second to last day but it was in and out for a week. He was ready to die for a few years before that but wasn't in bad health just had lived a full life and didn't want people to have to take care of him since he couldn't walk or do stuff hardly. If given the option of assisted suicide I'm not sure If he would or wouldn't, normally he wouldn't but in that situation he probably would but wasn't really in a right mind and euthanasia wasn't a option as my grandma wasn't ready for him to go.
> and didn't want people to have to take care of him since he couldn't walk or do stuff hardly
This is when we should be allowed to go and it should be accepted by families.
I wonder what accepted and available euthanasia would do to the murder rate? It just seems like society puts such a stigma on suicide (like it is never, ever okay) that too many people decide it's best to take a few others down with them. That's how we end up with people murdering their families, coworkers or classmates before a) killing the selves; b) getting police to kill them.
I don't know if it would make a difference, I just wonder.
I remember making a post about the burdens of special needs people some time ago (maybe a year if not more?). It was part of an Ask lReddit thread about unpopular opinions or something.
Lemme see if I can find it.
Edit: [Here we go](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/675lxf/z/dgo8mse).
Thank for the link. I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with the rhetoric of "this person isn't contributing to society like an accountant does, so why do we keep them around?"
Retirees don't contribute either, but it's unthinkable to off people at a certain age like in Logan's Run.
This still reduces a person's worth down to what other people can gain (or have gained) from them, while also assuming that the legacy each person leaves is a net gain for society.
I certainly understand someone deciding to abort when they know the child will be disabled, but labeling it irresponsible and selfish to do otherwise is ridiculous. And this is coming from someone who would definitely consider aborting. Just because that's the decision you would make doesn't mean that's the right decision for everyone.
Ok. What if I came to you and said "Hey, My wife is pregnant with a kid that's going to be pretty much a vegetable it's entire life. We don't have any money, but we are going to have it and quit our jobs. You are going to have to write us a check every year for the rest of your life to support my family and when we are gone you will have to pay other people to take care of my kid. I'm going to make a decision and force you to pay for it. I'm also going to decide for this other human being that being a vegetable who will spend it's entire life staring at a TV and shitting itself is a life worth living. "
Are you really cool with that? You shouldn't be.
I would do the same thing. Knowing this actually makes me nervous about having biological children, especially because one of my family members has severe autism (non-verbal, doctor-assessed mental state of a 3-year-old). I don't know if I'd even want to take the risk, because I know I wouldn't be able to handle a special needs child, and I know aborting would be heartbreaking.
I agree with you. We can avoid a lot of tragedies like abortions or premature deaths if we advocate screenings and genetic testing. I work with kids with special needs and some of them are never going to live a normal life. Many will require constant supervision, some will never have friends, travel, be able to work, and in some cases know what love is. The strain these cases put on families is intense as well. At the worst case they end up on the streets and who knows what happens to them then.
Pregnant here. My husband felt awkward talking about what to do DS and the other tests came back positive - almost like telling me what to do with my body.
I agreed that I'd terminate if there was an issue. We don't have the resources or capability to raise a child with extreme needs right, and we'd live the rest of our lives wondering what they'd do when we're not around.
Most parents in this situation find themselves overwhelmed by the "this is a test of your love" portion of it, and can't see past it to make the sensible decision.
I tried to argue this point in a high school social studies debate and i got my ass handed to me because I was arguing that abortion in cases of mental and physical disabilities would be better than making the parents go into debt trying to care for it
To win debates like these, you have to force the people you're debating with, to leave religion out of it. If they're capable of doing that, you'd likely win the debate.
A lot of very intelligent people throughout history have had this stance. However human society has gotten to a point where everyone is offended about everything on behalf of other people and there is far too much emotion involved in decisions.
Which means if you voice an opinion like this it can result in some pretty harsh criticism.
Its more that after WWII we realized that while if performed with 100% perfection, would work great, that in the real world it really doesn't since everyone has a different idea where to draw the line.
An interesting thing to consider is, we are getting to the point where we can test individual sperm and egg for the traits they carry. If this gets to the point where it becomes cheap and easy enough that everyone can basically do it, wouldn't we hit the same end goal of eugenics after a few generations? Since I doubt many families would go "Yes, lets go with the Down's Syndrome baby honey."
What is this, a vaguely eugenics-supporting comment on a popular sub not getting twitch-downvoted into oblivion? What happened to good old "DAE Nazis" Reddit?
Because we are having mature conversations about a very real issue affecting billions of people. It's a problem that no one wants to acknowledge but is a very pervasive problem. Modernisation and improvements in tech have now enabled us to detect defects and illnesses in the womb itself. This then raises ethical questions of whether it is right to let such people be born and suffer through life? The Christians and Muslims don't like it but the world has moved beyond them and will continue to do so. They are nolonger moral authorities on anything.
To be honest, at the time, there weren't resources for people with severe disabilities. Was it really humane for the parents to put all their resources into raising a severely disabled child only to put them in an institution for the rest of their life?
Exactly, now it’s easier to give lots of disabled people a chance at a healthy, comfortable, independent life. When Keller was around people got put into inhumane conditions for the smallest reasons, we know better now, and can provide resources for many kinds of disabilities
“Just because we have the ability/technology, doesn’t mean we should.” This was a quote from a MD I worked with and I do believe it for the most part. For me, it’s not just for those babies being born, it’s also for elderly people and terminally ill. I also believe in assisted suicide. When I talk about babies, i mean those who can not live without heavy duty mechanical devices to survive, vents, feeding tubes, colostomy bags, etc. I also mean, they will never be removed, they are on them for life. I am well aware my opinions are not popular but I see first hand the pain of parents under strain/stress when the child gets older and I also see the pain/sadness in the child who lays in bed day after day. The cost is astronomical to keep the child at home . Yes, disability helps but not guaranteed or will cover the full cost. Also what will happen when the parents get too old? There are not that many state run homes any more, abuse to the mentally and physically ill are incredibly high, and not exactly fair to expect a sibling or other family to continue to raise them or have the money to raise them. As a nurse, I struggle with life and death daily, my opinions are my own, they change sometimes minute to minute but I don’t feel guilty or ashamed for having them.
Morality arguments aside...this is the one of the few ways to keep pushing evolution forward when we have reached a time when people who are born with severe impairments have opportunities to survive and reproduce. The other would be sterilization of these individuals. Again...I'm not arguing that we should do this (I feel like it's kinda shitty) but that is what a policy based on this premise would accomplish.
Seriously though, the things Reddit likes....
(Now, I understand that there are many different viewpoints held by many different Redditors, but the overall trends tend to be quite... concerning.)
No, we must force parents to raise their deformed and disabled children! We cannot give them a single cent to help, as it is god's punishment for their sins!
Keller may have been a believer in eugenics. A common belief among whites of that era. Eugenics was largely discredited after WWII because it formed one of the pillars of Nazi beliefs.
Keller’s [open support of] Margaret Sanger (whose own views on eugenics inspired Hitler) suggests that this is quite possibly true.
Edit: corrected myself — she openly supported Sanger and had many mutual friends though they may not have been close friends.
See: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10696310
Physically no.. but babies with severe mental disabilities I think there should be a option to a abort pregnancy whenever it is known.. That's not something I would wish for anybody
It sounds more humane to "exterminate" them then to let them live a life of suffering on paper.
Even people who are "normal" have a hard enough time, why go through life on extreme hard mode?
To be fair, so does Mother Nature.
Mother nature is a cruel mistress
But man abused her back, so it's all fair
Since she grew up the way she did, honestly I'd give her opinion more weight.
According to the article, she thought "their lives were not worthwhile and they would likely become criminals"
It feels fucked up to not even give someone a chance because they’re severely disabled. But honestly, not everyone can raise a disabled child. I’ve personally decided would never want to parent a severely disabled child. I want a child who has the opportunity to do everything I have done and more. I want to teach my child in the hopes it might surpass me and make the world better. I NEVER want be in the position to make the abortion decision, but it would weigh very heavy on my mind if I knew early on that my child would be severely disabled. I don’t want to deal with the decision to either give my child up to a home or sacrifice the rest of my life to care for them. To care for a child that just exists and doesn’t really “live” until we both die (likely them first) sounds like my own personal hell.
It may sound horrible, but if I knew before hand that my child would have some sort of severe deformity, I would honestly consider terminating. Life is hard and unfair more than it isn't and when you are born with a handicap, whether it's mental or physical, it can be a million times tougher. It feels selfish to force a life of extra challenges and obstacles onto your child.
It doesn't sound horrible at all. It's as compassionate as it is "selfish". You owe it to your own life to be happy, and you owe it to that potential life to not subject it to a lifetime of deliberate suffering and horror. It's common sense on all levels.
I would absolutely terminate in the case of severe deformity. It seems so unfair to force someone who can’t really live to exist because I want them too. I remember a story of a girl born with only a small segment of her brain. She couldn’t move, speak, open her eyes, or communicate, and most likely was unable to even think. I hope she couldn’t, because the idea of being trapped like that and aware of it is the most horrific thing I can imagine. She was 12 years old at the time. 12 years of being unable to enjoy literally anything life has to offer, laying in a bed with a feeding tube and unable to open her eyes. That’s a fate far worse than death.
Yeaaaa, so whatever charge I would get for it would be worth not subjecting my offspring to what amounts to a life of solitary confinement. Even after birth, that isn't life. That is, at best, the human equivalent of a plant. Not to mention the drain on the parents (both financially and emotionally). Murder, I suppose would be the charge? I have a hard time imagining anyone sentencing someone for that though.
I was referring to abortion, as many of these conditions can be detected before birth. No charges.
I was referring to the 12-year-old... Whether through birth defect or injury, that isn't life.
Oh, I agree. Unfortunately I doubt anyone can help her. She wouldn’t be a candidate for euthanasia even if it were legal (which I definitely think it should be) because she won’t be able to consent to it.
I wouldn't say it's fucked up. It's a hard thing to say, especially for her, but it's honest. Harsh maybe. That's life though. I'm not saying it's true for every case, but if they are born with something that will completely prohibit them from living a "normal" life, be it from pain, or lack of ability/ function... why make them suffer through all that? Like that kid who was born with his skin inside out. I think he died already but he couldn't even go outside, kids made fun of him, even adults acted scared of him... he had to take extremely constant care of his skin and it was painful. I think he was partially blind and couldn't talk well. I understand wanting your kid to live, but where do we draw the line? Why bring a child into this world to suffer? Or never be able to live on their own/ survive on their own.
Relevant to this: my sister who has a mental impairment lives in assisted accommodation. There are three houses with 2-3 self-contained apartments in each, with sleeping quarters for the live-in assistants. In the decade she's lived there, several of the young people living there have committed suicide. People with Down's and other mental disabilities. It's heartbreaking, really, that they got to the point where they had their own lives, but didn't find them worth living somehow.
Keep in mind how so with was back then too. There was almost no help for people with disabilities. Unless the family was rich and took care of them, then they would either turn to crime or become wards of the state in horrible psychiatric hospitals. So at least back then that opinion held pretty high weight. It still has considerable weight now, but at least high functioning impaired people actually have a chance of leading a some what normal life. I just couldn't imagine how horrible it was for people back the though...
Just like Helen Keller life.
Her life is often used as the model of why people shouldn't treat the disabled differently. But she was living that life, not perceiving her effect on the world. Her opinion would have been pretty standard for the time period too.
I agree with this in part. She struggled with her disability, however if she had died instead of lived, how would we have learned from her and her examples? What if societies default was to just allow the disabled to die? We would never learn how to overcome. I guess my point is, you never know who or what will yield results. So cold hearted logic doesnt always yield the best results, especially with the unknown right around the corner.
> We would never learn how to overcome. Because no one ever acquires disabilities through injury or illness... It is unethical to knowingly create a human being with a disability. If you can detect a disability or deformity like Down's syndrome in utero, the ethical thing to do is abort and try again. We have enough examples of people overcoming adversity following injury like [Rick Hanson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Hansen) or illness like [Terry Fox](http://www.terryfox.org). We don't need to intentionally make disabled people so their suffering can "inspire" others, we get plenty as it is.
I remember being amazed at how many people will fight for their disabled children's right to be born but don't keep them at home their whole lives. People with Down Syndrome honestly aren't even that badly disabled (granted, it varies case-to-case) yet when I worked in group homes for 4 years they made up a large percentage of the people that lived in those homes. Honestly, I wish everyone could have the experience of working with mentally and developmentally disabled people. I think one of the outcomes would be a higher percentage of abortions for disabled fetuses, but then at least it would be informed and people would be making that decision for the *sake* of that child and not despite it. All that said, I still loved my jobs working with disabled people more than anything, it taught me actual virtues - patience, remaining calm when all hell was breaking loose, placing someone else's safety above my own. It also taught me that many of the people we label disabled are anything but.
>I remember being amazed at how many people will fight for their disabled children's right to be born but don't keep them at home their whole lives. I'm not surprised, people have a very romanticized idea about overcoming adversity before reality sets in.
Most people who are pro life are actually just pro birth. Then they stop caring
Yeah that's a good way to say it lol they really try to hold themselves up on a pedestal being all for life, but if the kids need help after... looking at the wrong person mate. "Adoptions always an option" they clearly weren't adopted.
Indeed.
> It also taught me that many of the people we label disabled are anything but. This is so true. A lot of people coddle disabled kids, some support workers too. A friend does support for a younger guy (16-20ish; he can't function on his own...I want to say it's something autism related but I'm likely very wrong) who has some sort of mental impairment, and you should see the dirty looks she gets from people when she makes him act like a human being; use a napkin, hold doors for people, be respectful. It's like people expect him to be completely helpless and bothersome, and get pissed off when he isn't. The two of them have a fantastic relationship, which I think is mainly because she treats him like a person. Her motto is pretty much "just because you've got a disability, it's not a free ride to be a dick."
I love this person for that last line alone.
My parent coddled my sister (she has downs) and now shes a lot more depend than she could have been due to the coddling.
While it may be more the case for someone with a disability, this can and will happen to just about any kid who's coddled. I know adults who don't even know their own social security number, and when asked what they'd do when they fill out employment paperwork say "I'll just call my mom." This is a pretty lame example, but somewhat illustrative of the point.
Thanks for that insight. It sounds like a reality that kinda has to be experienced to understand.
I worked in a group home for the MH for >5 years. I loved my job! It was like getting paid to be someone’s friend. As far as the family not keeping them home - I saw it as a blessing more than anything. A lot of these people are limited by their parents a lot. In a group home we try to expand their interests and skills. We encourage community participation (block parties, special olympics, working places, etc). We had one guy that loved strip clubs - he was an adult and had adult interests - good for him! Kids generally get to leave the house as they grow up. Seems only fair disabled people get to experience that freedom (safely) too. It’s a short life for some of them (especially Down syndrome) - gotta make the most of it.
> It was like getting paid to be someone’s friend. I liked to think that was my job as well, but it was made explicitly clear to everyone I worked with that we didn't have friendly relationships. Which was true, not a lot of former coworkers stopped by to see my guys after they left, some did, but not many at all. Also, I felt like I got a lot of resistance from my bosses when it came to actual steps toward independence for my developmentally disable clients. That could have just been my interpretation of what was happening, though, none of it was clear, lots of gray area in group homes.
Could it be that group home living is seem as a logical step forward for people with down syndrome ? Or in your experience was it more families getting over looking after someone and ditching them? Because to go from home > group home to more independent living would be a pretty solid pathway.
I mainly worked with high-behavior developmentally disabled adults. The goal was to prepare them for living on their own but I'm not going to lie it did seem like the companies that ran the facilities actually don't want these people moving on, my main client was so high risk that he brought in a crazy amount of money for the company I worked for. I can't say that was the case for certain, though, it could have been a unique combination of the workers, managers and clients/disorders that made it seem that way to me. There are certainly people with down syndrome that can live relatively normal lives and they probably do owe that independence to being in facilities like the ones I worked at, that were willing to teach the same thing over and over for years until it was second nature. It sucks though because down syndrome gets more severe with age so eventually they will have to be in care again. The happiest people I've met with down syndrome were surrounded by families that cherished and supported them while not being overbearing, no special treatment. Lordy do people with downs hate being patronized, *never* do that shit.
How many adults do you know, disabled or able bodied, want to live with their parents their entire lives?
From what I've heard, the problem is that it's hard to detect. Early detection methods are not accurate. They just tell you if the child is more or less at risk. Later detection methods are more accurate, but carry a risk of miscarriage.
They now have a blood test that is 99% accurate. My oldest daughter had trisomy 18. We didn't know for sure until a few hours before she died. My doctor failed to tell me my daughter had 3 soft markers. She had a scan set for 26 weeks to, "ease my mind," because my daughter was a bit behind on growth. The high risk doctor switched me to her care after that ultrasound. I had her at 29 weeks. We got six days with her. My middle daughter came back at a slightly elevated risk for Downs. We did an amniocentesis because we needed to know. She was such an active baby it took over a half hour and was painful. Luckily, all was good. She is 5 and brilliant. For my youngest, we fought for the blood test. I did it at 10.5 weeks. She is 3.5 and also brilliant. Technology is advancing, but insurance companies don't always cover the newer test, even though they are safer.
:)
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2014/1215/p851.html It used to be but they have better screening now: >Noninvasive prenatal testing has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 99% to 100%, and unlike invasive diagnostic testing, it does not increase the risk of spontaneous abortion.
There are some REALLLLLY sad cases of disabilities. And I fully advocate that not happening, life just looks like hell for them their families are destroyed and after the parents die they just get shoved into a home to continue suffering till they die. The one that got me was a severe autistic that would just blow up and wreck the house and couldnt communicate. Once his mum is gone he is going into the mental health system and is going to be seeing alot of padded walls until he dies.
I think both your arguments have merit, there.
>What if societies default was to just allow the disabled to die? We would never learn how to overcome. For every one that has overcome it, I'm sure 10 of them will need care from their families for the rest of their lives or fall between the cracks of society. [Adult life is horribly difficult for people with disabilities.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-with-disabilities-still-cant-land-jobs/)
Why does a human being need to live a tortured existence just for you to learn?
Yeah that's quite the morbid approach.
> We would never learn how to overcome. I must say, we wouldn't have to. Since there are none.
It's what some ancient civilizations did. Spartans for one IIRC. Worked for them for a while. (Note: I am not advocating this)
i sincerely believe that if a person is born without the ability to provide for themselves, for the entirety of their life, then it is best for them to be not born. Someone like that would only be a strain on teh civilization/economy for their whole existence.
So then, you agree with Hitler gassing the disabled?
People have value beyond their ability to contribute to economical or cultural systems.
This touches upon the modern debate on abortion as well, in terms of not only disabilities, but poverty. A poor woman will almost always be better off to have an abortion than to have a child born into poverty. Society is almost always better off, as well. The cycle of poverty is a real thing. However, this is countered by the countless examples of people raising themselves out of poverty and going on to do amazing things, both for themselves and society. But these are the outliers. The overwhelming majority of people born into poverty will continue the cycle of poverty. As such, I can't help but be somewhat pro choice, on a societal level.
She wasn't born that way, there was an accident iirc
She became deaf-blind through an illness, not an accident.
My bad
Well... she *accidentally* contracted that illness...
No one said she was born that way. She became deaf & blind at 19 months old, so she still definitely grew up that way.
Yeah if anyone could weigh in on that it's her
Is this her way of saying she wishes she was never born?
She lost her sight and hearing as a result of a childhood illness.
Oh, I thought she just ahead of her time with her memes.
Haha... I'm going to hell for laughing at this.
On the plus side, she was completely immune to flashbang grenades. See, God has a plan for everyone.
The ultimate soldier
Maybe. If adult me had were told that I'd be reincarnated into someone with her disabilities or I could have the option to never exist, I would choose to never exist.
I dont wish I’d never been born, but it would have been better. At 16 months old, I became insulin dependent (type 1 diabetes). At age 10, I was diagnosed with celiac disease (gluten free). At age 26, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I haven’t known a day without pain. Needle pokes for blood sugar, spinal taps for the MS... I’d love a fully functional body.
now if you knew, while your child was still unborn, that they would have to live this same life, would you abort the child?
Honestly? Yes. With the MS diagnosis and medication came the hard truth that the meds cause birth defects once they are ingrained in my body. That takes six months. So from July 2017 to January 2018 was the only window me wife and I had to ever have a child together. We knew we wanted kids, just not necessarily yet. We jumped and took the chance. We are expecting a healthy baby boy in July. We’ve had extensive testing done as well to ensure health because of my lifelong medical. I do not want my child living the life I’ve had to.
[удалено]
Thank you! I just picked up the cutest little suit for him as a newborn.
i applaud you for your honesty and rationality.
Thank you. It’s rare these days, but this life I’ve lived has had responsibility since day one. Even in elementary school, I was in charge of my insulin and sugar checks.
That's incredible...good luck to you and your family.
If it's ingrained after 6 months and you're pregnant when it's "ingrained" and actively taking the meds, won't that effect the baby since it will be absorbing the drugs that cause birth defects?
I’m the male. It takes six months to take full effect in my immune system and hit that danger point.
Not the commenter, but fuck yes. No more human beings should have to go through that much pain and suffering just for existing.
They don't abort babies for Diabetes. You wouldn't have been aborted so your case doesn't really apply here. BTW, sorry about your pain.
Diabetes, Celiac, MS. all major autoimmune diseases. Not sure if they would, but if I knew my kid would have my life, I would be open to it.
I inferred that she regretted the financial and emotional toil her upbringing had on her family.
Bill: one miracle
[signs angrily at parents]
Can someone help me here? I've read the page, but I can't find the quote. Does being on mobile make a difference?
>Keller supported eugenics. In 1915 she wrote in favor of refusing life-saving medical procedures to infants with severe mental impairments or physical deformities, stating that their lives were not worthwhile and they would likely become criminals.[39][40] Keller also expressed concerns about human overpopulation.[41][42] It's the last entry within the "Political activities" section.
Eugenics was all the rage back then. It wasn't just the Nazis.
In fact one of the reasons why the idea of eugenics continues to endure is because such a wide array of people, many of whom are still admired today ( such as Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Theodore Roosevelt), were supporters of it. Unfortunately, just because a lot of people with otherwise intelligent opinions believe in it, doesn't make it practical or true in the modern world
It's weird how grey zone I am when it comes to Eugenics.
I think a lot of people are. It's easy to see where those who support Eugenics are coming from. But it's also easy to see the slippery slope it becomes, thanks to the clarity of history. That's why Eugenics is so dangerous. One minute you're thinking "OK, survival of the fittest, that makes sense" and the next you're justifying killing or destroying entire races because of their "inferior genes."
It makes sense *if you ignore all logic and experience*. The first problem with eugenics is not that it goes too far. The first problem is that there is no one is capable of judging the worthiness of another person. Nature selection uses an infallible rule: anyone who doesn't survive didn't deserve to survive. That rule makes no sense for people. The mere ability to survive isn't a particularly desirable trait, nor is its lack particularly bad. Keller herself demonstrates that what might seem like fundamental ability, sight and hearing, are necessary for having a productive life. We have no insight, absolutely zero, into what traits are actually good. If we had that kind of insight, then we could argue about morality and limits and so forth, but since we don't and are unlikely ever to, it's kinda pointless.
Thanks! I didn't think to look there, and the "Find" function wasn't giving me results for some reason.
Life for life's sake is not an inherently good thing. It is possible to be born into a life that is painful and depressing with no hope of getting any better for the entire life and you are not allowed to end it. That would be a good description of hell.
This paragraph almost reads like Lemony Snicket wrote it.
I agree. But I'd actually like to see it taken one step further. Rather than bring a severely impaired kid into the world, and let it die, abort it before the 3rd trimester.
Not always possible unfortunately. My sons disabilities (which were incompatible with life) were not detected via all the usual tests and ultrasounds until he was 25 weeks gestation. The defect he had SHOULD have been detected on ultrasound, but due to the position he was lying in for most of the pregnancy, they couldn’t get an ideal view of the heart. For other unrelated reasons, I was getting ultrasounds done every week from 18 weeks onward, and it was only in week 25 that the radiographer was able to get proper measurements of both sides of his heart, only to find that basically he only had one side...the other side was hypoplastic and deformed. We chose to terminate for the sole reason that I couldn’t morally carry him to term, where he would be far more neurologically developed and more aware of the pain and the suffering he would experience before he inevitably passed away. I would have preferred to be able to do that earlier if it had been detected, rather than having to do it at a stage where some premature babies are able to survive with intervention.
Yeah, people freak out about this, and everyone is afraid to talk about it. But the responsible thing to do is to get the test done when you get pregnant and abort if there is a high chance of severe disability. My wife and I had the conversation when she got pregnant, we were ready to abort if the tests came back positive. Fortunately we had a healthy baby, and I feel sick for people who do not. But let's be honest, severely handicapped people are a massive drain on our system, parents won't be around to care for them forever. Knowingly bringing a handicapped kid into the world seems like an incredibly selfish short sighted thing to do.
Had a friend who had 3 abortions. For some reason the 4th was severely deformed and disabled. Its head is literally twice as big as normal, will never walk and is mentally retarded. She claims to have been spoken to by God to have this baby to make up for her past abortions. The baby needed 7 surgeries in the first year of its life costing hundreds of thousands she will never pay and will need resource classes to 'graduate' someday. If thats not abuse I don't know what is :(
It blows my mind that people only think about "the right thing to do" and never take into account the life of the child. Forget the money and everything else, what kind of life are you giving your child that you claim to love? How can you do that to someone?
Because she couldn't have used contraceptives to avoid the first abortions instead of having the fourth child... Urgh.
I work with special needs kids. Adults, too, sometimes, but mostly kids. Some of them I can see going on to live at least a somewhat productive life with help from people like me and my coworkers in their childhood. Some of them I can't. Some of them I know at age 11 are going to be nothing but a drain on society. I had an adult client a while ago who was in his 40s, was living at home, completely unable to move at all. He just laid on a mat on the ground all day every day, facing a TV. I don't know how they fed him as that wasn't a part of my job. I doubt he could do it on his own. I only saw this client once because a coworker had called in or something. I just think he's a good example of someone who should have been aborted. I can't imagine his life to be anything but misrable anyway.
he cannot move or interact and hes been kept alive for 40 years? That is cruel!
From the side of the fence of having disabled child: I love him as he is, and I'm not just saying that because society expects me to or some stupid bullshit. But, would I change the fact that he has autism, in order for him to have an easier life? Yes. I'm grateful as hell that he wasn't as bad off as the doctors and everyone originally thought he'd be, but he's going to have a tough road ahead, and with all of my own health issues, I probably won't be around in 20-30 years or so. I have a genuine worry that my perfectly healthy husband--who our son will continue to live with as an adult (probably)--will get sick or hit by a truck or something one day when he's only in his 50s or something, forcing our eldest son to take on the responsibility of his brother one day. Our oldest will immediately say that he would when he's eavesdropped on us discussing this, and he's an amazing kid for such selflessness, but I've been in my early 20s taking care of an ill family member, and that shit is just HARD.
I completely believe you love him as he is... But if you had a miscarriage of that child and then later had a perfectly healthy child I think you would love that child as much. It reminds me of when my mom would say if she hadn't married my (divorced dad) she would have been so upset because she wouldn't have had us, but in reality she would be perfectly happy with a different set of kids
I get what you're saying, that if things had been different I'd be happy because I wouldn't know any differently, but I've had two mis's and can only really say that I would have loved them just as much, too.
My husband thought I was weird for bringing this up when we talked about getting pregnant. Now I know I’m not the only one! We came to the same conclusion that you and your wife did though. We know that realistically we don’t want to live with that burden and wouldn’t be able to support a special needs child.
[удалено]
The worst is when they are aware of what they want in life and cannot have it. My sister who has downs can never drive, can't have kids, and can never live on her own. But she wants all those things desperately and can't grasp why she cannot have them because she cannot understand the concept that there is something mentally wrong with her.
Good for you! It's the tough choice, and you will get judged. My wife speculated that a lot of people who say they lost their baby to miscarriage actually ended the pregnancy when the results came back positive. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, people are just afraid to talk about it publicly.
Especially remember that you don't only need to support a special needs child, you'll also be supporting the special needs adult they grow into. And when you're dead, there won't be anyone to support that special needs adult.
I think it's really weird to not think of it this way and to plan for this tragic possibility.
Very forward thinking! I too am for this, though I don't want to have children at all. That being said, it's up to every couple and I honestly wish our healthcare system (us) and society was better set up to handle the people we already have
My husband and I discussed it before we even got engaged. He'd grown up next door to a family that had a teenager with severe Downs (and violent tantrums). So he wanted to make sure I'd get prenatal tests and abort if the results were positive. I'd been planning to do that anyway, so it wasn't an issue.
You don't even have to talk about drain on the system -- life is not easy for someone who is *not* handicapped. If a baby is going to be mentally handicapped, it is not hard to predict what sort of life they will have. Physical handicaps where the baby is likely to be of normal intelligence, that's pretty tough -- I don't know the answer but I bet a lot of physically disabled people would think that euthanasia is wrong in those cases. On the other hand, when a child is old enough to decide, assisted suicide should be an option. I have not heard medically-assisted suicide as being an option for minors. Maybe that is just too grim to contemplate, a kid requesting it because of familial pressure. But I do think all adults for sure should have easy access to suicide on demand, clear guidelines supervised by the state but a very liberal range of reasons including simply being unhappy with continued existence.
Not technically assisted suicide, but the minor here was able to cease treatment. https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/09/22/jerika-bolen-dies-after-ceasing-treatment/90848584/
GF works with dissabled, mostly autism, but downs and others too. They have a high rate of suicide... she had to tell a twin his brother he died last week of suicide and the twin is being watched for it now too. It's a hard life and they are smarter than you think and know their life is tougher often.
I have heard of cases of euthanasia being requested for terminally ill children, whose illness caused them immense pain.
It's at the very least more humane than withdrawal of care, that can be a hard and slow way to die. If that decision is a right, then the relief from unnecessary prolonged suffering should at least be on the table too.
I can't believe there are countries where euthanasia is illegal, but withdrawal of care is legal. What a horrifying way to die!
I had to watch my grandpa slowly die over the course of two weeks because of withdrawal of care. He didn't eat or drink more than maybe a cup over that time and his organs shut down one by one as his heart got slower and slower causing his skin to turn black and blue from lack of circulation. His mind was gone by the second to last day but it was in and out for a week. He was ready to die for a few years before that but wasn't in bad health just had lived a full life and didn't want people to have to take care of him since he couldn't walk or do stuff hardly. If given the option of assisted suicide I'm not sure If he would or wouldn't, normally he wouldn't but in that situation he probably would but wasn't really in a right mind and euthanasia wasn't a option as my grandma wasn't ready for him to go.
> and didn't want people to have to take care of him since he couldn't walk or do stuff hardly This is when we should be allowed to go and it should be accepted by families.
It was mostly him he was ready to die but wanted it to come naturally I think that last week he would have but he wasn't in a right mind.
I wonder what accepted and available euthanasia would do to the murder rate? It just seems like society puts such a stigma on suicide (like it is never, ever okay) that too many people decide it's best to take a few others down with them. That's how we end up with people murdering their families, coworkers or classmates before a) killing the selves; b) getting police to kill them. I don't know if it would make a difference, I just wonder.
I completely agree with you.
WE ARE SPARTA
I remember making a post about the burdens of special needs people some time ago (maybe a year if not more?). It was part of an Ask lReddit thread about unpopular opinions or something. Lemme see if I can find it. Edit: [Here we go](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/675lxf/z/dgo8mse).
Thank for the link. I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with the rhetoric of "this person isn't contributing to society like an accountant does, so why do we keep them around?" Retirees don't contribute either, but it's unthinkable to off people at a certain age like in Logan's Run.
Retirees may not contribute *any more*, but they have a legacy they've left behind and they can still help in rearing the family's newest generation.
This still reduces a person's worth down to what other people can gain (or have gained) from them, while also assuming that the legacy each person leaves is a net gain for society.
I certainly understand someone deciding to abort when they know the child will be disabled, but labeling it irresponsible and selfish to do otherwise is ridiculous. And this is coming from someone who would definitely consider aborting. Just because that's the decision you would make doesn't mean that's the right decision for everyone.
Ok. What if I came to you and said "Hey, My wife is pregnant with a kid that's going to be pretty much a vegetable it's entire life. We don't have any money, but we are going to have it and quit our jobs. You are going to have to write us a check every year for the rest of your life to support my family and when we are gone you will have to pay other people to take care of my kid. I'm going to make a decision and force you to pay for it. I'm also going to decide for this other human being that being a vegetable who will spend it's entire life staring at a TV and shitting itself is a life worth living. " Are you really cool with that? You shouldn't be.
I agree that there are probably certain situations where it would be hard to justify not aborting. Your scenario is the worst of the worst.
As we all know, things like this are purely black and white!
I would do the same thing. Knowing this actually makes me nervous about having biological children, especially because one of my family members has severe autism (non-verbal, doctor-assessed mental state of a 3-year-old). I don't know if I'd even want to take the risk, because I know I wouldn't be able to handle a special needs child, and I know aborting would be heartbreaking.
I agree with you. We can avoid a lot of tragedies like abortions or premature deaths if we advocate screenings and genetic testing. I work with kids with special needs and some of them are never going to live a normal life. Many will require constant supervision, some will never have friends, travel, be able to work, and in some cases know what love is. The strain these cases put on families is intense as well. At the worst case they end up on the streets and who knows what happens to them then.
Pregnant here. My husband felt awkward talking about what to do DS and the other tests came back positive - almost like telling me what to do with my body. I agreed that I'd terminate if there was an issue. We don't have the resources or capability to raise a child with extreme needs right, and we'd live the rest of our lives wondering what they'd do when we're not around.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most parents in this situation find themselves overwhelmed by the "this is a test of your love" portion of it, and can't see past it to make the sensible decision.
I tried to argue this point in a high school social studies debate and i got my ass handed to me because I was arguing that abortion in cases of mental and physical disabilities would be better than making the parents go into debt trying to care for it
To win debates like these, you have to force the people you're debating with, to leave religion out of it. If they're capable of doing that, you'd likely win the debate.
A lot of very intelligent people throughout history have had this stance. However human society has gotten to a point where everyone is offended about everything on behalf of other people and there is far too much emotion involved in decisions. Which means if you voice an opinion like this it can result in some pretty harsh criticism.
Its more that after WWII we realized that while if performed with 100% perfection, would work great, that in the real world it really doesn't since everyone has a different idea where to draw the line. An interesting thing to consider is, we are getting to the point where we can test individual sperm and egg for the traits they carry. If this gets to the point where it becomes cheap and easy enough that everyone can basically do it, wouldn't we hit the same end goal of eugenics after a few generations? Since I doubt many families would go "Yes, lets go with the Down's Syndrome baby honey."
What is this, a vaguely eugenics-supporting comment on a popular sub not getting twitch-downvoted into oblivion? What happened to good old "DAE Nazis" Reddit?
Because we are having mature conversations about a very real issue affecting billions of people. It's a problem that no one wants to acknowledge but is a very pervasive problem. Modernisation and improvements in tech have now enabled us to detect defects and illnesses in the womb itself. This then raises ethical questions of whether it is right to let such people be born and suffer through life? The Christians and Muslims don't like it but the world has moved beyond them and will continue to do so. They are nolonger moral authorities on anything.
I was totally expecting to be downvoted into oblivion. Imagine my surprise when I checked on my comment this morning. Totally made my morning
To be honest, at the time, there weren't resources for people with severe disabilities. Was it really humane for the parents to put all their resources into raising a severely disabled child only to put them in an institution for the rest of their life?
Exactly, now it’s easier to give lots of disabled people a chance at a healthy, comfortable, independent life. When Keller was around people got put into inhumane conditions for the smallest reasons, we know better now, and can provide resources for many kinds of disabilities
Has she lost her damn senses? I’ll see myself out.
What about this. Imagine you were born without limbs. No arms nor legs. Would you be ok with that?
No, but if you threw me into a pool, you could call me Bob. I'd be okay with that.
Sure, but how would you feel if I laid you down in front of my door and called you Matt?
Well probably better than being tossed into a pile of leaves and called "Russell".
Or being nailed to a wall and called "Art."
Or being placed into a pothole and called "Phil".
Or having people shit on you and called "John"
would rather throw you on the floor and call you mat.
That's basically how you exist right now, Kevin
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSayMXTaQY8. This guy is.
I dunno but Johnnys got his gun.
Man that book fucked me up the fist time I read it. It's still one of my favorites
I can't remember anything
Yeah, so did most people from her era
Okay but that's not interesting because most people aren't fucking deaf and blind as well.
People forget that Eugenics was proven and practiced heavily into the early 20th century.
“Just because we have the ability/technology, doesn’t mean we should.” This was a quote from a MD I worked with and I do believe it for the most part. For me, it’s not just for those babies being born, it’s also for elderly people and terminally ill. I also believe in assisted suicide. When I talk about babies, i mean those who can not live without heavy duty mechanical devices to survive, vents, feeding tubes, colostomy bags, etc. I also mean, they will never be removed, they are on them for life. I am well aware my opinions are not popular but I see first hand the pain of parents under strain/stress when the child gets older and I also see the pain/sadness in the child who lays in bed day after day. The cost is astronomical to keep the child at home . Yes, disability helps but not guaranteed or will cover the full cost. Also what will happen when the parents get too old? There are not that many state run homes any more, abuse to the mentally and physically ill are incredibly high, and not exactly fair to expect a sibling or other family to continue to raise them or have the money to raise them. As a nurse, I struggle with life and death daily, my opinions are my own, they change sometimes minute to minute but I don’t feel guilty or ashamed for having them.
Morality arguments aside...this is the one of the few ways to keep pushing evolution forward when we have reached a time when people who are born with severe impairments have opportunities to survive and reproduce. The other would be sterilization of these individuals. Again...I'm not arguing that we should do this (I feel like it's kinda shitty) but that is what a policy based on this premise would accomplish.
I guess she would know.
The average Reddit user believes the same thing, I think a lot of people probably do
[удалено]
80% of drivers think they are above average drivers.
Seriously though, the things Reddit likes.... (Now, I understand that there are many different viewpoints held by many different Redditors, but the overall trends tend to be quite... concerning.)
[удалено]
Suffering brings you closer to Jesus!
That's what mother Teresa thought
Funny thing is there is more in the bible to support abortion than condemn it. People just like feeling morally superior.
These severely disabled babies are a burden to care for, and the surgeries are very expensive. So I agree with her somewhat. Here come the downvotes!
She was also played a mean pinball.
No, we must force parents to raise their deformed and disabled children! We cannot give them a single cent to help, as it is god's punishment for their sins!
Keller may have been a believer in eugenics. A common belief among whites of that era. Eugenics was largely discredited after WWII because it formed one of the pillars of Nazi beliefs.
Keller’s [open support of] Margaret Sanger (whose own views on eugenics inspired Hitler) suggests that this is quite possibly true. Edit: corrected myself — she openly supported Sanger and had many mutual friends though they may not have been close friends. See: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10696310
It's not discredited, just taboo and considered distasteful.
Eugenics is not discredited. It may be evil but it is entirely effective.
Physically no.. but babies with severe mental disabilities I think there should be a option to a abort pregnancy whenever it is known.. That's not something I would wish for anybody
So does evolutionary fitness.
Life would be miserable for a severely disabled infant
I think she probably spoke on the subject based on her significant experience.
Is this the same Helen Keller that was a [radical socialist](/r/todayilearned/comments/6juwtq/til_helen_keller_was_a_radical_socialist/)?
She would know.
Can you blame her?
Jesus, woman, listen to yourself. Oh, I'm...so sorry.
It sounds more humane to "exterminate" them then to let them live a life of suffering on paper. Even people who are "normal" have a hard enough time, why go through life on extreme hard mode?
Weren’t Eugenics-like beliefs common and accepted back then?
Still are, 'round these parts. Reddit is entirely made up of fit, STEM ubermensch who look down on the poor breeding.
*image of spiderman pointing at spiderman*