Disturbing and Immoral

Let. Him. Die.

In a recently published book, an author shared a disturbing anecdote regarding his son with complex disabilities and some shocking sentiments regarding human value. 

The author says that a conversation took place with a famous elected official who said, "Your son [with complex disabilities] does not recognize you. Let him die. Let him die and move...[away]."

On it's face, this statement is troubling, offensive, repulsive, and disgusting. If we peel back the shocking and appalling veneer we so quickly dismiss as expected rhetoric, we reveal a sweeping and mercenary ideology. This famous, wealthy person's advice to a relative with a disabled child is reminiscent of the eugenics movements of the past and cruel lessons we should have learned long ago about how we should not treat people. 

Suggesting that people with disabilities should just die is not only morally reprehensible for its horrific implication that these individuals have no value, take up space and resources that could be used for other people, and would be better off dead, but also because of the very dangerous precedent it sets for how we value human life and dignity. This is not worthless rhetoric; it is the vocalization of an attitude, a worldview that people with disabilities have fought against. This attitude erodes the foundation of equality and respect that is essential in a just society, opening the door for further dehumanization, discrimination and marginalization of people with disabilities. 

For just a second, let's think about this statement in context of any other group of people. Pick a group--women, Jewish people, children, people with red hair, men with foot problems, people over six feet tall. In polite society, Americans would never have allowed someone to vocalize such hatred, psychopathy, or vitriol without political, social or even economic consequences of such abhorrent views, diametrically opposed to American values.

Let's think about another subtle aspect of the same view. If people draw distinctions between famous people like Dr. Stephen Hawking, Franklin Roosevelt, Dr. Temple Grandin, or Beethoven and people with more complex disabilities including intellectual impairments, they are simply validating that some people with disabilities are more valuable than others which is still assigning an arbiter of human value. Dr. Hawking must be more valuable because of his contributions to theoretical physics and the understanding of the universe, right? He is far more valuable than a 12-year-old child who rides to school in an ambulette because of his seizure disorder and severe congenital challenges. That must be the case, right?

For some reason, Americans have become inoculated or immune from such bombastic and outlandish comments from some elected officials or previously kind and empathic people now parroting ideas that some humans have more value than others. We have fought so hard for equity, equality, and human rights in our country and around the world, only to have them eroded bit by bit, one policy, one degradation, one horrible idea at a time. 

If the concept of allowing people with disabilities or differences to die or even encouraging/structuring a process for them to die were included in the plot of a novel, such a work would find its home on a shelf in the science-fiction section of a bookseller. Kurt Vonnegut fans might recall titles like, Harrison Bergeron or other farfetched story with dystopian futuristic scenarios based on similar demented ideas with entertainment value.

Humans have dignity, agency, and intrinsic value. And if we don't both remember and hold fast to this core principle, we risk valuing individuals and groups of individuals based on competencies. Competency-based evaluation might be fine for a workplace review or  and undermining the lessons of empathy and respect that history supposedly taught us.

If each of us is fortunate enough to live full lives, make choices, and grow older, we or someone we love, will likely face mobility challenges, cognitive slowing, or other disabling condition. And if we advocate for an arbiter of human value, we should not at all be surprised when we find ourselves on the receiving end of the same judgments.