Handicapped Children: Keep or Abort?

[The Stranger]

A few days ago I read about a conclusion the think tank of the Dutch Liberal party VVD has reached on the matter of who should pay for handicapped children. The phrasing was like this:

When science makes it possible to accurately determine whether or not a child is handicapped the parents should be given the decision to keep it or not. But if they do decide to keep it then they are guilty, they know fully what they do and should pay for the consequences.

(Note that the "pay" is a purely financial "pay", the literally must pay for all the expenses without any governmental help)

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Fragony]

Yikes that's a hard one. Everything in me screams against it but I can understand it, and if abortion (which I consider murder) is allowed because people simply don't want it.. Gonna wait for what others think.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Guilty? What was the Dutch word they used? “Verantwoordelijk” (responsible) perhaps ? “Aansprakelijk” (idem, literally: accountable) ? VVD knows about sweet-talking they can make just about everything look reasonable if they want to. I doubt they'd be quite so crude to use “schuldig” (guilty/indebted/owing), although they might certainly mean indebted/owing.

[The Stranger]

Guilty? What was the Dutch word they used? “Verantwoordelijk” (responsible) perhaps ? “Aansprakelijk” (idem, literally: accountable) ? VVD knows about sweet-talking they can make just about everything look reasonable if they want to. I doubt they'd be quite so crude to use “schuldig” (guilty/indebted/owing), although they might certainly mean indebted/owing.

no the dutch word used was actually Schuldig. which is directly translated into guilty. Verantwoordelijk is indeed responsible, which is something entirely else. it is possible that the think tank used another word, but in the article the world quilty was used.

[The Stranger]

here are my thoughts on the matter

The first objection I have against it is the phrasing that is being used. How can parents be found guilty for loving their children (not of loving their children, but for the love they bare for it). But more heavily weighs this objection that this idea, as so many of the Liberal party's ideas, will lead to segregation between rich and poor. Only the richer parents have the opportunity to love and keep their "handicapped" child because a poorer family could not afford to sustain that child without help from the government or in extreme cases a insurance company. This will lead to a lot of pain and suffering of parents who love their unborn child as much as any other but are not as fortunate to be so wealthy. In short, the poor love their children as much as the rich, why should they be punished while the rich can avoid the sentence.

Now look at the problem from another point of view, that of the child. The reasoning is pure discrimination, towards both child and its parents. The child is being condemned for being different and its opportunity for a good life is heavily decreased solely because he does not meet the common bodily standard. And the parents are being punished for being the parents of a handicapped child and are put in a situation no parent should be put in merely for the sake of money. Because that is the despicable thing about it, the life of a child is no longer judged from the sake of the child, but it is valued for how much money he will make or cost society. I am not for keeping alive every creature for the sanctity of life but I am against condemning to death any creature for not meeting a bodily (or mental) standard. Also if a child's parents decide to keep it, but are not so wealthy that they can afford the best care for the child, only the absolute minimum, than the child is being punished and this is something very strange. Again I think the argument forgets what is really important, it is not the health of society that comes first in a pregnancy, it is the health of the baby. If any decision is made at all concerning the life or death of an unborn child it should be done only in the sake of the child!

If this argument would be accepted and would be put in practice than we would find ourselves on a slippery slope. This line of reasoning won't be able to keep up with the technological advance. And when it becomes possible to detect also mental deviations of the psychological standard, such as schizophrenia, depression etc., we should also make parents decide whether or not they want to keep that child and if they do, they will have to pay for the consequences. (This will most likely lead to some kind of tax, and the parents will pay even if there are no consequences, but this is beside the matter now.) Or what about habits, such as obsessive eating which leads to obesity, or smoking. These are habits that costs society a lot of money, should the parents decide before birth whether or not they want to keep a child which has a high probability to become fat or ill, and if they do so they are left alone, excommunicated from society, condemned for loving their child as their own and left alone. The practice has the tendency to become something most people would outright reject, the Nazi-program, eugenetics etc. Only those children who don't have any detectable deviations from the desired standard will be given a chance to live, otherwise its chances will diminish considerably because only the rich can afford to keep it.

Also the matter should be separated. Whether parents should be given the option to know if their child is "handicapped" and then whether they should be given the option to abort it is an entirely different matter than who should pay for that child once it is born.

Finally there is another problem, that of definition. What is a handicap, when is someone handicapped? What standard should we apply to? Will we include "mental illness" or "bad habits"?

[rory_20_uk]

Money is not a thing you can hold in your hand. It is a token that is used to barter time and goods.

So, these cost more resources to society, or to the individual. Species weed out defective organisms as they can't function optimally which is bad for the individual but good for the species. This has been going on for the last 4 billion or so years.

The parents decided to have a child. They can now choose whether to have holidays every year and a new car every 3 or have a handicapped child an a trip to the caravan park and a second hand car every 10 years.

"How can you put a price on love?" - Let's see people make this choice. Currently others subsidise them, this method they take the responsibility. No one is being condemned - you merely choose one disabled child or two healthy children (this ratio might be even high for severe handicapped children).

[Fragony]

Nobody gets a choice when paying taxes, so caring for the disabled is a responsibility, quid pro quo.

[Andres]

They can now choose whether to have holidays every year and a new car every 3 or have a handicapped child an a trip to the caravan park and a second hand car every 10 years.

It's a choice nobody asks for and it's unfair to take measures that (look at it how you want) punish those parents who have the bad luck of being confronted with that choice.

"How can you put a price on love?" - Let's see people make this choice. Currently others subsidise them, this method they take the responsibility.

The state paying for most of the care of the child doesn't mean you're not taking responsibility. Parents of a crippled, blind or deaf child will still raise it and take care of it on a day to day basis. The extra costs of healthcare because of the disability being paid by society doesn't mean you can't be a responsible parent. You'll still have to take care of the child AND do the extra paper work and take all the extra problems that come with being the parent of a handicapped child. Being a parent of a healthy child is already a big task; can't even imagine how hard it is to be the parent of a handicapped child. Why shouldn't society help people who have a handicapped child? What else do we pay taxes for? Things like this should be priority. We need to cut in expenses, but please, let's not cut in the expenses of taking care of the disabled.

Also, some would argue that it is irresponsible and selfish to abort a child because it's not the perfectly healthy child you wished for.

No one is being condemned - you merely choose one disabled child or two healthy children (this ratio might be even high for severe handicapped children).

Nobody chooses to have a disabled child. It's just bad luck. The fact that somebody can't make the decision of aborting their own child, doesn't mean they have chosen to have a disabled child. Nobody choses that. The choice is not to have or have not a disabled child but to abort or don't abort. And nobody can make that decision for the parents. Nobody has the right to impose or stimulate the parents to take decision A or B. Just like abortion should not be forbidden, people who don't chose an abortion shouldn't be punished for making that choice. It's good that abortion is allowed, but punishing people because they have chosen not to abort is a step too far, imo.

[Husar]

So, these cost more resources to society, or to the individual. Species weed out defective organisms as they can't function optimally which is bad for the individual but good for the species. This has been going on for the last 4 billion or so years.

So you think all those brain cells we developed are ultimately useless and should not be put to any use except behaving exactly like organisms did 4 billion years ago?
Despite that, your reasoning could also be used to not punish a murderer if he murdered an unemployed or elderly person because those are pretty much unproductive, and also often defective.
The next question one would have to ask is whether VVD thinktanks actually benefit society financially or not, I could have come to the same conclusion they did but I'm a lot cheaper, so maybe we should shoot them and put me in their place, I'm sure that would net the Netherlands a nice profit.

[Tellos Athenaios]

no the dutch word used was actually Schuldig. which is directly translated into guilty. Verantwoordelijk is indeed responsible, which is something entirely else. it is possible that the think tank used another word, but in the article the world quilty was used.

Schuldig as in schuldig aan, of verschuldigd? The mind boggles: members of the VVD thinkthank evidently have taken leave of their senses, if not any form of good taste and common courtesy.

On the ethics of the issue: I'm with Andres. Though I suspect they're rather too well paid to feel consequences of their little “ideas” were those made into policy or put into practice. We've found a new class of people more infuriating than lawyers: insensitive VVD thinkthank berks.

[The Stranger]

Schuldig as in schuldig aan, of verschuldigd? The mind boggles: members of the VVD thinkthank evidently have taken leave of their senses, if not any form of good taste and common courtesy.

On the ethics of the issue: I'm with Andres. Though I suspect they're rather too well paid to feel consequences of their little “ideas” were those made into policy or put into practice. We've found a new class of people more infuriating than lawyers: insensitive VVD thinkthank berks.

schuldig als in schuldig aan (guilty of instead of owing to) but like i said, the article i read didnt use a direct quote iirc. so it is possible that the thinktank didnt use that exact phrasing.

[rory_20_uk]

I was going to espouse on what handicapped means, but after reflection it doesn't matter as the less of an issue something is, the less the parent's would have to pay for it.

But what about if the child has a genetic propensity to depression / drug use / alcoholism / anger / obesity / diabetes (you get the idea)? Would state support for healthcare be withdrawn or is there a cut off in term of likelihood?
Even the current screening for Down's and other disorders don't give a "yes" or "no", merely a ratio. Would amniocentesis be mandatory if one wants to avoid all benefits being withdrawn?

Enough questions - here are my views. Increasingly humans are creating a system that goes against evolution. Many handicaps are in essence genetic defects that should die out as the carriers have less children - but this is less and less the case. Certain classes breed like rabbits from a young age. In most species this trade off for this is higher infant mortality which would be the case if the State didn't support them with little if any tradeoff for their actions.

Hence I think that terming it as "guilt" is inappropriate, and withdrawing all aid is too draconian - but there should be less strident steps in this direction.

[Andres]

I hope that each and every single one of the members of that "think tank" will one day be put for the devestating choice of keeping or aborting their own handicapped child.

Punishing people because they don't want to get rid of their own child? How insensitive (disgusting?) can one be? Not everything is measurable in money. Talking about money, let's spend more on healthcare and less on politicians and their "think tanks".

[miotas]

If you ignore the fact that they are poeple and have every right to a happy life and view it in pure cold logic, then you might be inclined to think that abandoning them is good for society as a whole, but you would be wrong. With the aid of modern science, and a little understanding and patience, there are very few disabilities that can't be overcome, resulting in a productive member of society. Spending time with, and helping disabled people is also good for the "soul". They have a unique outlook on life, talking to and helping them gives you such a profound sense of satisfaction with life. How we treat the less fortunate says EVERYTHING about who we are as people.

[Ironside]

Enough questions - here are my views. Increasingly humans are creating a system that goes against evolution. Many handicaps are in essence genetic defects that should die out as the carriers have less children - but this is less and less the case. Certain classes breed like rabbits from a young age. In most species this trade off for this is higher infant mortality which would be the case if the State didn't support them with little if any tradeoff for their actions.

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again.

Anyway, humanity is currently mainly genetically diversifying itself (6 milliards different genetical codes), most pruning will probably be from diseases, which have harder patterns to predict.

And the suggestion really sounds like subversive anarcho-capitalism. Thread down that patch and you'll end up with something that makes anarcho-capitalism sound like a reasonable alternative (since it will only make you cynical/borderline cruel and not cruel with a eugenics theme).

[gaelic cowboy]

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again.

That is a load of cobblers man have you ever seen a properly destitute family they have loads of kids taking away support structures may save cash in the short term but it wont save it forever.

[miotas]

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

[Husar]

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

What if their 24th child is disabled and they already have 23?