The Use of Verbs
What would the world be like without Down syndrome? I don't know. What would the world like without the people who have Down syndrome living in it? How have they contributed to society? I can't say.
I can say how my life personally has been affected by people with Downs. Most of the people I know personally who have had Down syndrome and I have made friends. As with all friendships, some of these friendships came easily and others took a lot of work. Either way, through our friendships, I learned things like how to trust people who said they loved me, and I learned that's it's really okay to laugh and be silly sometimes. Something I really needed to learn.
I wonder why it matters. I wonder why it matters what life would be like without Down syndrome and what life would be like without people who have Down syndrome. I wonder why it matters what people with Down syndrome have contributed to society?
No one has ever looked at me, save perhaps my father in moments of frustration and myself in moments of despair, and pondered the question, "What does Julie contribute?" "What good does her 'kind' do?"
Yet, such questions come up when making a case for life. When deciding to terminate a pregnancy when tests show the child will have developmental disabilities or when deciding, as it is becoming legal here in the west, to euthanize an infant with a severe disability or illness. Those of us defending us these children and their right to life are quick to give our western answers which base their right to existence on what they can contribute to society. What they can 'do' and 'give'. These are action verbs, if I remember my 4th grade grammar.
Instead, though, I wonder if our arguments for the right to exist shouldn't be based on being verbs. If we shouldn't understand for ourselves first, before we 'preach' to others, that our right to exist, all of ours, is based on who we are. Or even that we are.
Peter Singer and other such 'ethicists', seem to be bypassing the argument of what one can contribute to society, anyway. They are attacking directly one's personhood. They are defining personhood based on whether or not one is aware of his existence and mortality.
So, they declare that infants, all infants, healthy or not, people with severe or profound cognitive disabilities, those in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, etc., though perhaps human, aren't really a person. Therefore, if the human is not really a person, euthanasia is very much ethical.
Also, for parents and doctors who really care about children born or who will be born with severe disabilities or illness, they are not so much concerned with what the child can contribute but with the child's potential suffering. They have feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, despair, fear of the unknown, and guilt. In their grief over their child's potential suffering, parents can be swayed by the thought that the child will be better off if they let him/her die by the hand of their trusted doctor.
How do we help those parents make a choice for life? I'm asking because I don't know. While we passionately know that the child has a right to exist, how do we lovingly convey to parents that their child is better off alive and suffering than dead and at peace?
Is the child better off suffering than dead? Who are we to decide that the child must suffer? Yet, who are we to decide that death at the hands of doctors is the answer to suffering?
I think we should put down our protest signs, step out of the marching lines, with all due respect to the pro-life activists who have done much for the cause of life, and find a way to come along side suffering parents. Help them find hope because there is hope in the midst of suffering. Help them by enjoying and appreciating their child for who he/she is.
I think we should come along side those with disabilities and illness. It is through relationship with them that we will come to understand that most of their suffering does not come from their disability or illness. But rather their reception from the rest of society of prejudice, rejection, untold amounts of abuses, and the suspicion and judgment by some of us of their very existence.
Comments
These are really, really good questions. With technological advances we are almost becoming 'god-like' in our decision-making process and in our capabilities. We can articifically keep someone alive and we also have the power to terminate that artificial way of keeping them alive. Where is the line drawn. Should we even dare draw the line? So much we can do to prolong life. So many questions you bring up. So many I ask myself. I visit my Grandmother everyday in a place that has a rehab wing, an Alzheimer's wing, assisted-living wing, apartments for those more able-bodies that need little assistance. I come in contact with those in varying degrees of disability and illness. Makes me ponder just those questions you bring up.
I've had many questions about life, longevity, quality, technological assistance, the pros and cons.
For the most part, we all have a God-given built-in innate desire to live. God has also given us the smarts and gifts for these advances. Is it all good? Longevity vs. quality? Who decides what's 'quality'?
My own opinion right now is that I personally have an obligation and a DESIRE to do whatever I can to provide the best for my loved one. Of course, I know when I say that there are a slew of other unanswered questions that follow that statement.
There are a few ways to look at the disabled. The first is that they give us the opportunity to experience an element of Godliness. I purposely use the Father’s name here. He does not judge any of us and loves us all equally. Knowing people who society classes as ‘disabled’ or differently abled is a training ground for seeing if we can remove our prejudices and extend the same love to them. The second is to understand that on a spiritual plane they are equal to us. None of us can say that a disabled Christian is any less a Christian or has any less of the Holy Spirit running through him or her. This can be extended to other religions or to atheists as God views us all equally on that spiritual level.
Susan’s questions are difficult to answer about artificial way of keeping someone alive. I do not really know the answer here. I know I was instinctively against the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Susan, I completely agree with your conclusion: we must each do what we feel is right, and not live with any regret that we did not do enough to help a fellow human being.