• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Disabled people and their value to society...

D

Dandy

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
1,062
I had a discussion with a friend last week about disabled/handicapped people and what their 'worth' was to society. Having not thought about this topic too much I didn't have a concrete opinion at the time. He believed that they 'drained society of its resources' because 'they were not putting into society'. He felt that they were not productive enough to be allowed to live basically.

I found it important to define - when saying 'disabled' - what sort(s) of disabilities we're talking about - because there are plenty of 'productive' disabled people also - since the umbrella is quite big.
He feels that people blatantly unable to fend for themselves and/or that need a lot of support/assistance from aids and carers should basically be killed at an early age or just terminated somehow (we didn't get deeper into how they would be killed because it's not really the issue here) because they really have no worth to society.

There are many arguments within this particular topic - such as: 'do we kill/terminate a person that becomes disabled and unable to function/be productive enough to remain living after being a productive member of society previously?'

The way I feel is that although at first glance these people may not be as productive as 'able-bodied' people because they are not capable of looking after themselves let alone 'putting in' to society it does not mean that they should be killed or forgotten about. They are still 'people' with the chance to live to the best of their abilities.
This begs the question: 'is it fair to let somebody who does not have the same quality of life live?' - Yes. I feel it is. Parents will typically love their children unconditionally and those children born that way - severely handicapped didn't choose to be born that way - to terminate them at a young age would be wrong. People should be given the chance to live life.
I understand i'm talking about people's children, friends and family here if they do know somebody like this so while I do not think they add 'much' to society in the way of being 'productive' - I do feel that they are someone's children and they have a right to live (and do provide work for people in disability studies) - I'm not being mean - this is a positive note!

(I realise the same could be said about people over a certain age but I'm not going to bring that up).


In essence, I'm asking you all: 'should people with severe disabilities that cannot work or look after themselves be allowed to live/use society's resources?'

a little controversial... I know - but it's an interesting topic and I'm keen to see what people have to say.


edit - I feel that there will be an overwhelming response to one side of this but really - there are a few issues here.
 
Last edited:
im not touching this topic, i can really see myself getting CLAWS from this
 
Originally posted by preacha
im not touching this topic, i can really see myself getting CLAWS from this
Click to expand...

Take the risk dude.
No one really likes you anyway 8o .
Seriously though,
I'd like to know how you feel, this thread will be boring if too many people are scared to reply.
 
So killing someone like Stephen Hawking would have been justified in that case? There are people who have full use of their facilities do nothing for society as well.
 
well there is a fault with the argument firstly. disabled or not, not everyone contributes to society in a positive nature.

for example, in terms of contributing to society, carl williams (melbourne gangland figure) has more than likely contributed less to society than the fat retarded kid with drool escaping his lips. just because one has the ability to give back to society does not mean that they choose to utilise that power.

the fact is that a large amount of disabled people will never contribute back to society in monetary terms. however, to their families, they provide 'love' and whatnot. a sense of family. society is a lot more than just large building and the corporate rat race that the government leeches off in the form of tax.

of course, we could set up two different sides for the genetically superior and inferior. in fact, lets make ghettos and grottos for those that cannot contribute to society. all we need is a few incinerators and gas showers just in case the problem of 'disabled' people gets out of hand.
 
Last edited:
Ok I'm going to try to voice my opinion on this.

Firstly - I agree with Wazza - how can you deem who contributes more or less in society when it is not the disability that really indicts them? There are plenty of non-disabled people who in my opinion, contribute less to society than disabled people who I have met.

Secondly, my issue is what is considered as "contribution". Certainly many disabled people may be restricted due to various conditions from "contributing to society" in that they are not going to develop a new scientific theory, or swim around the world. But contributions which I consider more valuable are social contributions. What about the contribution of friendship, love, even the implied contribution of being a member of a family, and showing your family members love and support?

Preacha [just read your post] I totally agree...[evidently as it's pretty much what I just wrote] :)
 
wazza said:
So killing someone like Stephen Hawking would have been justified in that case? There are people who have full use of their facilities do nothing for society as well.
Click to expand...

Good points.
People who have full use can be forced into working - and being somewhat 'productive' though.
I do realise there are still some that don't/won't do this - while having access to their facilities.
Yes, killing someone like Hawking would have been justified.
 
Originally posted by silvia saint
you've lost me there, big time.
Click to expand...


Would have been justified if those perceived to have no ability to be productive was the case - like the opinion my friend has. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that one side of the argument is such that assuming someone like Hawking was perceived to not have the ability to be as productive at an early age then - as my friend thinks - this person would have been terminated.
Based on the notion of being 'disabled' to the point that they couldn't function without the aid of somebody else. Hawking is productive but Hawking is the type of person that comes along very rarely. He has proven that he can be productive - I can see now how mentioning Hawking has accentuated the notion of productivity, regardless of disability. And that is definitely one of the issues here.
 
preacha said:
well there is a fault with the argument firstly. disabled or not, not everyone contributes to society in a positive nature.

for example, in terms of contributing to society, carl williams (melbourne gangland figure) has more than likely contributed less to society than the fat retarded kid with drool escaping his lips. just because one has the ability to give back to society does not mean that they choose to utilise that power.

the fact is that a large amount of disabled people will never contribute back to society in monetary terms. however, to their families, they provide 'love' and whatnot. a sense of family. society is a lot more than just large building and the corporate rat race that the government leeches off in the form of tax.

of course, we could set up two different sides for the genetically superior and inferior. in fact, lets make ghettos and grottos for those that cannot contribute to society. all we need is a few incinerators and gas showers just in case the problem of 'disabled' people gets out of hand.
Click to expand...

I like this dude. Sometimes cold but clearly intelligent.
 
oh by the way, doctors have always ended the lives of new born babies who are born into extreme suffering. it just isn't official or spoken about all that much and is usually carried out via subtle abuse of pain killers. it currently is at a doctors / parents discretion, though you won't find such a process being applied to disorders where the child's quality of life is poor, usually it is done only for those born with untreatable conditions that see the child in excruciating pain 24/7.
 
is this even worthy of an argument? I really fail to see how the view expressed by your friend could be justified in any cohesive sense.
 
^^ its totally worthy of an argument

with our depleting resources these days, eventually our population is going to have to decline in order for civilisation to cope.

the question is should we allow those that are considered 'dead weight' by the community to consume these dwindling resources while someone who is far more goes without? survival of the fittest says no, morality says yes. it depends on what side of the fence you decide you are on.

thats the point that is trying to be made here, try to look further into things instead of taking them at face value.
 
I spent a few years working as a supervisor in what was basically a sheltered workshop.........although it was more a business.........government subsidised to a small extent which was making money.

Some of the people working there were, believe it or not, severely handicapped and yet able to perform small but meaningful tasks.......such as placing a package onto a conveyor belt..........often achieved via mimicking......

The fact is that having seen these people and learnt to be amazed by them...........I still ask myself the question........How would I handle being a parent to one of these kids.

And I think that is the question that everyone should ask themselves.

There is NO easy answer.

I can see how handicapable person (a) could be well accepted and loved and cared for by parents x and y..........however the same (a) may be a huge problem for parents s and t for example.

I will be honest and say that Im not sure that I would cope.

Having said that.........I dont have any children but I do have a mate whom i love as much as i feel I could love anyone..........definitely more than I have ever loived anyone in my life to this point in time.

If he had a car accident and ended up in a wheel chair.........I am 100% positive that I could and would spend the rest of my life caring for him...........why???........because I love him.


If I was aware therre was a problem with my child while it was inside the womb............I cant answer what i would want to have happen.........I wont know until Im put in that situation.
 
^ We have sheltered workshop people working for our company. They are amazing. Sometimes a little slow , but they are *always* happy and always work hard.

Honestly... I do find it difficult relating to some of them. They are very forward and often do or say things that are just socially unacceptable - like innappropriate compliments or touching my hair or saying 'hello' seven times in the day - but that's probably more my problem/insecurity than their fault. I think it takes a very special person to work with them and an even more special one to commit to raising a disabled or intellectually challenged child... I'm with MazDan, I'm not sure I could cope. I would make that decision when and if the time arose I guess... you never know how you're going to deal with something of that magnitude.

But I would never question their right to be in society. I feel very sad that such awful things go wrong to these poor people but their soul is a human soul just like ours. They deserve to live and they deserve our support. And those brave and kind enough to help them deserve our utmost respect.
 
If it wasn't for disabled people then who would sell The Big Issue?
And it would also mean there wouldn't be any of the good spots for me to take in at the shopping centres.
But on the upside there would be 4 extra seats on the train for me.

PS. I was joking.
 
preacha said:
^^ its totally worthy of an argument

with our depleting resources these days, eventually our population is going to have to decline in order for civilisation to cope.

the question is should we allow those that are considered 'dead weight' by the community to consume these dwindling resources while someone who is far more goes without? survival of the fittest says no, morality says yes. it depends on what side of the fence you decide you are on.

thats the point that is trying to be made here, try to look further into things instead of taking them at face value.
Click to expand...

I still maintain it isn't worthy of an argument, or perhaps more accurately it's not worth arguing about. Reason being, if we're ever at a stage where we *have* to prioritise existence based on productivity, it's already too late, and the world is fucked.

Our focus (and debates in forums and the like) should be on how to stop the situation from getting to the point where we have to make these sorts of choices, rather than what we do when we get there. Discussions on the practice of ineffecient and non-renewable resource gathering, on education on contraception in third world countries, and the like. This is what is going to be *most* helpful to deal with a situation of dwindling resources, not debate on a survival of the fittest style culling to reduce a percentage point of the world's population.
 
^^^
spot on.

anyone who thinks that the life of someone should be ended for any other reason than to put a stop to such a person's suffering should go don a swastika and fuck off while they're doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top