How Should the Mentally Retarded be Treated?

Great Debates
1

How should the mentally retarded be treated? Do you treat them as humans with limitations? Or as limited humans?

As I see it, treating them as humans with limitations would entail including them in all functions of normal life such movies, dinning out, road trips, discussions, etc, and understanding that they don’t have the full capacity comprehend the situations or issues. I would call this “emotional” treatment.

Treating them as limited humans would be the “rational” way as I see it, understanding that they can be excluded to no one detriment in many or most cases: For example, if your going out to a restaurant and the theater afterwards, it makes little sense to bring along the mental retarded who would enjoy the outing but would be equally happy with fast food and the TV at home.

I am sure there are many gray areas in this simplification.

I am asking this question because my wife’s uncle is retarded and lives with her mother eight months out of the year; she and my wife treat him on the full blown emotional side. The other four months of the year he lives with relatives on the West Coast; they treat him wholly on the rational side. Although I support the rational treatment, I have stayed out issue as much as I can since he is not my responsibility and I should not dictate how he is treated, but recent developments are forcing me to make a stand. He broke his hip a few years ago and is now physically handicapped requiring the use of a walker; more recently he has increasingly lost control of his bladder and bowels in public places. After once incident when he wet himself in a Red Lobster and we had to drive home, still wet, in a new car, I suggested that he be made to wear Depends or some other adult diaper. My suggestion was ignored. I suppose my wife and mother-in-law believe Depends would hurt his feelings, especially since his accidents are not an everyday occurrence, or so I am told. More than just the Depends debate, his physical handicaps, he is also nearing sixty, and I think it would be rational to find a special care facility for the mental retarded.

Okay, so how should the mentally retarded be treated?

2

I worked as a counselor for two autistic men who were also MR, so I can tell you how we did it:

  1. We involved them in any and all social/entertainment activies that (a) they did enjoy, and (b) their behavior would not disrupt the event for others. For (b), we didn’t mean “disruption” as “some people are grossed out by the presence of the DD”, we meant (for example) “these two individuals respond to being in dark places by screaming loudly, so we won’t bring them to the movies.”

  2. We attempted to expand their social/entertainment activities, but did so with forethought and preparation. If the new experience wasn’t to their liking, we didn’t force them to attempt it again.

In response, I believe my 4th grade teacher, Sister Mary Atrocious, said it best: “crap”. Do you enjoy fast food and TV as much as a restaurant and the theater? The MR/DD may not understand everything going on on stage, but they probably don’t understand everything on the TV, either. In this example, what they will enjoy is better food, and real people acting in front of them.
To sum up, your “rational/emotional” dichotomy is a false one. Humans, whether they are DD/MR or not, are emotional beings, so you have to deal with a DD/MR’s emotions. Just as you do, they like events, and they (usually) like something new and different.
Finally, your “limited humans” concept is extremely dangerous. Because MR’s aren’t as smart as us, they are somehow less human? OK, I’m smarter than the average bear, whether you grade that by IQ, schooling, or professional accomplishment. Does that mean I should consider Mr. Joe Average, with a mid-level IQ, schooling and accomplishment, as a “limited human” compared to me? When you get down to it, the difference between my IQ and Mr. Joe Average’s IQ is about the same as that between Mr. Joe Average and Mr. MR.
V.

3

Hear Hear, Sua!!!

Here’s a radical thought: treat people as , well, people. If there are individual considerations (note the word “consdierations” not necessarily “limitations”) then do that.

Everyone has had periods of time needing “considerations”. When I was pregnant, for instance, going more than 5 minutes w/o available bathroom breaks was a necessity. I’m particularly pleased that my family and friends didn’t decide to leave me home because of this.
Hopefully, you won’t get an abject lesson in humility thrown your way.

4

As I understand it, mental retardation in no way effects the emotional needs of individual.

They crave love, companship, friendship, and fun just as much as the next guy.

Next door to me live two full grown retarded men with their aging mother. They like to walk in the woods, and have asked permission to fish in my pond. They said they would trim the grass and bushes in return for this permission. They have been absolutely faithful in their end of the bargain, and it’s been a pleasure to have them next door.

About four years ago their mother went into a diabetic coma, and Rick (one of the retarded guys,) who forgot about using the phone carried her seven miles into town to the fire department.

To me this speaks of love and commitment worth of any man (Though I’d use the phone.)

Both brothers are severely retarded, and I’ve observed with humor at times when they seem to “stall” (I know of no better way to describe it. They will be walking or doing something, and then they’ll just stop and freeze, sometimes for several minutes, than go on again like nothing happened.

They are baically unemployable. However, to exclude them from life to the degree that they are able to participate in it is simply cruel.

5

**

Would you make one of them wear adult diapers if they couldn’t control their bladder and bowels in public?

I didn’t say they were less human, I said limited human. A man with no legs would be a limited human too because he probably wouldn’t be much good as a jogging partner but that wouldn’t mean is less human. Now maybe a man with no legs could learn to be a good jogging partner by wearing prosthetic limbs, but that is a different subject.

6

Pyrrhonist said: *I didn’t say they were less human, I said limited human. A man with no legs would be a limited human too because he probably wouldn’t be much good as a jogging partner but that wouldn’t mean is less human. *

Hell, in that case I’m a limited human too because I have poor eyesight and can’t stand on one foot without losing my balance. I agree with other posters who objected to the term “limited human” applied to the MR: either it’s somewhat degrading and potentially dangerous, or it’s so general as to be a meaningless distinction.

7

Gotta agree with the other posters here, Pyrrhonist. Everyone is limited in some way. It would not be such a far fetched conclusion to classify you as a “limited human” given your lack of desire to procreate. I mean, given that a majority of adult population finds it a desireable and even imperative action, your lack in this area may classify you as being somehow defficient.

It’s an extreme example but you can see the kind of slippery slope “limited human” down which these kinds of labels can lead.

To answer your other question, yes, I would certainly encourage your wife and mother in law to reconcider their position on incontinence gear. I can’t imagine losing one’s control into a diaper would be very comfortable for the wearer, but it must be a big improvement over the current alternative. If nothin else, it would be less embarassing in public for the gentleman in question because no-one will likely notice the problem.

8

I always feel like such a JERK because I have to admit, I feel uncomfortable around the mentally retarded. I didn’t use to feel this way-as a child, there was a kid who lived up the street from my aunt who was very severely retarded, and, at fourteen, had the mental age of a five year old. He’d always come over to play with my cousins and we had fun.

Now, it’s like, I feel very awkward…does that make me a bad person?

9

“Treating them as limited humans would be the “rational” way as I see it, understanding that they can be excluded to
no one detriment in many or most cases:”

The detriment would be to the person with the disability as you would be denying them the opportunities you take for granted.

My career field is Rehabilitation. I have taken my clients to a wide variety of events and activities and guess what? They often enjoy these outings more than I do.

We have worked very hard to expand these people’s interests and going to McDonald’s is pretty low on the list; the Imax theatre, movies, shooting pool, rock concerts, sporting events, the museum, and the zoo are some favourites. We sometimes grab a burger on our way to someplace but there is much more to life than that.

We’ll be going to see David Wilcox in a few weeks and plan to stay out way too late, just like “normal” folks would.

10

I currently work with retarded/DD people. So this topic hits close to home.

I think that there is an “emotional” element that some parents or family have towards their retarded relative, and it isn’t always practical.

For instance, there is this one girl that one of our “clients” (that’s what we call the people we look after at my work.) She lives in a residential, state-run home, and is given 24 hour care by caretakers. She does not live witih her parents.

I have never worked with her, because she has such an extreme history of being violent and unpredictable. (I threatened to quit if I was forced to work with her. No one pushes the issue with me anymore.) This young woman is violent and can be very dangerous at times. She has injured staff members. MANY staff members. She has made huge, ugly scenes in public. At times, the police have had to be involved because of scenes she has made in public. Yet her parents insist that she still go on outings, even though they are told about the terrible scenes she makes, even though the police have had to be involved at times. They just refuse to believe that their daughter is at fault. They even refuse to allow their daughter to be given heavier medication to help control her violent behavior. (Why the state puts up with these parents’ insistence is a long, long story, and I shouldn’t go into it.)

The parents LOVE her very much, but they are not at all practical about what her care should be. They want her to live as “normal” a life as possible, but it isn’t possible with this young woman. I don’t know exactly what my point is here, but something has to give in this situation. I don’t think society as a whole should have to suffer (and that people have to be injured) so that this girl’s parents can feel like their daughter is having a more “normal” life experience.

Before I started at this job, apparently policies were different then they are now. Some pencil-pusher decided that all treatment of DD people should be “age appropriate”. Meaning, that if you were 40 years old, you didn’t wear adult diapers. Ever. So when a “client” was incontinent, they were NOT allowed to wear adult diapers, because it violated the “age appropriate” rule. So apparently staff members spent all their shift cleaning messes. Because some middle-management person (who NEVER would have to clean these messes) decided that it was giving the developmentally disabled person more “dignity” by being treated in an “age appropriate” manner.

The people I look after now are treated in an appropriate way, IMO. They have special staff members that take them on lovely outings, to the store, to the park, to musical events, whatever. One of the women I look after goes to a special “school” each day, where she goes on great outings, does simple crafts, and has a fabulous time. And yes, these people wear adult diapers.

11

Well, just because it affects me directly, I think that referring to anyone as “limited” is pretty cold. Particularly since everyone is “limited” in one way or another.

Now, as far as your wife’s uncle, Pyrrhonist, I don’t think that adult diapers would be a bad thing at all. Provided that the instances are happening with the frequency that you indicate. However, you also should probably take into consideration that this gentleman is a long-term family member for your wife and your mother-in-law. As such, they’re likely to get a mite peeved at you stepping in and telling them how to care for him. Maybe a heart-to-heart with your wife is in order.

I would imagine that you have never had to deal with someone who was MR, and you see things from that point of view, which is perfectly legitimate. After all, most people have not had to deal with someone who is mentally retarded. But for those of us who have, we usually have a better idea of what they can handle than you seem to.

F’rinstance, my daughter dearly loves a duo called Trout Fishing in America. When I saw that they would be at a nearby club, we took her to see them. She loved it, despite her aversion to loud noises that aren’t coming from the stereo. What you said in the OP was that she would have been just as happy going to McDonald’s and watching her video of them again. And you’re right, she would have. But she had a much better time seeing them live, and it never occured to me to not take her. Well, it did, but only because I wasn’t sure that I could take her to what was, basically, a bar. I forgot, though, that she can drink me under the table.

Sua and Feynn, it sounds like the folk with whom you work are pretty damned lucky.

Scylla: That was a very sweet story. I can only assume that these young men aren’t Amish?

And, yosemitebabe, I’m astounded that your place of employment is able to find people who will work with the young lady that you describe. Although, you are correct that all too often people whose children are MR seem to think that their child is ideal, and that any problems come from others. But some people do that whether their kid is MR or no.

-GLW

12

No they are not Almish. I don’t hate everybody.

13

I think people are placing emotional values on what I intended as technical terms, seeing “limited human” as a derogatory term like a Nazi whispering “Jew.” There is no emotional valuation, it is a philosophical classification. For example, some might say “Pyrrhonist is a human who is cynical.” This would mean that Pyrrhonist’s cynicism is in the background. If you wanted to say the Pyrrhonist’s cynicism is in the foreground someone might say “Pyrrhonist is a cynical human.”

When I discussed the “emotional” way I was saying that people used emotional criterion to make judgements. The “rational” way, perhaps “aemotional” would be more correct though not an English word, is say that judgements are made without emotions.

Confusions like this is way the philosophers write tedious page after tedious page of technical terms. Many people, however, emotionally object to the aemotional classification of humans.

14

Scylla, so they’re still the Almish, huh? :wink:

GL - yes, it astonishes me that they find people to work with this young woman. Part of it is that the supervisors conceal the truth from new employees, so they’ll work this girl. (But the new people always find out! I did!) Apparently some of the people who work with her have good luck, or somehow have developed techniques to avoid being hurt. But few go away totally unscathed. I guess that some staff members won’t refuse to work with this girl because they “don’t want to make waves”, and “she probably won’t hurt me”. I also suppose that they don’t want to risk giving up the good government employee benefits. I dunno.

My adamant refusal to work with this girl really pissed off one supervisor, who tried to put the guilt trip on me. She acted is if I had a lot of nerve to be afraid of this girl. Her attitude was something akin to “How DARE you!!! This girl is a human being!!!” I guess this technique worked on some employees, who were worried that it would look “politically incorrect” to not want to “give this girl a chance”. But this technique did not work with me.

And yes, the parents dote on their daughter, and think she is rarely at fault for her behavior. But yet they refuse to take her on these outings themselves - they want staff members to do it. It’s a weird situation - they expect staff members to get their daughter to do things that they (the parents) cannot get her to do. Frankly, I am really glad I don’t have to deal with these people.

Most of the MR people I have encountered in my job are sweet people, who enjoy going out and doing different things. They benefit from that. But some don’t. One girl seems to hate walking for too long, is unsteady on her feet (though she can walk perfectly well) and taking her out somewhere where there would be a lot of walking would just make her miserable and fussy. Each person has to be considered individually.

15

I gotta hand it to you, Yosemitebabe. I don’t think that I personally could do it, as much as I hate to admit it. I don’t think I could have the patience. I hope that doesn’t make me a bad person.

16

There are lots of limits on human beings. Some come from the individual, and of those, some are the inherent effects of physiology. Most of the limits on humans are not that simple. Society limits us all far more than our own abilities. When disabling disease or physical injury circumscribes those abilities, the social limits generally get more stringent. That is a sad thing. The people most severely limited by social convention are the exact ones least able to rise beyond those limits.

For every person who fulfills social expectations for the general class of [insert politically correct synonym for various cripples] there are the many others who simply live, however much they are able, as we all do. Yes, mentally retarded people are more likely to have hygiene habits less meticulous than average. Some don’t, though, and some real normal slobs are walking around out there under their own supervision. Diplegiac people take up more room at the club than do ambulatory patrons, especially out on the dance floor! The fact is that you might be less than desirable as a immediate contemporary user of public facilities in some people’s eyes.

Screw ‘em. Me and my quadraplegiac, epileptic, mentally retarded buddy came out tonight to see, and be seen by the jet set, and the hoi polloi. We are going to show you norms how to paaaartayy! You loose lunch cause one of us might drool on our tie a bit, tough luck. The manager knows better than to even suggest that we leave. Besides, he likes us! The waitress knows us, too, and we probably tip better than you do.

So, get your brother in law out in the street, and bring him along. Yeah, a pair of Attends can fit under your good pants, and if no one makes a big deal about it, it ain’t a big deal. But the biggest deal of all is: YOU TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO BE ABLE, NOT HOW TO BE DISABLED.

Tris

17

This is SO true! I have taken some of the people we care for to many dance functions that are set up for the disabled and retarded people of the area. I have never seen such great partiers! They dance better than anyone! They have great fun, with great enthusiasm. It’s very cool.

Guinastasia: Thanks for the kind words. The thing is, I never thought I’d get into this line of work myself, no one who knew me thought I could do it. But you’d be amazed what you can do, once you decide you want to try. AMAZED.

18

I guess the thing to consider is the benefit of the disabled person. If taking them to a fancy restaurant makes them nervous or unhappy, take them to McDonalds instead, where they can talk and if they happen to drop a french fry or two no one cares. If they like to go out to fancy restaurants then sure, take them. But you shouldn’t take them somewhere just because you like to do it.

It’s like the Simpsons: “All honor students will be rewarded with a trip to an archeological dig. All detention students will be punished with a trip to an archeological dig.” Just because YOU would rather go to an opera than stay home doesn’t mean that a DD person would. And conversely, just because you think a DD person wouldn’t like to go to an opera doesn’t mean that you are right.

But this is interesting to me. We generally consider our intellectual side to be the most human part of us. But a person can live a happy life…can partake fully in human existance…even with profound mental deficits. If you get to know a downs person they are people in every sense of the word even with their profound limitations. Our humanity doesn’t come from our exclusively human characteristics, rather it comes from our animal natures. It is possible to have a profound realationship with a dog, a creature that exists on an entirely different cognative level. But if you take away a person’s animal nature, if they are just left with the ability to think but no emotions, then what you have is a monster. Even though such a person could do complex math it would be impossible to have a human relationship with them like you can have with a dog. Our animal selves are our real selves, this cerebrum and language centers are just newly added modules that sometimes help our real selves.

19

Guinastasia, it doesn’t make you a bad person. Everyone has different levels and types of abilities. As long as you treat DD people as well as you can when you encounter them, then you are a good person. I had students in my class in school (6th and 7th grade) who were “mainstreamed” for whatever *ridiculous reason the schoolboard came up with. I was always finished with my assignments early, so the teacher would ask me to work with them. I did. I was very patient, working with them for the short time that class lasted. I recognized that they were people with feelings and needed to be treated with respect. That doesn’t mean I could make my life’s work out of working with DD/MR people. I admire people who do, but I couldn’t do that. Still doesn’t make me a bad person, though.

  • I say ridiculous, because these people could only read with LOTS of help, so what benefit did they get from being pushed through a class with “normal” kids, when they obviously needed extra attention? Very little. Mostly they got tormented.
20

I wonder why this supervisor felt she could say this

to you. Just because the resident is a human being doesn’t mean other human beings need to put up with her abuse.

I worked at a REM home here in Minnesota for a while. When I was employed, they asked that I commit to a year, which I did. There were two or three out of the fourteen residents that occasionally became violent, and we had a practice (maybe called rule 41?) to physially restrain a violent resident. With one of the residents, it took four workers to restrain him, and he scared a lot of us. His family would not agree to using more medication on him, either, and they eventually took him back into their own home.

I worked there only a year because I did not like the administration. Two very nice women with Down Syndrome shared an apartment, and would often ask me to get their pop out of the locked supply closet where it was kept, and put a couple cans apiece into their refrigerator. I was eventually called on the carpet for this because they were only supposed to receive a can a day upon the successful completion of their “programs” (individually designed to help prepare people to live more independently).

These women always successfully completed their programs, and got their can of pop, but wanted more. The pop was bought out of their money, and they always had extra money at the end of the month. But the administration felt that it undermined the success of their programs for me to give them pop when they wanted it.

I pointed to the “Patients’ Bill of Rights” posted in the entryway of the facility, and reminded the administrator that both people were adults, and I continued to give them pop. (It is difficult to keep workers at places like these, which is maybe why they didn’t fire me.)

Eventually I was circumvented by them being switched to sugar pop. They were both on calorie restricted diets for health reasons, and the sugar pop was figured into their diets, so giving them more than one can of sugar pop would exceed their calorie limitations.

I was already working full time in addition to this job, so at the end of the year, I quit.

But I still believe that people deserve to be treated as fully human, within the limits of their cognition. If they understand that there is a difference between going out to a movie or doing fast food and staying home, they should have as much a choice as anyone else in a family.

(I myself would prefer fast food and a movie at home, but I would be agoraphobic if I could afford to be; alas, I have a house payment.)