- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 21:58:25The author seeks to shock us with his original daring. In fact, this argument has old roots in the early 20th century eugenics movement.
- — Andrew Pulrang (@AndrewPulrang)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:04:31This is vile, murderous shit, but disabled people are expected to be philosophical & understanding about it. #CripTheVote https://twitter.com/aneeman/status/885253536770125824 …
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:06:54The NYTimes piece actually parallels almost precisely the 1917 eugenics propaganda movie "The Black Stork". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Stork …
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:11:15The film uses the same tropes that Times op-ed does: showing how the baby will grow to be a burden on society, unable to work, thrive, etc.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:20:15The Black Stork was a propaganda piece for the eugenics movement - but it was also based on real life events. http://www.npr.org/programs/disability/ba_shows.dir/children.dir/highlights/bsnewpap.html …
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:21:19Harry Haiselden was an actual physician who convinced parents in his hospital to let their disabled infant die - & called the press to brag.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:27:32Haiselden - who would play himself in the movie - worked to popularize the idea that euthanasia for disabled kids should be common practice.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:28:48Much of this was rooted in blaming parents for disability. The Black Stork would be re-released under the title "Are You Fit To Marry?"
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:29:27There are elements of that in the Times piece as well, which implies that parents who refuse to abort disabled kids are irresponsible.
- — David M. Perry (@Lollardfish)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:29:47I often think that the intensity of eugenic activity in the 21st century will vastly outstrip what we saw in the 20th. https://twitter.com/HowardtheDuck95/status/885264550022582272 …
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:33:09That's a common piece of the discussion as well - one often sees discussions of the cost of care in bioethicists' arguments for euthanasia.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:34:41This rhetoric has real consequences. There are many respected ethicists pushing for restricting life-sustaining care on basis of disability.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:36:22This isn't abstract academic debate - it shows up in clinical decisions on withdrawing life-sustaining care. http://autisticadvocacy.org/2015/02/autistic-self-advocacy-network-files-amicus-brief-challenging-discriminatory-denial-of-health-care/ …
- — Andrew Pulrang (@AndrewPulrang)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:36:38
- — s.e. smith (@sesmith)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:37:23As @aneeman notes, this isn’t a cute thought experiment/personal story. Attitudes like these shape the care offered to disabled people.
- — Ari Ne'eman (@aneeman)Wed, Jul 12 2017 22:38:40This is true for easy & cheap medical treatment - the case cited above involved withdrawing antibiotics - but esp for scarce & costly needs.
Disabled infants, life & death: Thread by Ari Ne'eman.
On July 12, 2017 the New York Times published, "You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die" by philosopher Gary Comstock discussing the difference between killing his infant son or letting him die. Disturbing & ableist to say the least, here is a thread by Ari Ne'eman breaking it down.
byalice wong271 Views