Euthanasia of the Severely Mentally Retarded

This is a topic I'd like to bring to light. It's generally extremely taboo because of the Nazi's and as far as I've experienced, anyone who supports it is called one.

I believe that ALL severely mentally retarded individuals should be euthanized. Now because this is a very select group I'm talking about, let me define what I mean by "severe" - Individuals who CANNOT support themselves and must rely on others for their entire life.

In the public school systems of the United States of America, the cost for students eligible for special education services are two to three times greater than that of a normal student. At the High School I attended, they had a non-stop fleet of four teachers huddled around six or so dysfunctional students every second they were in the building. They had their own special rooms, their own special buses, and they were always the first to get to lunch. While I only normally saw 4 teachers, the school website listed triple that under their special education program - The statistics for the district listed the average teacher salary at 43k per year. You can do the math on your own on how much it costs to supervise them and literally ESCORT them to their room because they cannot do it on their own.

These individuals are a drain on society and a complete and utter waste of tax payer dollars. Some individuals with mental(with additional physical) disabilities may not even live past 25 years of age, making the 20-30k a year cost to keep them around ridiculous.

Instead of focusing on a larger Gifted and Talented Program, or funding the nearly broke Choir Department, they choose to allocate resources to a group of individuals that can not and will not EVER contribute to society. Many of these individuals will spend 16+ years absorbing tax payers dollars for special treatment and come out without the ability to even read.

Decades ago, the mentally ill were sent to special government funded facilities. This was ended by the Education for All Handicapped Children act which was passed in 1975, which was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1989. Regardless, both these facilities and "integrating" them into the public school systems continue to be a complete drain on funding that could be better utilized elsewhere.

Let us imagine that we have a student in a Pre-Calculus class who is currently getting a low B. He is struggling with the material but making his way through the course - he could use extra help. Instead of receiving one on one aid, that amenity is used by a department literally changing the diapers of children with cerebral palsy. This student will leave with his B in Pre-Calculus and enter college. Once he graduates he will enter the workforce and eventually pay income, property, etc. taxes. Some of this tax money in turn will go straight to those mentally ill children who stopped him short of reaching his full potential.

This isn't simply a financial problem either. In the 2008 documentary by National Geographic titled Stress: Portrait of a Killer, a group of women were found to be aging more on a cellular level than the average individual due to the extra stress incurred by their mentally ill children. Many parents who have mentally ill children feel bad, guilty, or that they have an obligation to care for the child - many of these parents will take care of the child for years before deciding that they've had enough. They'll throw the child onto the educational system and the government and demand that extra programs are established for the mentally retarded and that current programs are not sufficient.

The mentally ill hurt not only students who would have had a nicer educational experience, but also the parents who struggle through merely caring for the child. It is because of these reasons that I am certain that the severely mentally retarded should be euthanized for the betterment of society.

Obviously I posted this thread to get a nice debate going, but I merely ask that you support your beliefs with factual evidence. Simply stating, "they're people too", does not invalidate my argument nor make a decent point, so please refrain from saying it.

 

Your entire argument, in essence, is that the severely mentally ill should be killed because they are not economically beneficial to society.

So, your logic goes like this:

If something is not economically/will not be economically beneficial to society, it should be removed/killed.

I will not even attack your argument - I will just show the implications of it:

1. All old people should be killed.
2. The morbidly obese who cannot work should be killed.
3. Woman, after menopause, who don't work should be killed.
4. People who refuse to work should be killed.
5. People with terminal illnesses (Alzheimer's, etc.) should be killed.
6. And others along the same line.

By the way, most of the above require large amounts of money to merely treat their conditions.

And now I think you'll see my point - you're thinking of this "too logically", but you have to understand that when dealing with the act of killing, you must always consider the emotional aspect. Call this an argument of pathos, but it's a necessary one.

But then you argue that this isn't also a financial problem - it is an emotional problem too. It causes "stress". Well, so do the old parents of a working man. So does the wife of a working man. So does the terminally ill relative of a working man. Should they all be killed for that reason as well? Don't argue that the above also cause moments of no stress - severely mentally ill people can do that for their parents as well. It can really make one's day to see a mentally ill person walking down the streets of a dirty suburb smiling - filled with happiness.

Be a bit more humble. Put yourself in their shoes. How would you like it if someone wanted to kill you because you were useless? Hell, how would you like it if someone called you useless? Imagine you were terminally ill with cancer and only had 5 more years to live. Now imagine that the government were to issue an order to kill you because you're "economically useless", and your parents agree because "you're causing them too much stress and unnecessary payments". Imagine the stress that would cause on YOU. Be thankful for what you have.

You're treating human life as a business - as if someone is under contract, the moment they're born, to benefit society economically. Now, does that contract really exist?

 

Although it may sound horrible, I actually agree with you.
I've spoken to friends and family and we've all said that if we ended up like that, then life wouldn't be worth living anyway. I personally would want to die if I was unable to anything for myself. I'd also put a hell of a lot of stress on my family as they'd have to take care of me, or they would have to cough out tens of thousands a year to pay for care. I'd rather not be such a burden and just die.

 

I disagree. There are far more criminals that don't contribute to society and use up tax money but we don't kill them off with the exception of major crimes like murder. Would you rather spend your tax money housing and feeding criminals in prison or housing and feeding the mentally challenged? If the later why not just opt to kill off the criminals instead and put the mentally challenged in I guess you could call it holding stations like prisons. Segregating the mentally challenge would be far more humane than to just euthanize them completely.

tldr: I would rather euthanize a criminal who doesn't contribute to society over an innocent mentally challenged person who doesn't contribute to society.

 

You are arguing under the premise that those we perceive to be beneath us should be executed to improve resource distribution.

I am intellectually superior to you. You should therefore be executed so that more resources can be put towards furthering my education and lifestyle.

 

Ah yeah, I agree with this a lot more.

 

1. A majority of old people worked for decades before - They deserve to be here.
2. The morbidly obese can still work, maybe not physically, but they can still contribute and support themselves.
3. Guess this is the same as number 1.
4. If people are sapping welfare their entire life and refusing to work whatsoever, then I believe they should be euthanized but that's another debate to be had because I'm trying to keep this one within a reasonable parameter.
5. Another argument, but euthanasia should be THEIR choice.

What you've done is essentially taken Action T4 (Nazi Euthanasia Plan) and told me that I support it, which I do not. Action T4 killed all the people on that list as they were no longer useful. I'm keeping the situation confined to a very small group of individuals who mentally are not able to support themselves - their IQ just won't allow it.

In my definition of severely in the original post I stated that these are people who MUST rely on others their entire lives, and by that I meant government help and family supervision almost 24/7/365.

The actions I would take are PREVENTATIVE. If you discovered cancer early and you could do something about it, you would. And under my ideas, if you discovered that your child would be severely handicapped, you would put it down to avoid a MASSIVE financial burden on yourself and the state and to avoid stress on everyone.

A lot of the categories on that list include people that HAVE supported themselves their entire lives. They haven't been a waste of money, space, and oxygen. Just because they've gotten old or are stricken with bad luck doesn't mean they should be killed. With mentally ill individuals, it's essentially on par with pulling the plug on a brain dead person on life support. There is nothing left, but their body still lives.

My concern is that most of the severely mentally ill are NOT self-aware. They have less intelligent tendencies than my German Shepherd mix. What is the harm in getting rid of an individual that can't even comprehend it's own existence?

I'm not even saying they have to positively contribute to society. All I'm saying is that they have to be able to operate to support themselves. Additionally, what if you were in a car or motorcycle accident and the damage essentially made you mentally retarded. Would you want to live? They have a very low quality of life. There is very little if anything they're able to do, and even less by themselves. You would be taking tens of thousands of dollars per year from your family and you would be an emotional terror on them. Would you choose that? I think that if a lot of the mentally ill had some miraculous minute of clarity, they would rather have death. Obviously I'm not a wizard and can't know that for sure, but it seems like a fair assumption to make.

We can both operate as human beings. Simply posting on this forum is an example of that because the severely mentally ill could not. We both support ourselves in our lives, therefore neither one of us should be put down. Very aggressive argument .

Yes, I would also euthanize criminals after it was determined without a doubt they were dangerous. Not all of them are repeat offenders. It would be a very fine line and definitely harder to determine who dies opposed to putting down the mentally ill.

And I know that emotionally you'd rather put down someone who is perceived as "bad" than someone you perceive as good(or neutral), but I'm not going to put one group down just so that the money can go to keeping the other around. Getting rid of mentally ill would have a massive financial benefit to not only the educational system, but insurance companies, etc. etc.

 

Irrelevant. I can do things you cannot do. Therefore you should be executed.

 

1. But they no longer have a use for society anymore. I don't think your type of society would tell them "thanks" by keeping them alive.
2. Not really. Read "The Man Who Couldn't Stop Eating" - it talks about a guy who couldn't even go to the bathroom anymore because he was so obese.
3. Okay.
4. Reasonable parameter? This is a conclusion that stems from the premise of your original argument - it's still well within the bounds of the topic of discussion.
5. Their choice is different than it being forced on them.

What I did, essentially, was tried to dissect the premise of your argument. It looked to me that the main problem you had (based on the OP) with the severely mentally ill is that they:

1. Cannot support themselves and must rely on others
2. Do not contribute to society (economically and emotionally)
3. Actually take away from society (economically and emotionally)

So what I did was I showed you quite a few other examples which EXACTLY FIT this same scheme. If you disagree to the other examples, then you're not following your own premise appropriately. If a premise has many implications, and you agree to said premise, then you must accept all of these implications/conclusions, otherwise you'd be considered illogical.

The people I mentioned can fit that requirement.

What gives you that right? Does that child not own his/her life? Or is there a contract saying that said child must contribute to society, and not cause stress to those around him/her? Again, show me that such a contract exists.

I'm assuming that the child was already born at this point - this isn't a topic about aborting the mentally ill, it's about killing those that already exist.

Why? At that point they essentially become similar to the mentally ill.

A man with Alzheimer's, at a point, essentially becomes a brain dead person on life support, who must constantly be fed by a tube, showered by others, etc. Should we kill him, since he's just "wasting" oxygen, space, and money?

Call me existentialist, but every action that you do affects humanity as a whole. By killing people for this reason, you are essentially diminishing the qualities of humanity to those of robots - nonfunctional/defected ones must be thrown out, right? Do you really want to downgrade humanity to that? It's a very dangerous mentality, which has many more implications than just those related to the severely mentally ill.

Who are you to judge on their quality of life? Sure, it may not be preferable to both of us, but don't forget - the mentally retarded can be (and mostly are) happy people.

No no, but you see, you don't choose to take the tens of thousands of dollars - your family does. And they do that because they want you around. They want that "stress". I wonder why?

And that's why, miraculously, they don't get those moments of clarity. And that's why they're happy.

-----------------------------

What you're advocating, at the end of the day, is a systematic murder. That doesn't even exist for criminals - the process to prove that a criminal deserves the death penalty is a long one. For the case of the severely mentally ill, it's as simple as taking your mentally ill child to the hospital/GROYMICC (Get Rid Of Your Mentally Ill Child Center), show them a doctor's note stating that your child is mentally ill, and watch as your child is forcefully put into a line (smiling, most likely), awaiting to get the drug injected into their veins which will end their life. Is this really what humans are all about? Do we help those who need help, or do we just get rid of them to save us the burden?

 

Please leave. Snoop is making points, you're just being immature.

But you're twisting my words. I applied these terms to severely mentally retarded in my original argument. If I were to apply those terms to all of humanity, it'd basically require a second Holocaust, and since everyone has their own opinion it would be far more detrimental than beneficial, thus why I would not support euthanasia on that scale.


The elderly have worked their entire lives and probably have enough money to support themselves. Why would we kill them? From my point of view, they've earned a level of respect. There are lots of obese people in the world, and plenty of them have jobs - if you're referring to an individual SO massive that they can't even operate my response is that they'd be dead soon anyways. The parameter I'm trying to set is one LIMITED to the severely mentally retarded. I'm not proposing we kill the elderly, those with cancer, or fat people.

I agree, your examples DO fit, if I wanted to systematically eliminate all individuals that no longer contribute to society, but that's not what I said. Most of the individuals you listed probably have the resources to support themselves for the rest of their lives. Therefore, they are not a drain on the government and most importantly aren't detrimental to the Educational system.

These individuals are permanently disabled and nothing will change that. From the second they are conceived to the second they die they can never operate on their own.

A family can't take their mentally retarded child and leave him on the side of the road or execute them. If that were the case you would have a point. These families don't have a choice but to care for them. They can't just offload them at the nearest dumpyard. Not all families want to have to deal with a mentally retarded child. Some love them, some feel guilty about them, some probably hate them.

Yes. Systematic murder that would save billions of dollars a year and improve the quality of education for millions of people.

You're making this Ethics vs. Betterment of Society. If I were severely injured in an accident and effectively became mentally ill I'd want to be euthanized as well, or if I were diagnosed with terminal cancer or any other fatal disease.

It's probably instinctual to feel bad about the thought of terminating a happy mentally ill individual. It always comes down to the question, 'Who gets to decide?' and honestly my answer is "I don't know". I'm arguing that getting rid of the mentally retarded would be beneficial to the growth of society, whether it is morally right or wrong. The details are almost unimportant as it will never happen as long as the United States stands as a democracy. It would take a communist state to systematically "murder" all these individuals and it is for that reason this is a purely theoretical debate.

 

All I have done is point out how fundamentally flawed the premise of your argument is. Being mentally disabled does not impede the rights a person is inherently entitled to. By your logic, a persons entitlement to these rights becomes void once we perceive their ability to be lower than a required standard. Who decides what level this standard is at? Certainly not you. I am intellectually superior and therefore far more capable of making such a decision.

I have chosen that you are below said standard. You are now to be executed.

 

You're taking the premise of my argument WAY too far. In nature, if an animal can't fend for itself it's left by the pack and will die. Why is it that humans decide to take others that can't support themselves or even comprehend their own existence and spoon feed them when they serve no purpose?

Do we think we're pleasing some higher power? Do we think this makes us "right"? It would be NATURAL for them to die off, but instead we allow them to live by absorbing the resources that others work for.

I personally support myself. I work a job. I pay for my food. I pay taxes. I pay for my internet. Does a mentally retarded person do any of those things? No. They don't work a job, they don't pay for their own food, and they don't pay taxes. They accept handouts their entire lives without a single thought in their head. I'm certainly not implying that the mentally retarded are 'selfish' but they're essentially animals. What makes us human is that we're intelligent and self-aware and can socially interact with each other, but severely mentally disabled individuals cannot do any of those things.

If you stand against the euthanasia of the mentally retarded you DAMN WELL better stand against the euthanasia of dogs and cats, because at least dogs and cats serve a purpose.

You're saying that my argument demands that once their ability is under a certain standard they need to be euthanized, but I'm saying they don't have ANY ability.

Someone might ask if I would kill a person with Alzheimers, and the answer is no. That used to be a PERSON. They had a family, and friends, and people who cared for them. They FORMED relationships. A mentally ill person might be loved but they can't love back in any conventional sense of the word. People with Alzheimers have moments of clarity - we still haven't proven that their memories and personality are completely gone. People with terminal illnesses, or the elderly, etc. are people. They have lived for decades and established relationships and played a role and purpose in the world. That is something that a mentally ill person can never do.

 

Stephen Hawking?

So you'd have had my brother executed because he needs assistance in school? Why don't we just kill the cripples too!

So every human life is just a number?

Yah, I don't think they'd like their funding to have the blood of children on its hands.

Except most children can receive the one on one help if they look for it, very poor example.

So what about people who don't care about succeeding? People who do get benefits "off the system"? Wanna have them killed too?

Did they ask for the deaths of these people?

 

Oh I've been waiting for someone to say that for a while. Stephen Hawking has ALS which is a PHYSICAL condition. Hawking is a genius, he doesn't have a mental disorder. Hawking has contributed more to society than all of us in this thead(myself included) probably ever will.

This isn't an attack on your brother, nor any other people. Cripples(e.g. Hawking) are conscious and self-aware. They actually learn when you put them in a classroom. This does not apply to them. Needing "assistance" in school, and needing someone to change your diaper because you aren't intelligent enough to use a toilet are entirely different things.

They're hardly living a "human life" in the first place. Sorry if I don't approve of spending twenty to thirty thousand dollars a year per child to have them escorted around and cleaned. That money could be going towards the best and brightest of our youth.

Lol. What kind of point is this? I already said this would never be implemented because we don't live in a communist country. This doesn't even have any bearing on the argument.

You mean PAYING for a tutor? Or are you referring to going in before or after school to get help from a teacher with 5-15 other children trying to have the teachers attention at the same time? Sorry, but that doesn't work.

Do you mean people on welfare? That's hardly relevant. You're just getting defensive so you want to make me like the next Adolf Hitler.

 

When he was initially diagnosed, he was not nearly projected to live as long as he did, and wasn't as successful as he was now. He was projected to be a financial burden doomed to die a horrible death.

Wow I'm sure glad we didn't make that choice for him!

Lol, right.

My brother isn't crippled, he does have mental issues. Extreme social issues, to the point where he needs assistance from the people that you complain about being employed.

Let's think realistically here, where do you think that money would honestly go? For some reason I somehow doubt it'd go to the best and brightest like you claim. Maybe it'll go towards the finding and destruction of the mentally handicapped!

It's a valid argument, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can use a strawman like this.

I went to a highschool with over 3000 students, and the only time afterschool help was crowded was right before tests. Any other time you'd have 0-1 people there. Plus talking with your teacher and communicating your issues goes a lot further than just whining and bitching.

How is it hardly relevant? It's the same criteria as others have pointed above. To simply deny that is illogical.

 

Do you have any idea approximately how many people in the US would be classified under "severely mentally challenged"?

 

But nonetheless, he will die short of the average human life span and will be most costly than yourself, correct?

I don't personally know your brother nor do I have anything against him. I'm taking a strictly HYPOTHETICAL and FINANCIAL point of view. I'm not declaring that I'm going to be the next world leader and that I will start the next genocide.

I never said he was. I was stating that there was a vast difference.

And there would still be plenty of money left over afterwards! Would you prefer I address your points in that manner, or can we be professional?

A valid argument? What? That people wouldn't want money that would have gone to dead special education students? My whole argument is that it would be cost-effective to do it. We're not theorizing how post-implementation would go. It isn't relevant.

Even if this is true(which would mean I accept your school as a fair representation of every school in America), it still doesn't change the fact that the mentally retarded are most costly than normal students. Those tax dollars could be spent on something more important.

I would revoke their welfare so that they had to get a job if they weren't working. But I'd like you to notice that the thread title is "Euthanasia of the Severely Mentally Retarded" and not "Euthanasia of non-working people on Welfare". How about you keep it on topic? I already addressed this 'point' when it was made earlier.

I'm beginning to believe that my description of severely mentally challenged may not have been an adequate representation.

I DO NOT MEAN INDIVIDUALS WITH: Learning disabilities, mild autism, speech/language impairment, deafness, or blindness.

I mean the intellectually impaired; the individuals who are just GONE. You can't have a conversation with them, they can't wipe themselves, they can't read or write, they can't work a simple job, etc.

But to answer your question, no, I do not know. What I DO know is that over 50 billion dollars a year go to special education.

NASA's 2013 budget is 17.7 billion. The future of mankind has less funding than the mentally retarded.


Here is the study from a recognized source to prove I'm not pulling figures out of my ass. http://www.csef-air.org/publications/seep/national/AdvRpt1.PDF See the highlights. Obviously since this study is from 1999-2000, we can all agree that even more money than that is currently being spent due to the increase in population.

 

I have a question for you. How many people currently would be classified under your definition of a severe mental disorder? What is the real financial impact of these people? You quote special education numbers, but that mostly encompasses the people who you already said you wouldn't kill.

What is the real benefit?

Please take your straw-man elsewhere. NASA's underfunding has nothing to do with the mentally disabled.

 

Supposedly, 8.6% of those eligible for Special Education are intellectually disabled. Which would come to 4.3 billion AS OF THE 1999-2000 school year. So I'm certain it's at least double that now.

Both NASA and Special Education are funded by the government. Tell me how that isn't related. Tell me exactly how the allocation of more tax dollars to special education than NASA is not relevant, when the basis of my entire argument was that the intellectually disabled are a waste of resources. I'm comparing a poor use of resources to a good one, and you're going to complain.

You've made the most aggressive and weakly supported arguments of anyone here, and you just HAPPEN to be a family member of a mentally ill person. Please keep your EMOTIONS out of a logical argument.

EDIT:

Does that look balanced?

 

Ok well I am assuming there are not a whole lot of "severely mentally challenged" people in the world. Is it fair to assume there are more criminals fairly convicted of assault/rape/murder/any other malicious crime then there are of these "severely mentally challenged" people? If there are fewer then serious convicts then why not just kill off the serious convicts and have the severely mentally challenged replace their spots in holding facilities? Trade off a prison for a "housing facility" for the severely mentally challenged. I don't understand why you find it necessary to kill off the severely mentally challenged. There are steps in between before reaching the irrational such as, eliminating their special programs and putting them with the "normal" people, and replacing prisons with housing facilities for the severely mentally challenged (giving them basic necessities and inexpensive amusement (television which is already in many prisons).

I agree that far too much is being spent on their education and other special programs but simply killing them off is far too extreme.