Do you think it's cruel and selfish to keep severely disabled people alive?

Question

I think it is. When a mother is told her child will be severely disabled and likely die within a few years, but she chooses to keep it anyway, I think it's selfish. They might not know any different but they cost so much to society, they indirectly stress out their relatives due to demanding care and they don't have a purpose, they just exist. I've worked first hand with them and despite mothers saying how much they love their disabled child, they often outcast them from the family and don't bother much with them at all. They're a burden but people are too afraid to admit it. 
If I was severely disabled, where I had no quality of life, I couldn't communicate, I was having seizures every few minutes and couldn't do pretty much anything, I would prefer to be left to die. That's how humans used to do it. If a child was disabled, it would be left to die. It goes against nature. It was always survival of the fittest and so the disabled would die because they weren't the fittest and they couldn't reproduce, but that doesn't happen anymore. Except disabled people can be taken advantage of in that respect too which adds fuel to the fire. If an animal is severely disabled, it would be euthanized. We're animals that selfishly hold onto things we shouldn't.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

First off let me just say to the people who got nasty with you or had to make sure you knew they were "offended", everyone has the right to their opinion this is an article about what someone thinks so to either go out of your way to be mean just shows what's wrong with this world and if you're offended then don't read it, you're never going to like everything and anything in this world so to make sure someone knows your offended makes zero sense. You can voice your opinion in a polite manner after all this is a discussion but to talk down to the writer and get snappy is just mean.

But anyways I agree 100% with what you're saying and I a lot of times say the samething to myself. I definitely agree with the fact that we're animals, because if you look at how we live the basics of it we're doing the samething over and over again that other animals do too we're just dressed animals as I like to call it. I follow a really nice man on youtube who goes around and meets people with special needs and he's shown some people who literally are just brain dead deaf can't talk aren't formed properly who are connected to some kind of life preserving thing, and it's easy to tell that some of the parents are just holding on for selfish reasons. Anorher thing i've noticed a lot of is the fact that you'll have couples who have a terrible life with a deformity or disability get made fun of basically ridiculed, have to have over 30 surgeries and counting for the rest of their lives are constantly in pain who because they have to have children and want to knowing its guranted that their children will inherent the samething will gladly pass that hell onto their children just because of selfish reasons. I know this is way off topic but my mother abused me physically and mentally up until I moved out and because of that i never had kids I've always been terrified that I would turn out like her and would put my kids through the hell that I grew up with, while I have no idea what it feels like to have a kid I do know that you shouldn't allow any living creature go through hell just because you want them there. Almost a year ago I had to make the heartbreaking choice to put my beautiful cat down she had a disease that was slowly parlalying her while yes I could've held onto her for longer but that would've been selfish she was in pain scared and couldn't move, so as you said if you can sit there and kill an animal because quality of life it should be the same principle with us.

Brokenheartedx · Accepted Answer

That's not for u to decide on what someone else's chooses to do..

I had a severely disabled brother my mum didn't kno at the time until he was born.. his skull had only half formed.. my mum wasn't allowed to hold him or see him (in those days it wasn't the done thing) she wasn't allowed to go to his funeral he was put in a mass grave called the garden of innocence they kept her in hospital surrounded in new mums.. he was left to die on a mortuary slab... yup what they did in the late 70s early 80s...
is that selfish to deny a mother the right to hold her child while he dies alone? And how does a severely disabled child affect you? far worse people who drain society rather than a child who didn't ask to be disabled... a slight defect in a developing embryo can cause a disability but you know what else it's a lottery.. so if I were you I'd keep ur dumb comments to yourself.. karma is a bitch dear...

And what if a perfectly healthy kid ends up with meningitis or in a car crash where it loses the ability to lead a normal life and becomes severely disabled? Should just leave the kid to die as well?

Fact your a young woman asking this is sickening...

Elisa13 · Accepted Answer

Im actually quite offended by this topic tbh- it doesn't directly effect me but I know many people, some being close friends, who have relatives who are disabled and have lived short yet fruitful lives. One friend had a family member who couldnt talk, walk, and had to be spoon fed but his presence was enough and not a burden at all!
We live in the 21st century yeah, we have medication and treatment available so why not use it? How about those who struggle through chemotherapy to cure deadly cancers? Should they be left to die too? How about those who must take medications daily and only have a short life expectancy- oh seeing they won't live long its not worth it? WRONG AND WRONG! EVERY LIFE IS WORTH LIVING, whether it be with a disability, with the knowledge that your life expectancy is that of half of the average joe living in a developed country that is, or through chemotherapy in hopefulness and enjoying everyday as if it was the last

itsallover · Accepted Answer

Well, we don't live in the Stone Age anymore, and people don't just leave their child to die because they're perceived as 'weak'. Survival of the fittest isn't as applicable these days, with the advent of modern medicine which can help people with debilitating conditions to live relatively comfortable lives.

I would not hold it against parents for wanting to cherish whatever moments they have with their child. At the end of the day, that's their flesh and blood. They're more than just a disabled child in their eyes.

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

Learn how to write a poll question! Option C is very prejudicial... and oxymoronic the way it is written.

Yes, it is terrible if people who are suffering have to suffer. However, the nature of that suffering may be transitive especially considering the rate of medical change. Furthermore, to even advance medicine to cure or correct such conditions, these people need to be alive. No one should suffer needlessly, but no one should remove their hope either. They are the ones who should choose to end their lives or not.

FatherJack · Accepted Answer

If I lost total independence , then I would want to be put down , that thought scares me , as been self reliant since 17 & now a FT working single dad , hate the though of being reliant on others. Depends on the case , but both my children would want me to do the same for them , if it happened , for example , due to an accident & resulting severe injury.

justbanANNAz · Answer

what a terrible view. even many disabled people dont view life this way. they're probably more positive about their existence than you are.
by thinking it okay to get rid of a disabled person, such as your child as u mentioned, then YOU are the selfish one, because u stopped them from living to ease your own life. you didn't believe in your kid- you thought that a 'normal' life is the only way to live, and that is WRONG.

Hidden_P · Answer

I know where you are coming from and from an outsiders point of view with no feelings attached to the child, I would say it is unfair on the child. However, if it was happening to you, I don't think the decision would be as easy and it sounds.

Also, I've met several people who were told during scans or tests their baby is 98% chance they would be born with x y z and would be severely disabled and yet they've continued the pregnancy and the baby has been absolutely fine. I think more research needs to go into accurately testing. People are coming up with ways to improve people's lives every day.

foighveoirgho · Answer

If they make clear signs that they want to be dead and are in pain then it's selfish. My grandparents work for the state, and adopt heavily disabled children and adults to care for and give them a better life. Despite that they are so disabled, they can communicate feelings at least. Though can't feed themselves, or walk around by themselves.

I love all my uncles and aunts. ^-^

A thing to remember though is that most of these children are born like this and don't know otherwise, so most of the time, unless it hurts them to breathe, it doesn't hurt them on an emotional level. To grossly simplify it for you, if a child was born with a backward foot and hobbled around all their life, they wouldn't know any different from walking normally.

Though, completely brain dead people wouldn't know the difference between being alive and being dead, really. So it's pretty pointless to try and keep them alive.

Sara413 · Answer

If they're completely unable to function and can't socialize in a meaningful way then, honestly, yeah it is cruel to force them to exist. What is the point? So they can sit there and exist for the sake of it? They can't talk or laugh or hug or anything else that makes like worthwhile... I dunno... I think it is cruel.

blazeisbad · Answer

I am a psychiatric nurses aide so I work with people who range from mildly physically disabled to severe, & all of them are mentally disabled as well (from mild to severe).. because I work with & take of them, I think they deserve life because many of them are still able to enjoy life. As for someone who is brain dead, no. They should be let go.

wolfie12 · Answer

I didn't vote because your vote options are biased. I know a boy that was born in 90es they told his mum that he will not live longer than 10 years old. He is now in his twenties and still alive, he isn't suffering. Some of the reasons he is better is advancement in medicine and some is pure luck. But wouldn't it be sad to end his life just because somebody THINKS that he won't survive?

Again, there are a lot of people who are by our standarda suffering though it's normal state for them and they dont know of better, yet they enjoy their lives.

Who can be better judge for those who suffer than actually those that suffer?

Jxpxtxr · Answer

Is it cruel and selfish to keep a blind person alive? It's a tricky question but I think if they are born that way they can't know what it's like to be "healthy" anyways and hence might appreciate and love life just as much as any healthy person does.

Spiorad_Aisce · Answer

Okay probably not meant but a bit too soon after Japan killing spree where he wanted to Euthanize disabled people. I am honestly not sure, I can see your point but who decides the rules, the guidelines.
I know families that who have severely disabled members and the thought would never cross their mind. I often feel it is something you can't comprehend till it happens to you. I would leave it to families to decide.

DandelionGirl · Answer

So do you believe that this man doesn't deserve to live because he's disabled?

2.bp.blogspot.com/.../...13e-8c4d-d0f4a5e9e6ca.jpg

He wanted to commit suicide, but he's married with a wonderful woman and they have a beautiful child together.

Everyone deserves to live, God forbid a person does become disabled from a freak accident they wouldn't want to live, but some people take the good in, and forget the worst and live how they can.

JohnJohnn1 · Answer

Yes they did used to let them die or kill them, 100's of years ago when there was no real way to help them or look after them. However, with modern knowledge that is no longer the case and we're not living in the Dark-ages anymore. You seem to think of disabled people as lesser beings, which in my opinion is quite disgusting.

So my answer is no, I entirely disagree with what you've written.

Also, I think it's quite insensitive to make a post like this, only hours after that piece of s**t has just slaughtered a full care home of disabled in Japan. In fact, his warped reasoning behind the killings are actually somewhat similar to what you're implying in this question.

Hasaboyfriend · Answer

They shouldn't be killed but they should have a choice to live or be euthanized. I know if we brought in euthanasia it would be corrupted in some parts but everything is being corrupted in some way. I believe though that everyone should have a choice to live or die.

Anonymous · Answer

I think it is cruel. I have told people if anything happened to me that left me unable to fend for myself to pull the damn plug. I had a cousin who was left totally paralyzed from a car accident. she couldnt speak, move at all, nothing and she was 18 when it happened and she lived to be 37. I could not live like that or want to see anyone else live like that again. It isn't living really.

Shpongolia · Answer

This question is just like asking if we should keep Stephen Hawking alive, or put him down because of his severe disability. That man has contributed more to society than most able-bodied people could ever dream of doing.

Oxi112094 · Answer

No, I don't think it's selfish to keep your disabled child alive. It would be selfish to kill them and not have them experience life. I think when that child is old enough, they can make their own decision if they want to cut the cord or not. The parents shouldn't have anything to do with it. Suffering is a guarantee in life, you wouldn't be living if you dont experience life's suffering.

fuqthegovt · Answer

Put them out of their misery. Hell even go 1 step further and start taxpayer-funded euthanization clinics and offer incentives for disabled and terminal people to use them. That would be cheaper than paying $40-45B a month in disability checks. Even more savings if they can also encourage the retired elderly to use them (once one retires they don't contribute much to society compared to their working career, diminishing returns).

bryon · Answer

I've read a lot of bias questions rescently , but this one takes the cake. So who in your opinion will decide who gets killed and who lives? And what will be the determining factors that will be used in making this decision? And at what point will it become that a simple cold is grounds to be put down. Society are already forced to pay for treatments that some of us don't support and have never had a say in.

LeFrogDog · Answer

I always she how much a burden it is. They require full time care and are made to suffer all their life.

Nomad69 · Answer

Yes I think it is a waste of money and resources. If they can't contribute and are suffering and or a burden they should be allowed to have assisted suicide or to pull the plug on them absolutely

HyperNova · Answer

Yeah. Also people who keep down syndrome babies because they want a child at like 40.

ThisDudeHere · Answer

The dilemma here is that it is equally selfish to keep them alive OR tell the mother that her child has to die.

Do you think it's cruel and selfish to keep severely disabled people alive?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you think it's cruel and selfish to keep severely disabled people alive?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.