One aspect of this tragedy that seems to recur with monotonous regularity is the cry for “more services”. While I cannot disagree that better support from the community – which includes, I must add, family and friends – can be a tremendous help when raising a disabled child (ask me how I know this), bringing it up in this context begs a question:

Why don’t people with less support kill their disabled children?

I have traveled to many “disadvantaged” parts of the world and I have seen a lot of people who are living lives of want and deprivation beyond the imaginings of most people in the US, UK and Europe. Yet, despite their poverty, these people do not routinely murder their disabled children.

But, to hear the people using this poor girl’s murder as a platform to call for more social services, one might wonder how it is that any disabled child in the so-called “third world” is allowed to live.

To be sure, let us provide the services that these families need – we who live in countries that are wealthy beyond the imaginations of those living in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia. But let us not use a lack of services (real or perceived) as an excuse for premeditated murder.

As to the question of stress and mental disorders, there are also many people under stress and – believe it or not – even people with mental disorders (including depression) who manage to not kill their disabled children. I suspect that these people might even represent the majority. I would argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that anyone who murders their own child is “mentally ill”, but that is a diagnosis – not an excuse.

So, let us not mingle the understandable – if somewhat misguided – curiosity to understand why this woman chose to murder her own daughter with a repugnant attempt to find an excuse for her crime. We may never know the “why”, but we can surely know that there was no excuse for it.

Moving on to those “accessories before the fact” who promote the concept of autism as a hopeless morass, a “life worse than death”, and/or “a parent’s worst nightmare” – I find their denigration of an entire group of people, sight unseen, repugnant in the extreme. You may have found your own personal Hell, but please don’t feel the need to drag others down with you.

When you exaggerate (or “selectively emphasize”, if you will) the negative aspects of autism, you create an environment of hopelessness for parents and family members that is not necessary. Take my word for it – the parents don’t need your help to see autism (or any other disability) as a personal disaster.

What they could use is a little help and perspective from parents who have faced the same thing and gotten past the hopelessness. But that wouldn’t help your “cause” much, would it? Hopeless people are easy to prod into anger, and anger is what the autism demagogues need to generate their power. I spit on you and your damned “causes” that feed on fear and anger. You did not kill this girl, but your hands are not as clean as you pretend they are.

Prometheus.

With a different perspective, parents might instead be thankful of how fortunate they are to live in a place where autism is identified and the government provides special education services.

An analogy might be someone who complains about the insufficiency of unemployment payments, whereas in the third world unemployment is the norm, and there are never any payments for being unemployed – they would never be expected or demanded. That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be an improvement for unemployment payments to exist in the third world. What I’m saying is that the cultural influence on perception is significant, and can sometimes result in unfortunate outcomes.

Having said that, given that posts about Katie are not necessarily the best place to discuss views on services, perhaps someone might suggest or provide an alternate venue and provide a link?

Really brilliant post and analysis. Thanks for writing it.

“Can you imagine how many less people would have heard about Katie if it weren’t for arrogant bloggers? It’s not always a bad thing.”

Agreed

“Ian, your words are sweet music, as always”

Thank you

/Ian blushing/

“Anything else is off-topic and doesn’t contribute to their winning their omnibus vaccine lawsuit -their big (hidden) focus.”

Diva, can you prove this?

Curious George

“the point is that blogging is arrogant. If you’re going to splay either yourself, someone else, or an issue open for all to inspect (why, b/c you’re just the guy/gal to do it) then you’re going to get hit with pot shots.”

I can see that blogging may sometimes be arrogant. For some it may also be a desire to be a part of a larger community of those who share similar ideas or interests. One of the write-ups I’ve read on it recently is that it is probably more akin to therapy, albeit with people not always recognizing that it is a ‘permanent’ and very visible therapy.

Is there arrogance in the autism debates? Definitely, in at least some cases, and on all sides. Sometimes though people get involved because the issues they see being discussed are important to them, and they’d like to influence the debate rather than sit quietly by and let others drive the public view of issues that they care about in ways that they oppose.

Yes, one should expect to get hit with pot shots. Anyone with an internet connection who can type can make a comment, and there’s no manners firewall. Having said that, comments are public too, and I think most readers can judge for themselves the character of both bloggers and commenters and weigh the relative value of their words accordingly. I can think of some who feel that they have something important to say, but because they have proven themselves to be total assholes, their words are automatically devalued and/or discounted. What’s the point in that?

Am I arrogant? Maybe. But if I am, I can assure you I get a humbling every Tuesday morning when my sitemeter report arrives in my inbox.