What do we do?

Historically, parents would usually give children with learning problems to an institution, and referencing hundreds of years, those children would be placed in some kind of asylum where they would usually get worse. In other words, parents and society would collectively give up on the children, relegating them to unfilled life and an early death.

We hear discussion about quality of life, about contributing citizens, and the role of education and helping people become productive in the world. We have great respect for those figures who through grit, fortitude, and intelligence accomplish amazing feats and become icons of the American dream. We peruse headlines and smile when we read about a sports figure or an actor or a model or a popular musician. We hold these people high in esteem. But we also regard with deserved admiration the brain surgeon, the lawyer, the politician, the general, and the successful businessman, all of whom contribute brilliance and skills to the betterment of society.

My other two children are of this ilk. One is on the pathway to becoming a sports psychologist. He is strong, smart, driven to excellence and will not allow himself to fail at what he does. The other son is creative, gifted, bright with a broad sense of the musical world, a world he is ready to enter and to conquer.

But what about those children and those adults who do not have the ability to become a famous actor, lawyer, doctor, teacher, or athlete? Do they have a role in society? Do they deserve a chance to live, to progress, to fulfill their potential? Does the government have a responsibility to help these people? Where does the family fit in with this obligation? Should we practice some kind of Teutonic eugenics that is an extension of Darwinism and let these people strike out on their own? Would the inevitable failure teach them how to then succeed? Or would the inevitable failure result in more homeless people dying in the streets?

Whether you consider yourself a compassionate humanitarian or not, can anyone with a heart honestly embrace the principal of the survival of the fittest and sit back allowing those with special needs to suffer? Should we as contributing citizens of the world shrug our shoulders and let these special needs people enter the world only to live in sorrow and confusion? The bird with the broken wing will likely perish due to a lack of ability to sustain itself. Maybe a few will figure out how to live but most will not. This is the way of the world. Let things happen the way they happen. Correct?

But let’s look at this another way. Through no fault of their own, autistics are born into a world that in many ways remains a mystery to them throughout their lives. They have a right to live in this world and a right to make their own way. Those without special needs (although I could argue that everyone has special needs) often feel they have a moral obligation to help the challenged adjust to the complex world.

It seems to me that we have one of two choices with these people: 1) destroy them or 2) help them cope. Since choice number one is not a choice in the Tucker family, we have elected to help our son Joel cope in a difficult world that does not and cannot fully understand his disabilities. Some may call this family love, others moral obligation, but whatever it is called it is the unswerving, relentless quest to help our son and to provide for his safety, comfort, and security.