Earlier this year, the cause for people with disabilities scored a major victory in Congress. In October, President Bush signed a bill into law, after unanimous Senate approval, which requires doctors to give out quality, accurate information about Down syndrome to parents whose children are prenatally diagnosed with the disorder.
A National Down Syndrome Society press release reports that this bill guarantees expecting mothers of children with Down syndrome will receive "up-to-date, scientific information about life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual and functional development, and prenatal and postnatal treatment options" from their doctors.
The press release also notes that doctors will be required to provide information about support networks, hot lines, Web sites, adoption services and registries.
As someone who would like to see more protections in place for the rights of individuals with disabilities, it thrilled me to hear of the bill's passage.
However, as time passed, I started to wonder how much of a victory this really is.
Although it certainly is good that the expecting parents of children with Down syndrome will be given accurate, up-to-date information about the condition, a question keeps eating at me: Why was federal legislation necessary to ensure that these things be done in the first place?
Isn't this a victory we shouldn't need to win?
If doctors' primary role is to provide for the health of their patients, there should be no question that they will do all they can to provide accurate and reliable information to patients about any conditions they are facing. It also does not seem unreasonable to expect that doctors give current and unbiased advice and information.
The idea that we need federal laws to ensure that doctors are doing their jobs well seems outrageous.
Recent evidence suggests, however, that such legislation was necessary in the case of children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome.
In 2005, Dr. Brian Skotko conducted a study of more than 1,000 mothers of children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. The study reports that information given to parents was often outdated and inaccurate. Rarely was adoption mentioned as an option, and support groups and other resources often went unmentioned.
Many parents complained that the news of their children's diagnoses was presented in a way they found negative and insensitive.
The sad result of all these studies is that, despite the fact that many people with Down syndrome can live long, fulfilling, fruitful lives and the fact that there are special waiting lists of parents who specifically want to adopt children with the condition, between 80 and 90 percent of parents who find out prenatally that their child has Down syndrome choose abortion.
On a certain level this legislation is good because it addresses a real problem, forcing doctors to be held accountable for providing as much information as possible. It does not - and no legislation can - address the issue that is at the heart of this and all other instances of mistreatment of people with disabilities: Our culture as a whole does not value people with mental disabilities the same as people without them.
Discrimination against the disabled is the last widely accepted form of intolerance in American culture.
If you don't believe me, stop for a moment and consider the way our culture views mentally disabled people - how they are portrayed and referred to in the media and how we as individuals respond to people with a mental disability.
Current culture's intolerance of mentally challenged people begins even with our language.
Take, for example, the way "retarded" has become such an acceptable word today.
Although it might seem harmless, it is extremely offensive and degrading.
In the right context using the word is fine, but when someone like Russel Brand stands up in front of millions of television viewers at the MTV Video Music Awards and calls President Bush a "retarded cowboy," he isn't just saying the president is a slow or undeveloped rancher.
Instead, by using the word, he's trying to insult Bush by inaccurately and thoughtlessly stereotyping a very real, very human and very undervalued group of people, and this is not funny.
Using the word "retard" in this way is hate speech, whether it is intended as such or not, and it is sad that garbage like this is accepted in our culture as normal and funny. It is no different than using racial slurs or any other discriminatory language.
Although the new legislation takes a step in the right direction, it is nowhere near enough. It stops an obvious form of discrimination, but the more widespread aspects continue on unaffected. Until our culture as a whole recognizes the amazing value and dignity of individuals with Down syndrome or other mental disabilities, problems like this will persist.
Next time a friend calls something "retarded," have the courage to point out that it is insulting and degrading. Next time you're watching Comedy Central and some comedian starts making fun of people with mental disabilities, turn it off.
Or, better yet, step out of your box and actually get to know someone who has Down syndrome or another mental disability.
It would be a great way to recognize first-hand the dignity and respect these people deserve, and that would be a real victory.
Luke Fischer is a junior sociology major. reach him at lukefischer@dailynebraskan.com
Be the first to comment on this article!