Disability and Economic Relevance

A recent poll on the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies site posed the question:

Is the economic cost to society from disability relevant?

Three multiple-choice options were provided as possible responses to this question:

1. No, it should be ignored because of eugenic implications

2. No, because it can't really be calculated

3. Yes, it is part of any public policy calculus

At the time of this writing, final poll results aren't quite in yet, but I'll be interested to see the results. I'd be even more curious to know how the various people encountering the poll interpreted the question, but I am not sure there's any feasible way to obtain that information. I will say, however, that I personally found the question to be somewhat vague and difficult to interpret definitively. My first response to reading it was, "Relevant to what?"

I definitely don't think people should ever be discriminated against, or denied certain rights, on the basis of their configuration -- which means that if nondisabled people aren't forced or coerced into undergoing (possibly experimental) treatments in an effort to make them "less of a drain on the system", disabled people shouldn't be either. Additionally, I am horrified by the idea that parents would ever, say, be penalized or denied services for a disabled child on the basis that they could have learned of that child's condition (and aborted the fetus) but chose not to.

While I'm all about offering people plenty of opportunities to develop and enhance their talents, modify themselves, or even gain abilities that they weren't necessarily born with the potential for, it is vital that individuals retain maximum control over their own bodies and lives -- not states, not corporations, and not The Economy. And while I realize that some policies and programs I generally tend to support (e.g., those designed to help people quit smoking or overcome drug or alcohol addiction) would, if successful, result in a larger pool of people capable of traditional employment and less likely to need particular medical services in the long run, economic cost alone is neither a necessary nor sufficient reason for implementing such programs.

Many of the things that are often put into the category of "disability" won't necessarily kill you -- at least, they won't kill you so long as you receive medical care appropriate to someone with your configuration. And I think it's dangerous to promote policies that take an "all or nothing" approach to addressing disability and potential associated medical and social issues -- that is, those which mistakenly assert that unless a person is made "normal", terrible economic and social consequences will ensue.

My own ever-evolving philosophy of disability rights is very much rooted in the notion of morphological liberty, and I find it annoying and distracting when people keep trying to turn debates over disability policy into arguments over whether disabilities are "good or bad". That's not what those debates are about. It doesn't matter, in the context of such discussions, whether a given configuration can or cannot be defined as essentially problematic from the societal or individual standpoint -- at the core, disability rights are civil rights, and it is a civil right that a person's existence not be subject to whether or not they happen to be "in demand" at any particular moment in time, economically speaking. So while I can certainly appreciate that some policies might have a positive economic impact, and that I might agree with the premise of some of those policies, I will definitely draw the line at supporting anything which seems to place economic gain above morphological liberty.