Did they kill or leave children with disability to die who where put institution before 1970?

Answer 1

Some cultures did, and some claimed they had no disease or birth defects before the "white man" descended on them.

In actual fact they didnt have any "living" people with birth defects or serious disease because they were abandoned and left to die, or in the case of disabled children killed when they were born.

In many cultures it was accepted practise to leave the injured and elderly out to die of exposure or be carted off by animals.

Back in Victorian times and even later children born with birth defects were often kept in the attic and locked away from society. People were afraid of the stigma society attached to having a disabled child. It most often meant the other children of the family wouldnt be able to find husbands or wives because people believed they were "tainted".

They were also "institutionalized" back then and the problem was that the people who worked in these places were often forced to do so because they were poor and had no means and no homes. They werent skilled trained workers, and they didnt want to be there either.

Have you ever read the story of "Helen Keller"?

People didnt understand and didnt have the medical or genetic knowledge as to why children would be born with disabilities.

For instance "Downs Syndrome" was often said to be caused because the pregnant mother was "scared by an Asian person" while she was pregnant (because the typical "almond eye shape" the children have.)

You can imagine how this kind of ignorance grew into fear of and prejudice against Asians. Of course now we know its caused by a defective chromosome.

However moving ahead to the 1970's.

I worked in an Institution that was called Tranquille School back in the 1970's. (yes I'm old, compared to a lot of you, 55 to be exact). The grounds were just beautiful. It was on a lake.

The "residents" were free to roam around the acreage, they had their own gardens and their own farm. They cared for the animals, they socialized.

There was one ward where the degree of Mental Disability was believed tobe so severe the people were kept confined in that ward. It was such a sad tragic place.

Interestingly some of these people made a successful transition into group homes in the community when the "school" was closed.

I knew one woman personally because she was from my home town and we were children together. She was on "Grieves Ward" and labelled "severely disabled, unable to function". Thank God she was put into a Group Home in the community and the last I heard from her family she was making tea for them when they came to visit and was
"functioning" very well.

What that poor woman went through at the "school" I cant imagine.

I posted to my thread about "embarassment and humiliation" that I worked with a person who was abusive to some of the residents. I think that exists everywhere. There will always be some people who slip through the cracks while being hired.

HOWEVER on the flip side many of the women who were put into the community were abused and sexually exploited by scum ball men who prey on the vulnerable so IMO there are two sides to the arguments over institutions.

Other than the misdiagnosed, and that WAS terrible, the residents were SAFE there. They had a home there, they had friends there, and no stranger could take advantage of them.

You raise an interesting point because in the 1970's there was a lot of contraversy over institutions and the Governments (at least in BC) just closed them all.

In some areas of the world the children placed in institutions because of disablities didnt/dont receive proper care, they were/are just left to lie in their cribs all day and all night. I know of these"orphanages" in countries in Europe , countries that arent as well developed as others are.

Children who arent held and cared for often die from what is called "failure to thrive". I believe thats medical speak for their poor little hearts and souls didnt want to live in such a bleak and nasty world. So "abandoned to die in institutions", yes they were and are still in some countries.

Answer 2

They did not kill or leave disabled children in institutions to die, before 1970 institutions existed they did not kill disabled children, even in the late 1800's at least in Europe and American they would not kill a disabled child.

Answer 3

In the earlier days, institutions were seen as the best place for children with disability. Those days, a person with a disability was seen as either: object of pity, object of fear, not capable of learning or making decision or personal growth. It was also the attitude that the parents should get on with life and not be "burdened" with caring for them.

That attitude still prevails and that is why we still have some who come here on Y!A and make bigoted and ignorant remarks.

While the children weren't "left there to die" - literally, the attitude in the earlier days might as well be thought as such. While they were physically cared for, there was little thought of giving them a "quality of life" - some people DID try , I would dare to guess , but the prevailing attitude in the earlier days were not that great.

Answer 4

Not always, obviously. But yes--that practice has existed in a variety of cultures as far back as ancient Greece (see Sophocles, "Oedipus Rex"). In the United States it was advocated for only a short time as part of the so-called "Eugenics Movement" in the early part of the 20th century, when some doctors routinely put disabled infants to death. See "The Black Stork" (Martin Pernick)

Answer 5

It depends if my child were to be a harm to other people after myself. If my child were to to just kill me, no. I value my child's life over my own. While at the same time, I value my child's life over a stranger's life, I could not allow the child to do intentional harm to an innocent, I would have to go against every fiber of my being and stop my child. I am an atheist, I am also a humanist. I value life, my child's life is of the utmost importance to me. But, if my child's intention to kill innocent people, I could not let it happen. Because there are things more important than my feelings.

Answer 6

here they didn't do that.