December 21, 1999

Peter Singer
C/O University Center for Humane Values
Louis Marx Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Dear Peter Singer,

My name is Brittany Barnett. I am a senior at the Metropolitan State College of Denver, majoring in Behavioral Science with a focus in Psychology and a minor in Sociology. Currently, I am enrolled in an Anthropology course titled Culture and Biology in 20th Century America. The focus of this course is that of the eugenics movement in America from the late 1800’s through the early 1900’s. The climate of this era in U.S. history was influenced by differing views of immigration, the economy, and Social Darwinian ideas. Simply put, Darwin’s ideas were applied to people in the "survival of the fittest" mentality. This belief explains a biological quality of adaptability that the "fit" possess. The biological predisposition, however, also contributes to the hereditary nature of being "unfit". Thus, society was (is) not to blame for its problems and groups of people were consequently deemed eugenically unfit for reproduction in order to promote and protect the "fit" of the race. Those targeted were classified as feeble-minded, mentally ill, criminally insane, poor, undesirable immigrants, anarchists, prostitutes, and eccentrics.

Within the realm of biological problems as the cause of social ills, the search for biological solutions took place. Positive and negative eugenic movements took hold, deciding who should and who shouldn’t reproduce. Marriage laws, institutionalization, sterilization, and castration were common attempts at seeking solutions, the latter examples obviously bearing more harsh consequences. Euthanasia also bore consideration as an option for solving the problem of the "unfit," but it never had legal backing and was not socially accepted in the U.S. In Germany, however, euthanasia by the Nazi’s was widely used as a means of "racial hygiene." This is where my interest in the eugenics movement (and thus my interest in your work) augments. While the U.S. movement peaked in the 1920’s, and the German movement heightened around the 1940’s, I believe the philosophy engendering the idea of eugenics is still being propagated today, under the new heading of "Bioethics". I am referring, of course, to the ideas that you hold concerning the "problem of handicapped infants."

For the past eight years I have worked in the Human Services Field, providing assistance and support to children and adults with physical and developmental disabilities. My work experience has included direct care services in residential facilities, group homes, vocational services and private home duty. I have encountered a wide array of disabilities throughout this time, ranging in nature from mild to profound. Most of these individuals were born with their respective disabilities (i.e. hydrocephalus, Down’s Syndrome, etc.) and were not given much hope for a future. The Doctors repeatedly gave the parents little optimism in regards to the developmental progress that their newborn child could make, sometimes suggesting that the life may not be worth living at all. The common assumption was (is) that these children would be void of human personality and self-awareness, and would be a tremendous burden upon the parents and society alike. When I heard these arguments in the past I certainly disagreed with them, but I was unaware that they belonged to a moral philosophy called Utilitarianism. I disagree with the application of this philosophy towards those with disabilities.

I am strongly opposed to the label "non-person" you give to severely handicapped infants and adults. The issue at hand is whether killing a so-called "non-person" is justified because everyone else’s preferences would be more likely fulfilled if that individual were removed from their lives. For example, if the parents were allowed to kill their disabled infant they would have more pleasure and less pain because they may try again to have a "normal", healthy baby. My argument derives from this point. According to utilitarianism what is right is whatever brings about the most pleasure over pain; preferences of an individual or group are used to determine moral decisions. From my perspective, the lives of the disabled children I have worked with have definitely been worth living. They have brought great happiness into the lives of many. I do not disagree that the news of a child with any disability is disheartening, and at first there may be a great deal of pain involved. However, with time, patience, and understanding service providers, the news does not have to be a life sentence for all involved. Given the opportunity for life, these children will most likely be involved with a larger number of people (specifically, Human Service providers) than a "normal"child. Most of the people in this field are in it because they want to be. Each child brings a new and exciting challenge with many opportunities for daily affirmation and joy. Thus, one child (regardless of its disability) has a chance to touch the lives of many, burdening only those who wish to selfishly deny them personhood.

In order to determine personhood, criteria based on the demonstration of cognitive abilities is used. While it is true that most of their cognitive abilities could be considered sub-normal (qualifying them to be labeled in terms of classification within the realm of mental retardation) each individual has a unique understanding of themselves as a being who does in fact exist over time. For example, I worked with a woman who was classified as profoundly mentally retarded (among other things). I took her home in 1994 for Thanksgiving. I stopped working at this facility in late 1996. This past summer (July of 1999) I went back to the town where this facility was located and stopped by for a visit. When this particular woman saw me, she instantly said my name and repeated the words "go home for Thanksgiving; pancakes and whipped cream; watch the parade." This may sound like non-sense, however, she was indeed recalling the events associated with her memory of me and Thanksgiving 1994. We ate pancakes with whipped cream for breakfast, and watched the Thanksgiving Day Parade on T.V. In my opinion, this proves an outstanding cognitive capacity for memory which has endured over time. By definition, would this not prove personhood? I could give many more examples of different situations which I think are substantial enough to prove self-awareness, but instead I will attempt to further my point in another way.

The notion of cognitive capacity is very subjective in its premise. I believe that by merely being labeled as "mentally retarded" or "developmentally disabled" expectations are immediately set to a lower standard, which thereby creates the self-fulfilling prophecy. By judging a person based on predetermined ideas of what their cognitive capacity should be, we are missing out on what their cognitive abilities are and can be. This aside, all of these individuals have qualities of character that far surmount any lack in cognitive capacity. It has been my discovery that all of these "persons" possess remarkable and unique characteristics that thereby justify moral treatment and equality.

Sincerely,

Brittany L. Barnett