This week finds me in an interesting quasi-ethical dilemma, one that must be familiar to any parent of a disabled child, but which is new to me.* The quandary is only quasi-ethical because it does not materially affect our behavior or course or action—we will do the same thing either way—but rather pertains to our hopes for Justin: is it ever right to hope for the worse?
Let me explain. On Friday, we will take him to a clinic for his condition to be assessed. If his physical and cognitive development is assessed as falling below a certain threshold relative to typically developing children, he will be entitled to additional state services, therapies and assistance, including a personal carer in his nursery; if he is deemed above the threshold, he will not receive these services. Since every child, however close to normal, must benefit from such assistance—as the Tesco slogan has it "Every little helps"—I have to wonder: what to wish for? (Benign administrative incompetence seems to be the best way out of this one. On verra bien...)
*Just me: Ayumi is little troubled by such ethical niceties.
Postscript (1/12/11): As it turned out, benign administrative incompetence—if a lax attention to the descriptors counts as incompetence—is what we received: Justin was classified as mild, but eligible. So now we can hope for the best again.
Comments