Reply #71: "In the right role"

[Occulus]

I didn't say there's a "right" or "wrong" role, I said I'm sure there are other people who wouldn't be comfortable with placing their lives in the hands of someone diagnosed as autistic. I know I'd be concerned at the least were it my back being watched.

Continuing my analogy from the post above above, people who are partially blind may be able to drive a car... but does that mean they should drive other people around as their job? In either case, the person with the reduced capability may well be placing the lives of others (who very likely do not know of the medical condition, knowledge of which the person with blindness or autism is under no obligation to share with those around them) in jeopardy.

"You "don't care how able" anyone is, because the label makes it convenient for you to place limits on people. I find that more than a little sad."

Go right ahead and feel that way; I personally find it not one little bit sad. It is not so simple as a label: I don't want people who are diagnosed with any mental incapacity to be serving in any situation- civilian or military- that places them in a position of direct responsibility for the lives of others as part of their job. I cannot trust that they are able to fully do the things that may be required to be done in the course of their jobs.

Or- would you hire someone in a wheelchair as a lifeguard?

Where do we draw the "politically correct" line on this issue?

expecting me to be open to the possibility, by your logic, that a partially blind cabbie, or a completely deaf ski slope rescue worker, or a handless firefighter "can do" the job just as well as someone who isn't physically challenged in some way. I can't accept that, just as a simple matter of common sense. In short, we're not talking about the bigotry of excluding the 'other' just because it is 'other' (that isn't my point at all, although being gay myself I understand that aspect all too well); we're talking about exclusion on the basis of actual physical or mental deficiency or incapacity.

Short sidenote: my father wanted to serve in the Vietnam War, but his ostomy surgery and and a bad leg disqualified him. By your logic, he should still have been able to go; this would have endangered the lives of those around him if he'd been deployed on the ground.

"In the right role, I'd happily trust my life to them."

So, that begs the question "what is the 'right' role?" Which is, you'll note, the same sort of 'prejudice' you're accusing me of. I personally don't see this in any way as 'prejudice', because we're talking about actual physical safety. Were it any other reason, I'd probably be agreeing with you, but I draw the line where there's the distinct possibility that others' lives may be put into danger simply by utilizing the wrong person for the wrong job.

On further thought, I'll bend some. I wasn't being quite realistic in my assertion that there's NO job such a person could hold in those forms of employment. I guess I could see this kid getting put into a 'safe' role, but I'm not so sure I know just what jobs in the military are 'safe' and which ones aren't. I suppose what I'm really getting at in the end is that he should be placed into a job where others' lives aren't an issue as far as his service is concerned. I am, however, very concerned about the precedent this all sets.

A person legally blind could, I guess, work as a taxi dispatcher- there's no hinderance there. That said, I sure as hell don't want them driving!