Survival of everyone

One fine morning, Alexa replied to my good morning telling me it was the birthday of Charles Darwin.

On the same day, I did the Oliver McGowan mandatory training at work.

I shall now explain the correlation -sadly, without a song, though.

Olive McGowan was a young lad who had a tragic, avoidable death: he suffered from fits which needed hospitalisation now and again before getting discharged without any further issues. At some point, though, he was prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, had a horrible allergic reaction to them, and despite the family's best efforts to not let such happen again, conversations with clinicians and plans in place, the same drug was administered several further times at several further admissions, and Oliver eventually passed away from it.

The training was the new disability and autism awareness training: the correlation with Mr Darwin, is the theory of natural selection, where survival of the fittest is at the forefront.

Nowadays, we are asked to be more aware of those around us, and with good reason: the world is connected, we are wiser and more informed about life, we can no longer pretend that someone else is not suffering, that inside a disabled or autistic person, there isn't a strong will to live.

And, thusly, if we are decent human beings, we wish to help, however that wish may take form: donations to charity, vocations to volunteer, or even just being kind and offering a smile. If we are to survive, we must all help each other out.

Yet, it cannot be ignored, that disabled and autistic people need more help, and sometimes lots of it: the training was very clear about the fact that without support, they will die younger, and cannot function normally. If they were in nature, alone, their chances of survival would be very low.

So, could it be argued that by constantly helping those that cannot help themselves, we are reducing our ability to help ourselves? Should we reduce what help we give, in favour of letting natural selection prevail? After all, there is only so much that can be done: only so much money, only so much resources, time and dedication, before it runs dry, and we all fall down.

But, that is one slippery gradient: what can be defined as enough help? How can you define how much help a person needs, how much is "just enough", if you are not living in that person's shoes? What if you were that person: would you not wish to receive as much help as you desire, to have the same right to life as the fittest, to become fit enough to survive?

A windy, slippery balancing act indeed: I cannot see that there is one universally better answer. Ultimately, we must do what we think is right.

And, perhaps, manage to all learn to survive together -or, perish in the attempt.

Your ambivalent thinker,

Stefano Ronchi