Saving money on the backs of the less fortunate.

A regulation was surreptitiously signed and put through last week, behind the backs of tax payers, patients, parents, and even Community Living BC, saying that adults with developmental disabilities must have an I.Q. of 70 or less to qualify for government support, including housing through CLBC. The government claims this is an interim measure (like income tax in 1917?). What it really is, is a sneaky yet successful attempt by government to side step a court case brought on by the parent of a special needs 18 year old about to turn 19, to try to keep services going for him. Doctors say he is at great risk and poses great risk to others if he is not supported and housed. The government just wants to save some money, as usual, on the backs of those less fortunate.
In 1904 psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned by the French government to create a testing system to differentiate intellectually normal children from those who were “inferior”. Thus the IQ scale of 1904 is the defining factor in who gets care in B.C. and who doesn’t, in 2008. The following scale resulted for classifying IQ scores. Five percent of people have an IQ under 70 and this is generally considered as the benchmark for "mental retardation", a condition defined in 1904 as the limited mental ability producing difficulty in adapting to the demands of life. Severity of “mental retardation” was broken into 5 levels, 70-79 is considered borderline deficiency in intelligence, 50-70 is mild, 35-50 is moderate, 20-35 is severe and under 20 is considered profound.
It is important to note that there is no true I.Q based classification for developmental disabilities.
There are already about 200 cases before the Child and Youth Advocate of developmentally disabled teenagers who lost all their supports when they turned 19 and with no parents to advocate for them when they aged out of foster care. There are many other adolescents who remain on waiting lists that never end, who will now be bumped off if their I.Q. doesn’t make the under 70 regulation. This is a perverse and offensive form of gate keeping and we will be seeing these youngsters and adults sleeping in doorways with their 72 or 73 I.Q.to guide them.
Using I.Q. measures as a qualifying factor in who we help and who we cut loose to live on the streets or in jail or, with a bit of luck, their frightened and burned out family members, puts vulnerable and volatile people, likely with little to no experience living independently, right out into society without intensive daily supports. We are talking about many young adults with autism, fetal alcohol spectrum, Aspergers, severe anxiety disorders, severely pathological behaviors, disturbed sexual impulses or other pervasive developmental disorders. Those who may squeak by on an I.Q test, or even do remarkably well, yet have syndromes and conditions that reduce or eliminate their mental capacity to function on their own and keep themselves and others safe. That’s just what we need out on the streets, “smart enough” dangerous people. People who with supports will take their medications and participate in their therapies, people who, in a move done behind closed doors and behind the backs of the electorate, will now end up homeless, or once the damage is already done, in jail, or dead. Is this worth the cost savings? Is this how we want to live in the “Best Place on Earth’? Don’t we already have enough homeless, hurting, addicted, incarcerated or victimized people? I know we have enough disabled people on permanent waiting lists and enough care workers who are horribly underpaid to care for those who make the grade. Where are our priorities?
There is now, sadly, just cause to suggest that in British Columbia there is no use taking the government to court, and no thrill in winning, as justice can be circumvented by those who have the power to change the rules anytime they want. They may be able to change the law to get around a court decision, or deflect criticism by throwing in the term “interim” to describe what they have done, but there is also just cause to rally and tell our elected officials that they cannot turn their backs on vulnerable people just because their I.Q. is above a certain level, and expect to get away with it.
We all need to speak up about this situation and tell our elected representatives that the basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. They are failing miserably. This will come back to haunt them.