And I can’t write anything useful in reply for the same reason I’ve practically dropped out of the blogosphere altogether this summer—too many personal complications and professional obligations. But I will say that, counterintuitive though it may seem, it was not a good idea to bequeath millions of dollars directly to Daniel, and the essay explains why: the thing to do is to create a “special needs” trust so that the person with special needs doesn’t wind up with his or her inheritance eaten by the state. I imagine that Miller wrote Daniel into the will against his attorneys’ advice out of a sense or justice or a sense of remorse, but the fact remains that his attorneys’ advice was actually pretty good advice. I’m guessing that Miller wanted to do the right thing in the end and, because of his unfamiliarity with disability and legal issues, just didn’t know how.

#6: More than once, people have said to me, “You know Bérubé: what does he have to say about this week’s Down Syndrome-themed news story?” Often, he doesn’t, any more than Christopher Bonanos writes a piece in New York every time there’s a Greek-American-themed story. So I don’t think he’s inevitable.

(Barring evidence to the contrary, Josh claims the moral right to be recognized as the originator of the Bérubé-Bonanos equivalential argument)

*He went to regular schools, for instance, which was extremely hard on both him and my father, who had to spend a great deal of time trying to protect him.

** With some family help on things like managing his finances.

There is no mention of Daniel in Millers New York Times obituary.

I’m not anti-choice. I’m just facing pregnancy as an older woman with a higher risk of Downs. If my child has Downs, I want to parent him or her. In discussing this with close friends and parents during my first (kind of elderly) pregnancy I was shocked by the general horror people—even my parents—express when they discover I don’t want amnio because I don’t plan on aborting a Downs child. (Amnio tests for other rarer conditions—and you can find out your overall risk but the only way to be entirely sure is to do amnio.) It’s hard as hell to convince anyone this is a reasonable choice (so of course I don’t talk about it with anyone now). It’s very daunting because I’ve started to wonder whether, if things did turn out that way, would no one would greet my baby with joy but conservative Catholics? I hope I don’t face this situation…but knowing this is the general attitude does make it much more daunting…and depressing. Even the genetics counselor assumed we would get amnio and abort if we didn’t like the answer. Because we are liberal college professors? I don’t know why.

I hope people who are saddened or outraged by the Arthur Miller story will extend some generosity to parents and their disabled children. And support good programs for them. While Miller had money, a lot of people don’t and the only way their children can lead rich lives is if society makes that possible.

By the way, I heard Miller made Daniel a full heir in his will. So maybe he had some regrets.

You’re quite right. I misread; his parents were married in 1962.

To be clear, while I do think the fact that his son was born in 1966 is somewhat exculpatory as to what Miller did at that time, daniel (10:07 pm) is quite right that Miller’s acts and omissions over the next four decades are also worth thinking about.

(In case anyone thinks my tone in the comments here has been peculiarly guarded: In the absence of intentional cruelty, I think it’s best to be exceedingly circumspect about stating moral judgments as to how parents of disabled children deal with that, although I should also say at the same time that I don’t think it is a good thing for anyone to entirely avoid stating such judgments. Unrelatedly, I am personally in a very skeptical-of-the-media mode at the moment, which probably colors my view of the VF article even if the author has done nothing personally to deserve my distrust.)