It seems (hat tip John and Laura) and that the famous US playwright,  Arthur Miller, produced and passed on the sperm (I will not use the verb "fathered") that helped to create a son, Daniel, who had Down Syndrome.  This was back in 1966.  Miller did the wrong thing – he immediately rejected the boy, had him separated from his family and institutionalized, and basically denied his existence for most of his life.  This was not one wrong decision, but a life time of fundamental inhumanity.  Miller was no father to his son.

     In thinking about how to judge these actions, Confucianism comes immediately to my mind.  From that perspective the error is clear.  We forge our personal humanity by committing ourselves to and cultivating our closest loving relationships, especially those involving our family.  When we fail in those duties we diminish ourselves.  Miller, then, is unworthy of our respect, even if he created some of the greatest works of dramatic art in 20th century America.  His artistic accomplishments, however much they might contribute to the moral uplift of society at large, cannot be used to justify his failure in his primary duty to Daniel.  Indeed, his morally blind pursuit of personal artistic achievement ultimately destroyed his humanity.  He stands now as an exemplar of inhumanity.

       That, in any case, is the Confucian critique.  But let’s push back a bit.  Might there have been acceptable mitigating circumstances that may soften this condemnation?

      What of the counterargument that he had to institutionalize Daniel in order to keep the family together, to better provide for his daughter and his wife?  Perhaps.  But this claim only goes so far.  It would have some force if Miller’s socio-economic circumstances were such that the time and money needed to care for Daniel were unavailable.  Of course, this was most likely not the case for Miller in 1966.  He was famous and, I suppose, fairly well off.  He had medical insurance.  He could have used his fame to advance the cause of gaining access to public education for disabled people.  He could have hired therapists and social workers to provide for Daniel and offer respite for the family.  In short, he had the resources to care for Daniel at home without undermining the rest of the family.  It may have been an emotional strain, but that is not sufficient reason to completely deny and exclude Daniel. 

       Indeed, the case is worse for Miller when we keep in mind that his wife wanted to raise the child at home.  Thus, added to his rejection of his son, we have his obstruction of his wife’s impulse toward humanity. 

      Also, Daniel’s presence in the home would have had beneficial effects on his sister.  Although there are various studies that tell us how difficult it is to be a sibling of a disabled brother or sister, those effects, it seems to me, are often the result of parents not finding a workable balance between time spent with the disabled child and time spent with the typical child.  This is a manageable situation.  It may have been scary to contemplate in 1966 (it seems to me we know much better now the positive effects of disabled people in home and society), but fear, to my mind, is also insufficient as a justification for what Miller did to Daniel.

      What is most striking and depressing about all of this is the absolute quality of Miller’s rejection of Daniel.  He had almost no contact with him for years and years; he never acknowledged publicly Daniel’s existence.  The denial ran very, very deep.  It did not have to.  Let’s say that Miller, for some emotional reason, was truly unable to face the fact of Daniel’s presence in his life. Institutionalizing the boy might then have been justifiable, if, and I want to emphasize this "if," Miller had participated in his care.  If Daniel lived at some nearby "home" for disabled children and if Miller and his wife (and his daughter) went there regularly to be a part of Daniel’s life, then, no doubt, Miller would have come to learn that his own fears and prejudices toward Down Syndrome were misplaced.  Daniel may have received better education and therapy, he may then have been able to communicate more effectively and Miller then would have discovered the intellect and wit and humanity that Daniel possesses.  In other words, if he had tried to do something significant with his son, if he had opened himself to learn from the circumstances, he would have grown in his own humanity.   But he chose not to.  He didn’t even try.

      I will not speculate further on why Miller failed as he did.  But it will be hard to watch Willy Loman again and not wonder to whom attention must be paid…