An ethical excursion through labeling the mentally retarded

Abstract

Review of a representative body of research data concerning the effects of the “mentally retarded” (MR) label on parents, teachers, college students, nonretarded children, communities, and persons labeled fails to support the extravagant claim of some investigators that the labeling process has psychologically damaging effects upon the individuals labeled as well as society. Negative reactions to labels could be minimized by extensive public education and counseling. Labels should be retained as formal instruments essential to establishing the eligibility of the retarded for special assistance, and for maintenance of communication within and between disciplines, without which contemporary society could not operate. An argument for the judicious use of labels is fashioned, recommending replacement of the MR label by “AD” (adaptively deficient), in keeping with the modern view of mental retardation as a psychosocial challenge deemphasizing IQ and requiring adjustment of the whole personality to demands of a complex environment (e.g., coping skill, motivation). Parents, teachers, friends, employers, and public officials could support the AD's struggle to effectively participate in community life by promoting the perennial values of respect for human dignity, fairness, equality, autonomy, and compassion. As a result of monitoring the success of such programs in all settings, public policy administrators could formulate rational approaches to improvement of service programs in the national interest.