I saw a link to this Vanity Fair article last night on the blog Daddy Types, and whatever the online equivalent of "couldn't put it down" would be, that's how I felt about it. Having just read two books in which family members are urged to institutionalize their babies with Down syndrome but do not -- Count Us In and I Just Am (in the latter case, in an introduction by Roy Rogers' daughter on her parents' acceptance of her little sister with Down syndrome) -- I was interested to read a story in which the opposite choice was made.

The fact that the baby in question was the son of playwright Arthur Miller makes it more Vanity Fair-worthy, for sure. And for many people, more tragic, puzzling, and inexcusable. How could someone whose plays are known for morality and empathy, who crusaded on behalf of the victimized, have a son who he completely shut out of his life due to a disability?

The Great Man doing an ignoble thing is the hook of the story -- handled, I think, with a fair amount of sensitivity if not understanding -- but what struck me most about it, by the end, was what an extraordinary man Daniel Miller turned out to be. With none of the advantages of his family wealth, with a childhood spent in tormenting surroundings, with little in the way of an education, he has become by most accounts a happy, productive adult, an advocate for the disabled, loved by all who know him.

There's also a bit of interest here for those of us struggling with the idea of setting up a special-needs trust. Miller did indeed acknowledge his son in his will, leaving a full share of his fortune to him without a special-needs trust. And, as everyone always warns us will happen, the state came calling with a bill for all Daniel's care over the years. He probably has enough money not to worry about being exempt from government programs now -- but if your child would not be, pay attention.