Argentine disability agency tells autistic child's mother: 'Not the state's problem'

Argentine disability agency to family with autistic child: 'Your disability is not the State's problem'

An eleven-word phrase summarizes the mood within part of the Argentine administration. In March 2024, at a meeting at the National Disability Agency (Andis), its director, Diego Spagnuolo, responded to Marlene Spesso —mother of Ian Moche, an autistic boy who has become an activist raising awareness about the disorder— with a comparison that sounded like slamming a door: "Your disability is not a problem for the State. Why do I have to pay tolls and you don't?". The conversation lasted half an hour. The mother herself reconstructed it months later, and the echo reached Spain.

The episode is not an isolated anecdote. Spagnuolo had been leading the agency for two months when he met the family, according to Spesso's account. In that same meeting, always according to her testimony, the official added that if someone has a child with a disability, the problem belongs to the family, not the State, and suggested that families should ensure private companies hire people with disabilities. "That would be ideal, of course. But the truth is that doesn't happen," the mother replied.

What Andis says and what lies behind the cuts

The National Disability Agency is the body in Argentina that manages non-contributory pensions, benefits, and certificates for the population with disabilities. Since Javier Milei took office, this population has seen treatments delayed, postponed, or suspended. Added to the cut in benefits is a logistical problem: private transporters who move these people received barely any increases, complicating attendance at therapies and consultations.

Spesso described it bluntly: "Milei's government wants to wash its hands of vulnerable people." She added a detail that explains why the meeting had no trinc-up: "We did not meet again with the Andis director because, after that, what else is there to discuss?" The phrase, more than a complaint, is a diagnosis: when the competent authority tells you your problem is not theirs, the administrative route is exhausted.

Auditing people with disabilities

One of the points that has mobilized the community most is the audit process that Andis launched on people with disabilities. Spesso does not dispute the existence of control; she disputes the method: "I would have liked this cruelty exercised by auditing all people with disabilities on the same day to have been done differently." Her proposal was to turn that procedure into a useful, humanized database: "So that if, for example, a person with autism or Alzheimer's gets lost, there is a record to find them quickly."

The underlying argument is economic. A child with a disability can represent a significant expense practically for life, and families who bear it rarely have room to generate that money on their own. Therefore, the discussion is not whether the State should pay for whims, but who covers a cost that no average salary absorbs without breaking. Some argue that the answer lies in facilitating wealth creation and private charity; against this weighs the fact that even with lower taxes, a part of the population would remain below the threshold necessary to afford such care.

The precedent: a resolution with derogatory terms

The Andis episode came after another one that the Government itself had to correct. In February, the Executive published an official resolution tightening criteria for accessing a pension and including derogatory terms towards people with disabilities. Faced with criticism from organizations, the Government reversed course, called the text an "error," and announced it would withdraw the document. Ana Dones, from the Network for the Rights of People with Disabilities (REDI), then described it as "an unprecedented setback in rights matters."

Two episodes in a few months draw a pattern: first the language, then the criteria. The discussion about who pays for the care of a person with a disability is not new, but the tone in which it is presented from power is. And that tone, more than a policy, is a signal: that the State ceases to consider itself responsible.

How much of that withdrawal is ideology and how much is budget? The answer depends on who you ask, and none of the available versions close the matter.