Charles Darwin's Down's Syndrome child, Charles Jr., lives to adulthood

The year before he published "The Origin of Species", Charles Darwin's wife gave birth, at the age of 48, to their last child, Charles Darwin Jr., who suffered from Down's Syndrome. There's a considerable, indeed, almost an overwhelming irony in this, in that Charles Darwin's entire life was devoted to promoting the notion of "The survival of the fittest", as the natural and rational model for all of existence, and, The Origin of Species was his seminal work advocating this notion. So, simultaneously with publishing a work supporting the ideals of British racial superiority, British imperialism, British "liberal" robber baron capitalism, our friend is trying to raise a little boy bearing his own name, who is not very fit or superior, at all! Young Charles Darwin Jr. is most unlikely to win or even survive any competitions. But, fortunately for his career, Charles Darwin, wealthy scion of the most notable medical and industrial families in Britain, was a very resourceful man. So, when Charles heard of a scarlet fever epidemic in the local village, he very astutely hired a "nurse" from the infected village to "take care of" young Charles Jr. Quite naturally, Charles Jr. died at the age of 18 months of scarlet fever, while the "nurse" survived her own scarlet fever infection. No one else in the family was affected, of course. No doubt, if Charles Jr. had managed to somehow survive this event, he would have soon perished in some unfortunate boating or hiking accident. Or, perhaps Charles would have taken the child on a voyage to the South Seas, where the little boy would have, most unfortunately, succumbed to Malaria. In any case, Charles Darwin was now free to pursue his Social Darwinist agenda, so popular with British Imperialists, and advocates of "liberal", that is totally unrestrained, capitalism. And, also, by the way, largely the basis of the Nazi movements of the twentieth century. But, suppose somehow Charles Darwin's rather Christian wife prevails on him to let the boy live, and, to take care of him. How could Darwin have possibly reconciled this fact, with the whole underlying principle of "The survival of the fittest"? What would Darwin's supporters have said about it? What effects might this have had on the whole interpretation of Evolution? Bear in mind, we think, of Evolution, today, in terms of biotechnology, genetic engineering, new approaches to health care using nanotechnology, that kind of thing. But, these concepts scarcely existed in the nineteenth century. The survival of the fittest was primarily a rationale for social engineering, social Darwinism, the rationalization of the exploitation of the weak, by the strong -- Imperialism, War, the Irish Hunger, Child Labor, etc. So, if Darwin is actually taking very good care of a Down's Syndrome child bearing his own name, how can he possibly be promoting these notions in a very viciously competitive public debate, simultaneously? Wouldn't he have looked totally ridiculous?