This article presents the author's comments on Simon and Lichten's "Defining Mental Retardation: A Matter of Life and Death." Lichten and Simon (2007) argued for the use of a Total Quotient (TQ) that combines existing IQ and adaptive functioning scores into a single index. They proposed that the TQ index will improve the accuracy of mental retardation diagnoses in court cases, particularly in capital cases, and, hence, would make a court's decisions fairer and more consistent. The argument that Lichten and Simon (2007) advanced in advocating for TQ is based on interrelated claims pertaining to the reliability and validity of TQ and its component scores as well as how using TQ impacts the prevalence rate for mental retardation. Here, the author argues that Lichten and Simon's (2007) case in advocating for the use of the TQ further reifies the test score as an individual characteristic, and that this can only lead to less accurate decisions, whether made by a school district, a community agency, or a court, because of what is left out of consideration. If indeed defining "mental retardation" can be a matter of life and death, it is the responsibility of experts in assessment to help ensure that these decisions are based on the most reliable and valid data available. The author believes that the use of TQ in capital cases would result in more rigid and less humane decisions overall because these decisions will be based on a criterion that is less precise and more ambiguous that nonexperts may appreciate.