I wanted to jump in to the current discussion resulting from the message
about Wesley Smith's request for contacts in Australia. I'm the
research analyst for Not Dead Yet. Smith's request was
forwarded to this list from a listserv I operate. The email list
membership consists almost exclusively of disability rights activists
opposed to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Smith's message was sent to a group of people *very* familiar with the
large context of the Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia movement here in the
U.S. - Members on that list are also very savvy and experienced in terms
of the actual politics of the debate. Smith's message was aimed at an
audience whose knowledge base was different than the readership on this
list. I'd like to respond to some troubling assumptions (and maybe I am
overinterpreting) that have been aired.
1. If you're against euthanasia, you must be anti-choice on abortion.
In fact, Not Dead Yet is a secular single issue group. Our members have
the full spectrum of possible views on other issues, and are united only
on assisted suicide and euthanasia, based on our negative experiences with
the health care system (in terms of both economics and professional power
dynamics) and society's overall discrimination against people with
disabilities. We do not make arguments based on other rationale, which
are covered by other voices in the debate. NDY's bylaws specify that no
contributions from pro-life organizations will be accepted.
2. It is impossible or unwise to align with certain groups on a single
issue in a broad-based coalition.
Let's look at some history. Here in the States, Right to Life groups blew
the whistle on two cases of passive euthanasia of infants with
disabilities. In both cases, some very NONextraordinary surgery was being
denied to the infants. One of the infants, who had Down syndrome,
actually was starved to death. Some disability organizations refused to
speak out on this situation *because* RTL people were involved. A little
belatedly, some activists and organizations joined in the expressed
outrage on the killings.
As a practical and tactical matter, deciding to stay away from any
so-called "pro-life" issue is really a decision to let those very groups
control your agenda - instead of aligning on the issue alone and making
your own perspective clear.
The disability community has fought an uphill battle in terms of keeping
our perspective and identity distinct in the debate on assisted
suicide/euthanasia. And we've been increasingly successful. Ten other
disability rights groups have taken the same position as NDY - formally
opposing the legalization of medically mediated killinng.
It's true that pro-euthanasia activists *still* try to brand NDY as a
"front" for RTL, but those attempts are becoming few and far between. And
it's pretty easy by now to make them look foolish and dishonest for making
the attempt.
Hey, as I recall, Peter Singer ran as a candidate in some election in
Australia (or was thinking of doing so) as a progressive Green Party
member. Singer, of course, wants public policy to sanction killing of
some of our brothers and sisters who don't meet his criteria for
"personhood," provided family or guardians approve. No matter his party
affiliation, I can't bring myself to think of him as "progressive" when it
comes to disability issues.
I've rambled enough for now.
Stephen Drake
Research Analyst
Not Dead Yet
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|