Regular readers have probably come to expect periodic links to Bill Peace at his Bad Cripple Blog.
His latest entry, posted on Sunday, is titled “Assisted Suicide: A Necessary but Depressing Debate.”
It should come as no surprise when I strongly recommend that people who are interested in these issues read what he has to say.
Part of his entry has to deal with Tom Shakespeare’s recent published support of the Falconer bill in the UK – and my critique of his essay:
Like Drake, I found Shakespeare’s position and arguments weak and misleading. I also agree with Drake that Shakespeare is simply wrong in advocating for effective assisted suicide legislation in Britain. However, I think Drake could temper his critique because writing that Shakespeare’s editorial relies on “easy platitudes, fuzzy assertions and some pretty gross misrepresentations of euthanasia laws” only heightens an existing divide between the two men. In my estimation Drake is correct in his assertion about Shakespeare’s editorial in the Guardian but neglects to point readers in the direction to Shakespeare’s aforementioned book, especially chapter 8 on “Autonomy and the end of life”. Instead of going for the jugular in his pointed critique of Shakespeare I wish Drake had stuck to the facts–they are not only in his favor but on the side of any reasoned argument against assisted. For instance, Shakespeare is clear on the fact he favors assisted suicide for only those who are terminally ill. Yet Shakespeare does not in any way define who is and is not terminally ill. This is not a matter of minor debate but a central issue that gets to the core of assisted suicide at a practical and theoretical level.
Believe it or not, I am not going to argue with Bill’s critique of my critique. He makes intriguing points – and he’s operating from a knowledge base I don’t share. I have lots of “holes” in my own reading – in disability rights and in bioethics. Tom Shakespeare is one of those people whose work I probably should know – and don’t.
So I get to think about how that knowledge would have affected what I wrote – and I’m still not sure how that would work out. I’m still going back and rereading Bill’s piece for his thoughts – on Shakepeare and on the wider debate.
When Bill writes something about assisted suicide, euthanasia or related topics, I realize how much I’ve missed having a larger and richer discussion about these issues. Not so many years back, there seemed to be a flood of activists and scholars eager to write about their views on Terri Schiavo and “Million Dollar Baby.”
These days, for reasons I am still trying to sort out, those same scholars and activists (more true of the former than the latter) are less visible and vocal on these issues.
But this week, anyway, I have Bill Peace’s latest entry to read – and reread. Please do the same. –Stephen Drake
I read his piece and found it interesting but the lack of a definition of terminal, which I was for years officially seems critical to me. Still I have huge holes in my knowledge of all this, much huger than yours as I am new to this and would love recommendations of books and blogs to read to know more when I try to speak and write about it, especially as it rears its ugly head in sideways ways in Virginia again this year and disability and other groups are strangely silent. I am very concerned about last year’s horrible bill changing the powers of doctors of those deemed incapicated with no standard for determining same in Virginia and have an idea they are up to giving broader powers to doctors this year, possibly eliminating the “no ending life saving measures” clause this year under guise of the Mental Health Commission so no one will notice until it is too late. Only a few folks are monitoring it and those have no political muscle. Like me.
Alison,
I try to not to get too hung up on filling in the holes in my knowledge – by definition, it’s an impossible task. I try to work with the knowledge I already have and expand my base selectively as issues arise.
It’s not too hard to figure out the lack of involvement by advocacy groups in the efforts you’re describing in Virginia. Right now, PWDs all over the country are stretched to the max, in basic survival mode. Advocates are actively and resentfully triaging advocacy concerns – and don’t have a lot of people or resources to go looking for issues that haven’t hit the radar.
That doesn’t mean we should give up. It just means we’ll have to be more persistent, build a strong case – and hope some people and resources can be shaken free to support our efforts. –Stephen