Today – August 24, 2010 – The US Human Rights Network (USHRN) published a compilation of 26 stakeholder reports in response to the report on domestic human rights submitted by the US State Department to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
From the press release of the USHRN announcing the stakeholder reports:
The report on domestic human rights issues submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council today by the State Department is a positive step, says the US Human Rights Network, but more work needs to be done in order to rectify well-documented human rights problems in the United States and ensure compliance with international human rights standards. In contrast to the federal report, a compilation of 26 stakeholder reports published by the US Human Rights Network reveals the full breadth and depth of human rights issues that U.S. citizens continue to confront on a daily basis.
The government report, prepared as part of the ongoing U.N. Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, addresses some of the deficiencies in human rights policies and practices identified in consultations with civil society groups around the country earlier this year. However, it falls short of acknowledging the persistent infringements of human rights in the U.S., and the corrective measures touted in the report do not go far enough to guarantee a timely and thorough fix. “We welcome the Obama administration’s active participation in the UPR process,” says US Human Rights Network Executive Director Ajamu Baraka. “At the same time, we remain concerned that the report will be seen as an end point rather than a springboard to action.”
The Network’s comprehensive report on human rights in the U.S. highlights significant shortcomings in domestic compliance with international human rights standards, as well as U.S. obligations under multiple human rights treaties and agreements. That report, a compilation of 26 independent submissions covering a sweeping range of human rights topics, took almost a year to research and was endorsed by more than 200 organizations and hundreds of advocates across the country.
“Comparing the State Department report with the Network’s, it is clear that gaps remain in our
respective understanding of the issues and the solutions needed to resolve them” says University of Pennsylvania Law School Practice Associate Professor Sarah Paoletti, Senior Coordinator for the Network’s UPR Project. “We look forward to working with the Administration to narrow that gap in future months.”
Not Dead Yet was one of the stakeholder organizations involved in the Report on Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Here is are the groups that participated in creating the document, followed by organizations that endorsed it:
Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Submitted by:
ADAPT
Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
Nationwide Organizing Call to Action: Stop Forced “Mental Health” Treatment
Not Dead Yet
Self Advocates Becoming Empowered
The Opal Project
The U.S. Network of Users and Survivors of PsychiatryEndorsed by:
All About You Home Care; CAFETY; Center for Disability Rights; Dreamweavers Peer Support Inc.; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Human Rights Caucus, Northeastern University School of Law; International Disability Alliance; Ithaca Mental Patients Advocacy Coalition (IMPAC); Justice Now; Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee; Mental Health Empowerment Project Inc.; Mind Freedom International; National Council on Independent Living (NCIL); New York Association on Independent Living; New York State ADAPT; New York State Independent Living Council; People’s Health Movement; Regional Center for Independent Living; South Bay Communities Alliance; The Icarus Project; Three Treaties Task Force of the Social Justice Center of Marin; Voices of the Heart, Inc.; We The People; World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
I would recommend that people take the time to read the entire report, which reflects the experience and concerns of many segments of the disability community in the US. Below is an excerpt that is of direct relevance to readers who are concerned about the issues NDY gets involved in:
2) Non-voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia
4. Third party decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatment, without the consent of the person concerned, are an increasing human rights concern. These decisions may be made by a surrogate appointed by a court or by operation of law, or a health care provider in opposition to an individual or surrogate decision in favor of treatment. In either case, current U.S. law does not adequately protect the individual‟s right to not be deprived of life.5. First, with respect to decisions made by surrogates, other than those appointed by the individual through a document such as a durable power of attorney, constitutional standards must be met before life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn. As discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruzan (1990)ii, it cannot be assumed that surrogates are able to represent patient wishes. Use of surrogate decision-makers instead of requiring a best attempt to discern the wishes of the person concerned is contrary to the recognition of the legal capacity of PWDs on an equal basis with others, as required by CRPD Article 12 (to which the U.S. is a signatory) and constitutes discrimination based on disability under UDHR Articles 2 and 6, and ICCPR Article 26.
6. Decisions by physicians and other health care providers to withhold life-sustaining treatment in opposition to the decision of the individual or their surrogate present an even clearer violation of constitutional and human rights. Nevertheless, approximately 40 states authorize such decisions in some form under health care laws adopted over the last decade. Often labeled “futility” provisions, they do not require an objective determination that a particular health care treatment is futile, but rather confer civil and criminal immunity from liability based on vague and undefined professional judgments that treatment is inappropriate,iii and increasing cognitive disability is a factor in such considerations.iv Such measures violate the right to life of people with serious medical conditions, who are a subset of PWDs, under UDHR Article 3 and ICCPR Article 6, as well as CRPD Article 10.
3) Physician-Assisted Suicide
7. Laws permitting physician-assisted suicide in the states of Oregon and Washington do not adequately protect people from deprivation of their life without consent because they empower the physician over the patient. A double standard exists, in which these laws facilitate suicide by PWDs whose quality of life is seen by physicians to be poor, particularly individuals with significant physical disabilities, while in other situations “suicidality” is attributed to mental illness and physicians are empowered to detain the person and administer compulsory mental health treatment. Both aspects of this double standard constitute disability-based discrimination.8. Terminology such as „death with dignity‟ used to justify assisted suicide masks discrimination. While there are two existing laws that apply only to people predicted to die within six months due to terminal conditions, laws have been proposed in other states (e.g. New Hampshire) that include people with non-terminal disabilities.v People with terminal conditions constitute a subset of PWDs and, moreover, physician predictions are not always accurate.vi Furthermore, „indignities‟ are often described in terms that include people with non-terminal conditions as well, such as the need for assistance in daily activities like bathing and toileting. Like derogatory racist and sexist language, the equation of disability and “indignity” is an insult to the disability community.
9. The rhetoric of personal choice diverts attention from the fact that assisted suicide laws actually make physicians the gatekeepers of assisted suicide, granting them the power to determine who is eligible for assisted suicide and conferring blanket immunity for exercising that power based on a mere claim of “good faith.” In addition, the nominal safeguards in the law end at the point in which the lethal prescription is granted, with no requirements at the time the lethal dose is administered, raising concerns about involuntary administration by others in a society with a high prevalence of elder abuse by family members.vii
You can read the entire disability joint report here.
For more information, you can:
Read the entire compilation of 26 stakeholder reports here.
Just about every group stakeholder report discusses concerns that weren’t mentioned in the US Government’s submission – which can be found here. –Stephen Drake