By Meghan Schrader*
Over and over again assisted suicide proponents claim that disabled people who oppose assisted suicide are a “vocal minority.” For instance, American euthanasia advocate Thaddeus Mason Pope ridiculously wrote on X that “millions” of disabled people want the right to have “MAiD.” Well, it’s not true.
Assisted suicide, even in its more conservative form, is opposed by United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of People With Disabilities. In 2021 every disability rights organization in Canada and several ally organizations like Black Lives Matter Toronto and Reproductive Justice New Brunswick signed a letter telling the Canadian government not to expand its assisted suicide program to disabled people who weren’t dying, because the Canadian government’s decision to privilege the autonomy of a few disabled people would force the rest of the disabled community to become members of a killable caste. One can see evidence that disabled proponents are in the minority by comparing the webpages of USA groups Compassion and Choices and Not Dead Yet. NDY lists 17 national disability rights organizations that oppose assisted suicide. In contrast, C&C lists 4 state disability rights organizations who have said that the Oregon model of assisted suicide is acceptable.
Disability studies literature shows a similar pattern. In his essay in Disability Bioethics, Harold Braswell asserts:
“The framework of this debate limits the potential for disability discrimination. PAS is itself a moderate iteration of the right to die. And this moderate iteration is, in the USA, only available to individuals who are terminally ill. This makes the American interpretation of PAS relatively conservative even relative to other countries where it is legal. This conservatism makes it possible for some disability bioethicists to justify supporting it, though such support is still relatively marginal within the field.”
Yes. As someone who has also studied the euthanasia issue, I can tell you that support for assisted suicide is “marginal within the field.”
Self-proclaimed “disability rights advocate” and unrestricted assisted suicide enthusiast Christopher Riddle also admits that his efforts to sell death to disabled people set him apart from most of the disability studies field. In his article “Assisted Dying and Disability,” Riddle writes:
“While academic literature has a multitude of perspectives on this issue, the public attitude amongst mainstream disability rights scholars, activists, and more generally, people with disabilities, is relatively consistent in its position: assisted dying should not be permitted.”
Yes. That is true.
In an British Medical Journal article entitled “Disability Community Feels Ignored in Canada’s Assisted Dying Expansion,” Sammy Chowm writes:
“While some in the disability community support MAID expansion, the vast majority are opposed. More than 100 disability organisations have opposed track two and the 2021 bill given the gaps in mental health services their community needs.”
Yup.
Proponents like to point to commissioned polls, like the one paid for by the recently formed USA astroturf group UsForAutonomy, or the Populous poll commissioned by Dying With Dignity in the UK. However, there is no way for the proponents to prove that the majority of people who answered those anonymous polls were disabled. I live with disabilities that most people cannot perceive at first. When I’ve sought accommodations for my invisible disabilities, I’ve had to present rigorous documentation that they exist. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to take the anonymous poll respondents’ claims to be disabled with a grain of salt.
There are also polls that indicate that the majority of disabled people oppose assisted suicide, such as one commissioned by the disability rights organization Scope in the UK. However, I doubt that polling is the best way to gauge people’s positions on various issues. I think people can probably get any result that they want from a poll, if they ask the right questions and the right people.
As for the few disabled people I know of who support assisted suicide, it seems to me that they generally fall into two categories of people: the privileged and the despairing. Such disabled people need to be considered in respect to intersectionality and the high suicide rate in the disabled community.
The first category of disabled people, who typically spearhead the legalization of assisted suicide for people with disabilities, generally fit the profile of the rest of the “aid in dying” proponents: they are privileged. Apart from being disabled, they are usually wealthy and white. Hence, they have the resources to circumvent some of the structural ableism and interpersonal pressure that pushes other disabled people towards PAS.
Nicole Gladu and Julie Lamb, the two women who lead the fight to remove Canada’s “reasonably foreseeable death” standard for assisted suicide, are quintessential examples of what I mean when I say that a disabled supporter is otherwise privileged. Both people would have qualified to die under Canada’s “reasonably foreseeable death” standard for assisted suicide, but they were not willing to compromise and wait until their deaths were imminent. Gladu lived in a mansion by the ocean, and she demanded the right to kill herself before her death was “reasonably foreseeable” so that she could die “with a glass of rose champagne in one hand and a canape of foie gras in the other.” Julie Lamb was also affluent, white and married, and she fought to remove Canada’s reasonably foreseeable death standard so she could plan her death down to the very minute that suited her whims, whether that be tomorrow or in ten years. She said, “I am comfortable and happy with my days. But it is a huge relief and gives me so much peace to know that when I am ready, I do have a choice.” So, a judge gave her her choice and now every other disabled Canadian has to live in a society where doctors and suicide hotlines suggest that they kill themselves.
As for the less privileged type of disabled person who wants “MAiD” because of suffering and despair, it’s not shocking that the right to die movement can find disabled people who would like assistance to kill themselves. Research indicates that disabled people have a much higher suicide rate then the general population. For instance, I met one disabled woman on X who is one of the few disabled people I’ve met who supported Canada’s “Track 2 MAiD program.” She was living with severe psychiatric suffering, trauma, poverty and other forms of dysfunction. She had reached out to several government and medical agencies seeking help but did not get it. I and a few others tried to reach out to her with other resources, trying to encourage her to live, but it was as though she lacked the reasoning ability or wherewithal to respond to those offers. Tragically, she killed herself “the old fashioned way” about two weeks ago.
Another disabled Canadian who supports “Track 2 MAiD” tweeted that he wants it to exist because he perceives that he is “a loser, failure, and a disabled guy who gave up long ago.” He tweeted, “I’m not seeking MAiD for an extra $1000 a month. I have barely gotten $1000 a month for twenty years, the damage is done. Never healed or grew roots, developed agoraphobia and bulimia from eating junk and living in abusive slums. My best twenty years gone. TOO LATE!”
I empathize with both of these people. I’ve experienced severe depression and eating disorders; I would never judge someone for being so overwhelmed by their circumstances that all they can think about is death. But, a legal and medical system built on the philosophy of “It’s too late, kill yourself,” is not conducive to helping other disabled people lead happy, healthy lives. A person tweeting under the username F-k Capitalism expressed a similar sentiment: “Yeah. Like I said, I don’t judge individuals choosing MAiD. It’s sad there was no support for them and I hope they’ll find peace, but it’s the pushing of that choice onto others, esp by wealthier disabled people that constitutes lateral violence.”
Exactly. I’m angry that there isn’t more support for such individuals and I strongly support giving them better support, but giving such persons exactly what they want right now goes too far. I can have empathy for such individuals while also holding that is unjust for their suicidal ideation to become the basis for a public policy that affects everyone else. And that’s the position on assisted suicide that prevails in the disabled community.
Not Dead Yet is the only organization that has been consistent in its opposition to assisted suicide. Perhaps this is because this community has had to fight for its survival every step of the way. Members of this community can see through the specious euphemisms to the reality of the end point of assisted suicide as “therapy”. Those health care professionals who are supposed to serve and protect the vulnerable have abandoned them. I am calling out the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine for moral cowardice in their failure to join with Not Dead Yet in the fight against physician assisted suicide
I am very pleased to see a coordinated effort to prevent assisted suicide for people with disabilities. If the “foot is in the door” to assisted suicide, it is easy to see that in years to come, people over a certain age or with certain disabilities might go from “voluntary choice”to “medical necessity.”