NDLA Action Alert! (Wed, July 13): Contact the White House to Oppose Arbitrary Medicaid Cuts

action alert, advocacy, budget reduction, Medicaid, national disability leadership alliance, Our News & Commentary Blog, White House
Action Alert (for Wed, July 13): 
CONTACT THE WHITE HOUSE TO OPPOSE ARBITRARY MEDICAID CUTS!

Call and Email the White House TODAY! 
NDLA URGES YOU TO CONTACT THE WHITE HOUSE TO OPPOSE ARBITRARY MEDICAID CUTS!  Call Toll Free at 1-888-245-0215 using the talking points below, and then Take Action to email key White House Officials.
As the White House and congressional leaders look for ways to trim federal spending, Medicaid is squarely on the chopping block.  The National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA) and our allies are deeply concerned that the proposed Medicaid cuts will jeopardize the health, independence and quality of life of people with disabilities and seniors.
The President has conveyed a willingness to identify $100 billion in Medicaid savings. This would mean less federal funding for already cash-strapped states, likely forcing state governments to reduce reimbursement rates and cut services.  This proposal would also eliminate the enhanced FMAP that was provided for the Community First Choice Option so that states would have a financial incentive to rebalance how they provide long term services and supports in more highly preferred and less costly settings.
The President needs to hear that there is strong opposition to arbitrary reductions to the Medicaid program and strong support for measures that contain costs while promoting the health, independence and civil rights of seniors and people with disabilities.
TAKE ACTION
Call the toll-free White House comment line NOW at 1-888-245-0215.
Tell the President that he should oppose arbitrary cuts to Medicaid that hurt seniors and people with disabilities and support meaningful Medicaid reforms that save money by:
  • Refocusing Medicaid spending away from higher cost institutional placements to meet beneficiary preferences for lower cost, preferred home and community-based services;
  • Reducing the costly medical bias in long-term services and supports and placing greater emphasis on the necessary functions for daily living;
  • Expanding consumer-directed service options and engaging beneficiaries more fully and effectively in their own care decisions;
  • Increasing care coordination of services for Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries; and
  • Reorganizing Medicaid to eliminate wasteful bureaucratic duplication and realign services based on functional needs.
The President needs to hear from you NOW. 
Call1-888-245-0215 toll-free and you’ll be connected to the White House Comment Line.
Then click on http://tinyurl.com/5t7r5jd  to email key White House officials.
OR go to www.whitehouse.gov , click on the “Contact Us” link in the upper right hand corner of the home page and leave (or paste in) written comments.
NDLA THANKS YOU AND ASKS THAT YOU PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY FRIENDS AS YOU CAN TO URGE THEM TO CALL, EMAIL AND ASK OTHERS TO DO THE SAME!

Prepare to Take Action: National Disability Leadership Alliance Calls for Real Medicaid Reform

action alert, activism, advocacy, legislation, Medicaid, national disability leadership alliance, Our News & Commentary Blog
Prepare to Take Action: National Disability Leadership Alliance Calls for Real Medicaid Reform
[Note:  Not Dead Yet is part of the National Disability Leadership Alliance.  We share a deep concern about proposed Medicaid cuts that threaten both home and community based services and other essential, life sustaining health care services.  This is a critical time when we must work in coalition to make our voices heard.]
As the White House and congressional leaders look for ways to trim federal spending, Medicaid is squarely on the chopping block.  But as our nation’s leaders discuss the future of Medicaid, it has become clear that people with disabilities are not being included in the conversation.
The National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA) and our allies are deeply concerned that the proposed Medicaid cuts will jeopardize the independence and lives of people with disabilities and seniors.  We are responding.
Today, the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) is facilitating a meeting between Medicaid beneficiaries and the White House.  AAPD is giving the White House an opportunity to hear first-hand about the devastating impact that the proposed Medicaid cuts will have.  Instead of making simplistic cuts to Medicaid, NDLA organizations are calling for Real Medicaid Reform.
People receiving services understand where bureaucracy can be reduced and how services can be streamlined.  With this unique perspective, NDLA organizations have identified forward-thinking proposals that contain Medicaid spending while promoting the independence and integration of seniors and people with disabilities.  We call upon our federal policy-makers to include us in the discussion so we can truly reform Medicaid.
Over the next few days, NDLA will begin distributing action alerts.  These alerts are intended to be used to mobilize our grassroots constituents.  When you receive these alerts, please distribute them through your networks.  And encourage people to respond as if their freedom, independence, and lives depend on it… because they do.
About NDLA
The National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA) is a cross-disability coalition that represents the authentic voice of people with disabilities.  NDLA is led by 13 national organizations run by people with disabilities with identifiable grassroots constituencies around the country.  The NDLA steering committee includes: ADAPT, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Council of the Blind, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Hearing Loss Association of America, Little People of America, the National Association of the Deaf, the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Federation of the Blind, Not Dead Yet, Self Advocates Becoming Empowered, and the United Spinal Association.

Answering Some of Roger Ebert’s (and Kevorkian’s) Fans

assisted suicide, culture wars, media coverage, media issues, million dollar baby, Our News & Commentary Blog, Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert surprised me.  He tweeted this post.  As a result, there were well over one thousand more visits here than is the norm on that day.

The visitor rate is still running high, although not that high.

Thankfully, there are far fewer comments from the group coming by way of Roger Ebert’s tweet than could have been the case.  Most of them are quite pissed at me.  One of the reasons is pretty legitimate – when I used the word “shithead” at one point referring to Ebert.

They’re right.  I shouldn’t have used it – especially without explanation.  But, as a friend comment here as well, whether I think there’s a justification or not just turns people off.

He’s right, too.  I let both fatigue and some bad-tasting memories get the better of me.  See, this wasn’t the first time that Ebert and disability activists have crossed paths on this topic.  I’ll save that for the end, though.

One commenter called me a “coward,” while writing from an anonymous email account, the irony apparently lost on him or her.

Several people seem to be under the misguided notion that the issues I’m talking about are just about me – a personal thing.  A rant from a lone blogger.

In fact, I am the only paid staffer for a disability rights group that was formed in 1996.  In 1997, over 500 disability activists gathered in front of the Supreme Court to voice opposition to legalization of assisted suicide while the Court considered two cases claiming a constitutional right to assisted suicide.  NDY also organized a rally and protest against the appointment of bioethicist Peter Singer at Princeton University, involving about 200 disability activists.  This is a list of organizations that support NDY’s position on legalization of assisted suicide.

NDY is a member of the National Disability Leadership Alliance, “a national cross-disability coalition that represents the authentic voice of people with disabilities.”  Further, “NDLA is led by 13 national organizations run by people with disabilities with identifiable grassroots constituencies around the country.  The NDLA steering committee includes: ADAPT, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Council of the Blind, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Hearing Loss Association of America, Little People of America, the National Association of the Deaf, the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Federation of the Blind, Not Dead Yet, Self Advocates Becoming Empowered, and the United Spinal Association.”

Have I made my point?  I’m not just some cranky guy obsessing on this.  I’m a guy whose job it is to obsess on these issues.  The latter is better, because it pays the bills most of the time.

At least one person insisted that I must have formed my opposition to legalization of assisted suicide by being influenced somehow by religious fundamentalists.

In fact, there were two key events that shaped my views on assisted suicide – or more importantly – the agenda of the activists promoting it. (assisted suicide isn’t making progress because of some “natural” shifting of norms, but as the result of some skillfull, consistent and well-funded marketing over the past decade and more)

The first event was reading an article about Kevorkian in a disability magazine that had unbelievable claims about the people he “helped” being nonterminal and how motivated he was by live human experimentation.  Then I found Kevorkian’s book in an overstock bin, bought it, read it and found out that the article I read just skimmed the surface of how grotesque Kevorkian’s ambitions were.  Don’t take my word for it.  Please buy his book, especially since he’s no longer alive to collect royalties.  Get it from a library.  Read the damn thing.

The second event involved a notorious case in Canada, in which Robert Latimer confessed to having killed his 12-year-old daughter, Tracy, by gassing her in the cab of his truck.  After the medical examiner determined that Tracy’s death occurred through asphyxiation and confronted Latimer, Latimer confessed but said he did it out of “mercy.”  What struck me as very weird at the time was that the “right to die” organizations in Canada (who claimed they were after legalized assisted suicide for terminally ill people who were legally competent to ask for death basically adopted Robert Latimer as a poster child.

At one point, Latimer was sentenced to a ten year to life sentence.  The NY Times published a quote from a “right to die” leader in Canada that sent a clear signal to disability activists and advocates across North America:

Marilynne Seguin, executive director of Dying With Dignity, a Toronto-based group promoting freedom of choice for physician-assisted deaths, said that the Latimers had already lived under a sentence during the 12 years that Tracy was alive and that to add the 10-year punishment “is quite unconscionable.”

Do I really have to spell out what she’s saying here?  Please write if you don’t get this.

Lastly, as I promised, there’s the bit of the prior clash (although never really direct) over some of this same ground.

People might remember that “Million Dollar Baby” was the movie of 2005.  In reality, it saw limited release in 2004, just under the wire for Oscar consideration for that year.  (this was just one of several clever marketing moves)  It was almost universally acclaimed as a masterpiece by critics – before almost any of the public had a chance to see it.

People might also remember there was some controvery over the movie.  Probably you remember that some “prolifers” created a stink.  That’s kind of how it ended up, but it’s not how it began.  It began with a review of the movie that I wrote, which was followed by a protest by disability activists in Chicago, covered in USA Today, the London Telegraph, and by Michael Miner of the Chicago Reader.

After that protest, op-eds and essays started appearing in newspapers across the country, by disability activists, advocates and scholars.  Virtually all took exception to the stereotypes and really primitive plot devices that all led up the killing of a newly-disabled woman, at her own request.

It lasted for awhile, and then, suddenly, really – disability voices were pushed out of the discourse.  Since it’s my job, I tracked the pivotal event to one long and angry diatribe by a respected Chicago Sun-Times movie critic.

The Disability Studies Quarterly devoted part of an issue to thoughts and analysis revolving around the film and the resulting discourse.  I was interviewed by the editors to get my own thoughts about the rise and fall of disability representation in the discourse.  It’s reproduced below:

Million Dollar Baby and Not Dead Yet
Stephen Drake
Not Dead Yet
E-mail: Sndrake@aol.com

We started it. Really. Not Dead Yet (NDY) and others in the disability community really kicked off the controversy surrounding Million Dollar Baby. Baby opened in late December of 2004 in a limited release, qualifying for the 2004 Oscar nominations. As a result of this marketing strategy, Baby was deemed a “masterpiece” and Oscar-bound before the majority of Americans were able to see the movie.

Chicago was one of the cities slated for the limited release.  We received two calls from disability activists. One had merely heard about the euthanasia theme of the movie. Another had gone to see it and wanted NDY to know about it.

As research analyst for NDY, the job of seeing the movie fell to me.  Sometime during the first week of January, I went to see Baby at a packed matinee showing. Within a few days, I had drafted a critique and call to action that was published on January 11th at www.raggededgemagazine.com. In the article, I hit many points that would be repeated by other disability activists, scholars and advocates:

1. The movie was deceptively marketed.
2. The portrayal of rehabilitation and consequences of spinal cord injury were unrealistic
3. Highlighted Eastwood’s history of anti-ADA activism.
4. The fact that Maggie had the right to have her vent turned off was ignored. The right to refuse treatment didn’t exist in this movie.
5. Called for others to see the movie, make their judgments, and protest, if they saw the same movie I saw. (Note: the fact we did not call for a boycott really threw opponents for a loop, at least for awhile, since it would have made us easier to attack.)

These points and others would be expanded upon and added to by many others in the disability community in the following weeks.

The next thing that followed was a direct action.  The Chicago Film Critics Association was hosting an event on January 19th.  What better target for a protest than a group of critics who had unanimously praised the film and hidden the “surprise ending” from viewers?  A group of disability activists, scholars and advocates all braved the cold to leaflet and picket the event.  There were photographers, reporters and camera crews who came just to report on us – a result of the advance press work. Part of the draw was the just-released press release from the National Spinal Cord Injury Association blasting the movie and Clint Eastwood.

As a result, disability advocates received some unprecedented airing in the print media – the objections to the movie and to Eastwood were covered in the NY Times, London Telegraph, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and a nationally-disseminated Associated Press story.

Roger Ebert, arguably the most widely-read and watched movie critic in the U.S., was one of the attendees at the Chicago event.  Some signs were even targeted at him (Ebert says: “thumbs up to killing cripples.”)  Ebert also likes to think of himself as having knowledge and sensitivity about disability issues, and has done some fundraising work for a disability advocacy organization in Chicago.

Ebert ignored any approaches from disability advocates here in Chicago before or immediately after the protest at the Chicago Film Critics Association.  The impetus for his response was undoubtedly the knowledge that Chicago columnist Michael Miner was composing a column about Million Dollar Baby and the disability protests.

Ebert’s “response” – published on January 29 in the Chicago Sun-Times —  was a classic example of a response from a white male under attack by a minority group. His essay contained the following elements:

1. Ebert assured us that some of his best friends were disabled.
2. Ebert assured us that he had promoted other quality films about disability.
3. Ebert informed us that a friend of his was a disabled film critic who also loved Million Dollar Baby.
4. Ebert told us he saw a great documentary on quad rugby at the Sundance Festival (Murderball) and that everyone should see that movie.

Ebert wasn’t done, though.  By the end of the article, he misinformed his readers about the nature and scope of the disability protests.  Ignoring the fact that disability advocates, activists, and scholars were reaching out to mainstream media, he informed readers that we were alerting our own “constituency” about something that might be harmful to emotionally vulnerable, newly injured people with disabilities.

Ebert mostly wanted to talk about the wrongness of “spoiling” – revealing the plot of a movie- and to rant against the religious right.  In doing so, he singled out Michael Medved as someone who had “spoiled” the movie to advance an agenda.  One silver lining of Ebert’s “response” was that its lopsided nature no doubt aided the acceptance and publication of an essay by myself and journalist Mary Johnson.

Ebert’s theme and marginalization of disability was quickly picked up by nationally syndicated columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, along with other columnists.  (It should be noted that the disability voice was absent from the beginning in conservative media, with a few token mentions in the Washington Times.)  The list of conservative critics being blasted for “spoiling” the movie got longer.

In the lists of “spoilers,” there was always one name conspicuously absent, though.  David Edelstein, a film critic on National Public Radio and Slate, blasted and “spoiled” Million Dollar Baby in both forums.  But Edelstein is a liberal, writing and speaking in very non-conservative media outlets.  Including his name to the list of “spoilers” would have wrecked the ideological purity of the lists being promoted.

In short, Ebert’s “response” triggered a steamroller that pushed the voice of disability advocates out of the coverage of Million Dollar Baby.  It started with marginalization and by the end, our presence was eliminated and the controversy about the movie redefined.

What this amounted to was an all-too-familiar collaboration between conservative, mainstream and progressive media.  This “collaboration” erased disability from the landscape of the story, to be replaced by a story about a volley in the “culture wars.”  Since neither the left or right sees us as part of their respective cultures, we ended up as collateral damage.  By the time the Oscars rolled around, the story had been completely morphed and we were virtual “road-kill.”

This set the stage for a repeat performance of cooperation in the wave of press coverage in the final weeks of Terri Schiavo’s life.  The effort to keep the story within a “culture war” framework was so extreme that Senator Tom Harkin’s passionate efforts to save Terri Schiavo’s life were ignored by the media, along with national disability groups that had been involved in the efforts for over two years.

The best predictor of future performance is past performance.  That being said, we can know in advance how the media – *all* the media – will respond to disability advocates’ involvement in anything smacking of “right to die” issues.

Let’s be honest – no one besides ourselves has a vested interest in giving us our proper place in public discourse about “right to die” issues or just about any issue.  Journalists and editors are used to thinking of disability from a “human interest” angle – stories of inspiration, overcoming, or longing for cure.  Bioethicists don’t want us invading their “turf,” which in this case, happens to be policies aimed at people with disabilities.  The left doesn’t want to acknowledge disagreement with us on some “better dead than disabled” topics.  The right doesn’t want to acknowledge us since the term “disability rights” is despised in conservative circles.

None of this is going to change anytime soon.  And it won’t change at all if we don’t help the process along. What we can change is our own performance.  The only way we get into the public discourse is by inserting ourselves there.  Judging from what was accomplished over the past few months, it seems obvious what that will take.  We should not shy away from peaceful protests, especially at atypical venues (I doubt the Chicago Film Critics Association had ever been picketed before) that will grab attention.  Street protest isn’t enough, obviously, we have to be primed and ready to respond with our press releases, op-eds, letters to the editors, etc. In short, speak out louder, longer and more forcefully.  A hint from traditional activism – angering someone makes it hard for them to ignore you.  That’s true for Roger Ebert, Maureen Dowd and Bill O’Reilly.  Sure, they’ll diss us – but they’ll have to acknowledge us before dissing us.  Being openly attacked is preferable to being systematically ignored.

We followed up with Drake and asked him to clarify several points. What follows is his response.

Stephen, commonly, we see the culture wars as being ‘fought’ over polarizing issues like abortion, and it is pretty clear where the two sides stand. In the Schiavo case and in the Million Dollar Baby response, these sides weren’t so clearly divided, and there was confusion about what was the ‘progressive’ and what was the ‘conservative’ side of things.  Though you refer to conservatives and liberals in your piece, they aren’t so easily separated when looking at their response to the movie. Is there something to be gained from the deconstruction of the polarity, from the dissolution of distinctions between camps?

Drake: Well, the players certainly looked pretty diverse at the beginning of the Million Dollar Baby controversy.  Eastwood is a conservative Republican with an anti-ADA background.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ official review of the film labeled it “offensive” but came up ambivalent about the treatment of euthanasia.  Initially, only a couple of conservative commentators blasted the film, but they gave the impression Eastwood was some new film pioneer of the left.

That left an ideal opportunity for the disability community to be heard, since the “usual suspects” were unusually quiet initially.  There was this void, just waiting to be filled, in the ongoing media blitz over this “masterpiece” that almost no one but critics had actually seen.

Disability activists, advocates and scholars became central figures in the controversy – briefly.  The fact that we played a central role served as a tool of deconstruction over the false right/left dichotomy over assisted suicide.  I suspect that one of the reasons we met such strong resistance after initial success was due to our role as agents of deconstruction.  Deconstruction serves our interests as a community, since the current paradigm doesn’t allow for our part in the debates over assisted suicide and euthanasia at all – unless it’s an individual disabled person asking to be killed.

What do you think the word collaboration should mean?  You talk about collaboration as an overlap of concerns.  But you hint that this collaboration might be more actively undertaken, particularly in order to silence the disability community.  Alternatively, what collaboration would you like to see amongst the media and/or in the disability community?

Drake: If I implied any sort of conspiracy or planning between, say, Fox News and MSNBC, then I communicated badly.  I put scare quotes around the word “collaboration” because it was the closest I could come to the phenomenon as it played out.  In fact, it was probably closer to a herd mentality when it comes to the media.  Almost any divisive issue gets portrayed as an aspect of the “culture wars,” and that is just as true for The National Review as it is for The New York Times.

You don’t need active collaboration or a conspiracy to get certain types of behavior patterns that lead to oppression or exclusion.  Sexism and racism aren’t conspiracies, but the prevalence of sexist and racist attitudes can lead to patterns of discrimination from a wide array of players.

Can you share some of the goals you had for the protest of the film?  Can you share goals for future protest, and for the future stance of Not Dead Yet towards the media, particularly on issues such as those raised by Million Dollar Baby?

Drake: As a community, we have been unable to establish ourselves as the experts on issues affecting our lives.  This isn’t limited to the issues of assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Time after time, news related to disability is dominated by surrogates – bioethicists, service providers, medical professionals, etc.  We don’t get to be our own experts.

One hope with the “Million Dollar Baby” protests was that we could raise our overall presence in the media, and hopefully raise our visibility in future media coverage.  To a certain extent, there’s been some tangible success.  Right now, news stories over the assisted suicide battle in California almost always reference disability advocates as part of the opposition coalition, and often quote disability advocates.  Several major stories about the infanticide proposals in the Netherlands have featured comments by representatives of Not Dead Yet and spina bifida-related organizations.

The media is entrenched in dealing with disability from a “human interest” or totally medicalized perspective.  With few exceptions, the media also favors framing all political controversy as an aspect of the “culture wars.”  The only way we’re going to break through that is to take the ground ourselves.  We must look for our opportunities, whether it’s a local homicide being called a “mercy killing” or the newest scandal regarding mistreatment in nursing homes.   In situations like these, we have as much expertise and as much at stake as others who jump to be heard in the media – whether it’s the latest incarnation of the Hemlock Society or the local nursing home lobby.  They’re not shy about being opportunistic – we should learn from that.  We can either sit and wait for our world to change to our liking or do what we can to change it.  We can stake our claim by asserting “nothing about us without us.”

So that’s about as much history and explanation as I’m up for tonight.  It came as a surprise – and an annoyance – that after all that, Ebert didn’t seem to process (or acknowledge) there’s a significant disability contingent with a horse in this race.  I know that during that year he debated John Hockenberry about the movie, and I’m pretty sure John would have covered a lot of the same territory NDY does when we talk about these issues.

I have a feeling this won’t make any of the angrier commenters any less angry, but I won’t take responsibility for that.  –Stephen Drake

Apparently Roger Ebert Thinks Docudramas are Factual – A Response to “Now I lay me down to sleep”

assisted suicide, Kevorkian, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, right to die, Roger Ebert

After having pissed off just about every active alcoholic – and people who love them – Roger Ebert came out today with a blog essay that I’m sure he thought would be a crowd pleaser.

Today’s blog essay is titled “Now I lay me down to sleep.”

The short version goes like this – Robert Ebert saw the HBO docudrama about Jack Kevorkian, and – forgetting how much license with the facts docudramas take – figures he really knows Jack Kevorkian now and also knows all that is important about assisted suicide as public policy. As for his own feelings on the subject — he claims the only real objections are religious ones, he’s not religious and he’s fine with it, as long as it’s for terminally ill people who are in pain. He doesn’t seem to realize that’s a narrower set of criteria than the state of Oregon allows.  Critical analysis is in short supply in this essay.

Ebert throws around misstatements of fact with abandon, as he does here:

After Paul Schrader assured me Al Pacino’s performance in the film was the best of the year, I rented it from Netflix, and after watching it I realized I didn’t know Jack. He is depicted as tactless, cantankerous, argumentative, and brave. He was not a palatable poster child for assisted suicide, but perhaps it required a man with his single-minded zeal to bring the subject into discussion. He said he helped 130 patients kill themselves. Every time he was brought to trial in one of those cases of assistance, the jury acquitted him. He had kept video records of his interviews with the patients and the actual moments of their death, and jurors apparently agreed that he was providing medical help requested by a terminally ill person. (Emphasis added.)

That’s just plain false.  For example, one of the trials in which he was acquitted involved his roles in the deaths of Sherry Miller, who had multiple sclerosis (she’d also been abandoned by her husband and lost custody of her children) and Marjorie Wantz, a woman who experienced pelvic pain.  Neither was terminal.  Miller, with a condition prone to depression, was also hard hit by her family losses.  None of that mattered to the jury – Fieger played up how awful it was to live in a wheelchair and how no one would want to live like that.  The jury agreed.

More…

In trying that last case, a prosecutor made a tactical call: He decided to drop charges of assisted suicide, in order to prevent any videos of the patient being seen by a jury. He chose to prosecute only on the narrow charge of murder in the second degree, for which Kevorkian himself had provided the documentary evidence. The doctor was sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison, served eight and a half years, was paroled in 2007, and died on June 3, 2011.

Again, this is just wrong, no matter how confidently Ebert states this.  The reason the assisted suicide charges were dropped had nothing to do with video tapes – in fact, the prosecutor used one of Kevorkian’s tapes very effectively in his closing arguments. The tactic was used because it meant testimony from Thomas Youk’s brother and wife wouldn’t be allowed.  They weren’t present for the killing and could only testify about “state of mind” – irrelevant when it comes to a murder charge.  And as to Kevorkian’s release – it was allegedly for health reasons, after Kevorkian’s attorney filed his fourth yearly brief claiming Kevorkian had less than a year to live.

To be fair, I’ll give Ebert credit for checking Wikipedia for info on Kevorkian and accurately relaying the findings of the Detroit Free Press findings in their series “The Suicide Machine.”  But then Ebert goes off and shares crap like this:

Polls showed that the majority of citizens in his state of Michigan supported him, and a poll taken after his death showed that 75% of Canadians approved of assisted suicide for terminal patients in pain.

I’m not sure what poll is being referred to, but the most important poll – I think it was conveniently never mentioned in the docudrama – was a 1998 ballot initiative to legalize assisted suicide.  The result?  Here’s what a recent article in the Detroit Free Press had to say:

Michiganders, by a more than 2-1 margin, voted down a proposal to legalize assisted suicide in 1998.

I worked with Michigan disability activists who helped to fight against that ballot initiative.  I recall that post-election day analysis gave Kevorkian a lot of the blame and/or credit for the defeat of the initiative.

The principal argument against it is religious: God gives life to men, who do not have the right to end it without his will. In a nation which separates church and state, this should not be a valid position. Why should it apply to someone who does not agree with it? If I am in agony, what difference do your beliefs about God make to me? What if I don’t believe in God? What if I believe in a more merciful God, who gave me intelligence, free will and responsibility for my life? Why must I suffer because of your more narrow theology?

Stunningly, Ebert blithely claims that all those people getting in the way of the obviously sensible legalization of assisted suicide are people with a “narrow” theology and perspective.

What a shithead.  Ebert recently was honored by Access Living, a prominent Center for Independent Living that serves the disabled people in the City of Chicago.  I fear that when they called him a “national leader” it might have gone to his head.  As a relative newcomer to the world of disability, he’s done very well, but he really hasn’t got a handle on the rest of the community’s values, perspectives or priorities.

Before Ebert writes on this topic again, I’d suggest he read the Assisted Suicide Position Paper published by the National Council on Disability in 1997 with Marca Bristo serving as Chairperson.  Marca Bristo is also the CEO of Access Living.

Ebert continues…

Several times a year we read of someone who assists a spouse, parent, child or partner to die. Sometimes this results in jail sentences. Much more often, I suspect, it happens silently.

Ebert needs to read the news more carefully.  There are out-and-out murders getting written off as murders simply because the victim is old, ill or disabled.  Some of this has gone on right in his back yard.

See, for example, “No Mercy” by Mike Miner of the Chicago Reader on some of the biased coverage of murders of an elderly woman and two disabled men.  There’s also this detailed analysis of Chicago media coverage of the 2002 murder of Shirley Harrison.
And here is a brief statement about the “blame the victim” coverage of 4-year-old Katie McCarron’s murder in Pekin, IL and its consequences; Katie was autistic.

I don’t expect to get any acknowledgment from Ebert that he got anything wrong.  Previous experience during the “Million Dollar Baby” controversy makes it clear that he doesn’t get what the objections are from disability rights activists in this area and why they’re important.  More, he’s perfectly willing to pretend that that those objections don’t exist at all.

That’s all for now.  By Monday, I’ll be critiquing a review of an Oregon documentary sitting in my DVR.  Ebert brought it up and I guess I have to quit putting off watching it.  –Stephen Drake

Kentucky: Man Charged with Murder of Wife While Friends Suggest it Was a “Mercy Killing”

animal cruelty, crime and punishment, Homicide / 'Mercy Killing', media coverage, murder, Our News & Commentary Blog, pets

This is a story that has been developing over the past few days and it has more than a few twists.  Here’s one of the most comprehensive news stories on the case from Wave3 News in Louisville, KY:

ELIZABETHTOWN, KY (WAVE) – Was it assisted suicide or cold blooded murder? That’s the question Michele Daugherty’s friends have after the Noblesville, Indiana woman was found dead in an Elizabethtown, Kentucky hotel room. Now her husband is behind bars charged with murder, but some Indiana friends of the couple are wondering if what happened in Elizabethtown was a mercy killing.

It’s a strange case that has police investigators seeing a clear cut crime. But friends of Lonnie and Michele Daugherty see a totally different picture – an illness and a way out.

“If she was as sick as I’m hearing, then I could see her not wanting to live,” said Howard Struck, a former boyfriend of Michele’s in an interview with an Indianapolis television station.

The couple checked into the Holiday Inn Express off Interstate 65 in Elizabethtown a few days ago. They were supposed to check out on Saturday morning and get back on the road. Because the housekeeping staff at the hotel was eager to get the room ready for the next guest, they knocked on the door. Getting no answer, they let themselves in and made a shocking discovery.

“They discover two bodies laying in the bed and it appears to them, both have been deceased,” said Officer Virgil Willoughby, an Elizabethtown Police Department spokesperson.

However, police say that wasn’t the case. While both husband and wife had injuries to the neck, 56-year-old Michele was strangled, but 37-year-old Lonnie was still breathing. Police say Lonnie Daugherty’s wounds were superficial.

“He’s interviewed at the hospital where he admits to assisting his wife in committing suicide,” Willoughby said.

Back in an Indiana apartment complex where the couple lived until evicted recently, various neighbors have been saying that Michele Daugherty was “dying” from cancer – some saying she had “weeks” to live and others saying it as a few months.

As someone who’s been appalled by the irresponsible comments of some pretty stupid cops in other cases, I am impressed with the spokespersons from the Elizabethtown Police Department.  In a number of other cases I’ve read over the years, the first mention of the term “mercy killing” has come from some clueless cop who based the opionion on nothing other than the victim being old, ill or disabled.  None of that from the Elizabethtown Police – they note he “admits” to assisting suicide, but they’re charging him with murder.  There’s more from officer Virgil Willoughby here in regard to Michele Daugherty’s murder being a “mercy killing.”:

“There’s no defense, as far as I’m concerned that’s going to say, ‘ Hey, it’s OK to go out and kill your wife or husband for that matter,” said Willoughby.

“She asked for it” isn’t a valid defense.  I’d also imagine the police want more info on her actual health status.  They may also wonder – as I do – why she didn’t have sufficient painkillers to kill herself if she was really close to death due to an aggressive cancer.  Most people would choose that over strangulation.

One more thing about this case.  Aside from murder, Lonnie Daugherty is also charged with cruelty to animals.  They had a cat with them.  The cat was found dead in the hotel room and Lonnie admits to strangling the cat, which may account for his “superficial” wounds.

Considering all the arguments I get in over the “we’re kinder to animals than we are to humans” crap regarding euthanasia, I’m surprised that this hasn’t been discussed in the coverage.

Did they cut out footage of neighbors talking about how – through a tragic coincidence – the cat was also terminally ill?  (Yes – that’s sarcasm)

Try to picture a sweet and gentle person lovingly strangling a cat.  If you can do that, you have a much better imagination than I do.

Sometimes, in violent domestic situations, one partner (usually male) will hurt the other person by doing violence to their pet.  It’s a possibility to explore at least.

Let’s ask the neighbors if they can figure out why the cat was killed, how “grateful” the cat was for the “merciful” death, and how that fits in with their thoughts about how and why Lonnie Daugherty killed Michelle.  It makes sense – after all, no one can claim that Lonnie treated his wife any worse – or better – than he did the cat.  –Stephen Drake

Video below: