UK: Poll shows disabled people’s fear over assisted suicide

assisted suicide, disabled people, Our News & Commentary Blog, stakeholders, survey, United Kingdom

Scope is a charity (or what we would call “non-profit” in the US) that provides services for people with disabilities, and also engages in advocacy – the organization’s primary focus in on people with cerebral palsy.  (This is what I was able to gather from the website – if I’ve gotten it wrong, please write me a note and I’ll correct it.)

Yesterday – May 9 – Scope issued a press bulletin highlighting the results of a survey of disabled people the organization commissioned.  Below is the bulk of the content of the press bulletin, “Poll shows disabled people’s fears over assisted suicide”:

Findings from a new Scope commissioned ComRes survey of disabled people also reveals some 56% feel the legalisation of assisted suicide would be detrimental to the way that disabled people are viewed by society as a whole.

The news comes as the BBC announced that it is to screen a documentary where novelist Sir Terry Pratchett, a supporter of euthanasia, follows a man as he travels to Swiss clinic Dignitas to end his life.

Meanwhile actor Sir Patrick Stewart has thrown his weight behind the Dignity in Dying campaign. On the other side of the debate Care Not Killing has slammed the BBC as a “cheerleader for assisted suicide”.

Assisted suicide is the act of helping someone else to end their life. It remains illegal in the UK, but in recent years there have been calls to ‘clarify’ or change the law.

A commission on assisted dying has been set up to gather evidence on the issue – but it is not an official Government commission and there have been questions raised about its impartiality.

At the same time, high-profile members of the legal and medical profession have waded into the debate.

Scope commissioned the poll of disabled people in a bid to get behind the headlines and make sure disabled people’s views and opinions were heard amid the increasingly polarised debate.

Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope, said: “Assisted suicide is a complex and emotional issue, and there are loud and passionate voices on both sides of the debate. But while high-profile lawyers, doctors and celebrities such as Terry Pratchett and Sir Patrick Stewart grab the headlines, the views of the thousands of ordinary disabled people who could be affected by this issue are rarely listened to.

“Our survey findings confirm that concerns about legalising assisted suicide are not just held by a minority, but by a substantial majority of those this law would affect.

“Disabled people are already worried about people assuming their life isn’t worth living or seeing them as a burden, and are genuinely concerned that a change in the law could increase pressure on them to end their life.

You can download a pdf copy of the survey here.

Edit to add: from tigrlily AKA Amy Hasbrouck: On the Scope site, the presentation of the link to the press release gives the most important figure which is not in the press release, that 70% of PWDs surveyed think a law legalizing assisted suicide would put pressure on people with disabilities to end their lives. That should be the lede of the press release.

Good Catch, Amy.  Thanks!  –Stephen Drake

Letter: Gutting Medicare Will Create Need For “Death Panels”

ayn rand, Concord Monitor, death panels, Eric Cantor, euthanasia, Medicaid, Medicare, Our News & Commentary Blog, Paul Ryan, safety net

It seems like only last week that I was writing that cuts to health care services that millions of Americans depend on would result in people with disabilities of all ages asking for help in killing themselves as they faced increased impoverishment accompanied with a withdrawal of supports that they rely on.

Oh – it was last week that I wrote something along those lines.

It looks like others are thinking along those lines as well.

Yesterday’s (May 8, 2011) edition of the Concord Monitor published a letter by a concerned citizen named Michael Evans titled “Gutting Medicare.”:

Across the country, people are analyzing the Paul Ryan budget plan, including changes that the House passed – with the help of the Reps. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta – to the 45-year-old program called Medicare, the health plan for those 65 years and older guaranteeing reasonable health care through the end of life.

The voucher plan will change things dramatically and will cost seniors billions more in health care expenses so that millionaires and billionaires can be given more tax-cuts, even though the evidence shows that giving tax cuts to these people does not generate new jobs or new investment in the USA, no matter how often the Republicans claim they do. China and India are doing well though.

The Ryan/Bass/Guinta vote to cut the American senior health care system will force many to make difficult choices. One thing that has not been mentioned in all this talk, and which will be desirable if this goes through, is a law that gives seniors the right to euthanasia. Many will be forced to make this choice as their money runs out and their homes are lost. The Ryan/Bass/Guinta Medicare voucher insurance system fails in its coverage of medical care in the last years of a citizen’s life. Dignity in death is as important as tax-cuts for billionaires.

Sarah Palin opened our eyes to death panels. The Ryan/Bass/Guinta plan will create the need for death panels. It should therefore include a euthanasia option because, as we are told by Republicans, choice is an American value.

To be honest, I think that this letter-writer isn’t a serious euthanasia proponent, but merely trying to make a strong point about the consequences of the Ryan Medicare Plan – and which also applies to proposals regarding Medicaid that are being discussed right now as well.

But even if Mr. Evans isn’t serious, there will be serious proposals that will come; the pro-euthanasia movement is adept at seizing opportunities.  And it will be all too easy for them to sound like a genuinely compassionate voice.  I can hear the pitch now:

“The Conservatives have torn your safety net to shreds.  You’ve used up your life savings and sold your home.  There’s nothing left for medical care or decent housing.  The least you deserve is to die on your own terms.”

And the truth is, I’ll blame Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and their “Ayn Rand wannabe” Congressional supporters at least as much as I’ll blame the pro-euthanasia groups for this sales pitch.

Candor From Eric Cantor – Government Healthcare Rationing Bad, But OK if Private Sector Does It

Back Door Euthanasia, class warfare, Eric Cantor, health care reform, healthcare rationing, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

I’ve long suspected that many – maybe most – of the Congressional conservatives posturing about “Obamacare” and decrying hypothetical healthcare rationing don’t really object to “rationing” at all – they just object to the government setting standards and limits that apply to everyone.  As most of the people I deal with on a daily basis are well aware, private health insurance already rations healthcare, and the cheaper your plan is, the more your healthcare is rationed.

For the most part, conservatives have been careful to avoid saying that they’re OK with “free market” rationing – rationing that is determined by how much you’re able to pay for private insurance.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – in a rare (for almost any politician) honest moment, made his true feelings on “rationing” very clear, as first reported on The Hill:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Tuesday that private healthcare plans ration care for profit but that consumers should be free to buy whatever coverage they can afford rather than depend on government rationing.

In remarks to the College of American Pathologists, Cantor warned that Democrats’ healthcare reform law mandates benefits that are too generous and will bankrupt the country as the government ends up having to offer ever increasing subsidies. That can only lead to government rationing, he said.

“That doesn’t mean those kinds of decisions aren’t being made now by the private sector,” Cantor added, “because they are.”

Even that last statement by Cantor is generally more than conservatives are willing to admit.  In and of itself, the statement wouldn’t be that important.  IMO, it’s what he said next that we should all take note of – and make sure that this gets included in any discussion of  healthcare rationing:

Cantor appeared to go further than Republicans have in the past by acknowledging that not all patients are certain to get optimal healthcare under a system of private insurance.

“I think that the fundamental nature of our system of third-party payer is the problem,” he said. Patients, he added, too often are left with “no decision about what they want and what they can afford.”

Later, Cantor said Republicans want a safety net for people who can’t afford care but that “we’re not for everyone having the same outcome guaranteed.” (Emphasis added.)

Let’s put that last bit into plain English.  What Cantor is saying here is that he and his colleagues are for people having different “outcomes” regarding their access to healthcare, with affluent people having good outcomes and middle class and below having pretty crappy ones.

In other words, if you’ve been thinking that the Republican proposals on healthcare are going to result in much poorer access to healthcare, Eric Cantor just told you that you are not paranoid at all.

This will hit the population of people with disabilities especially hard.  We tend to need more from the healthcare system and earn a lot less than the general population.  Here’s an excerpt from a report on Poverty in the United States for 2009, prepared for “members and committees of Congress”:

In 2009, persons who had a work disability  represented 10.6% of the 16-64 year old population, and 23.5% of the poor population within this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 33.5% were poor, compared to 15.2% of those with a less severe disability and 11.2% who reported having no work-related disability.

This, of course, underestimates the financial hardships faced by people with disabilities, who often have significant expenses related to our disabilities that aren’t covered by any insurance or government program.

But I expect that people can get the idea here.  Those with significant disabilities and health conditions have lower incomes and won’t be able to afford insurance that provides a great deal of healthcare.  Affluent people, like Eric Cantor (whose assets are in the millions), will be able to get the “cadillac plans.”

In real terms, that means that people of modest means or less won’t be able to afford treatment for cancer, or surgery for heart conditions or any of a myriad of other health issues that can give us many added and enjoyable years.  Those will only be for the Eric Cantors who can afford the best insurance and associated deductibles.

On the bright side (sarcasm alert), it should put an end to “futile care” disputes.  Very few people will have insurance that would cover the type of intensive treatment usually at the center of those disputes.  My guess is that medical professionals and facilities will swallow their principles and tolerate those few affluent folks who insist on “futile” care.

I know that Republicans and conservatives hate the term, but this sounds an awful lot like “class warfare” to me.  But I guess it would be rude of me to call it that, wouldn’t it?  –Stephen Drake

ADAPT in DC This Week

activism, ADAPT, Back Door Euthanasia, disability rights, Our News & Commentary Blog, policy, protests

This week, ADAPT, the national grassroots disability rights group, has been in Washington, DC.  Some 500 members of ADAPT – most of whom have significant disabilities – are there to let Congress know that this group of stakeholders knows exactly what’s at stake with current budget proposals, especially the cynical and draconian budget proposal being pushed by Paul Ryan.

So why are we writing about it here?

First and foremost, NDY is a disability rights group – and without ADAPT’s example and longstanding leadership on disability rights issues, NDY might not exist at all.  Second, NDY’s concerns aren’t limited to opposing legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.  We oppose any policies or practices that threaten the lives of people with disabilities.  And make no mistake – the proposed cuts to Medicaid and Medicare – under the laughable guise of “shared sacrifice” represents a big threat to the lives and welfare of people with disabilities of all ages.

I guess the idea of cutting off people’s supports for employment and living at home are more palatable than hypothetical “death panels” for some people.  The idea that people can be forced to be warehoused and quietly die in institutions as those supports are withdrawn can make the body count harder to ignore.

Enough from me, though.  Here’s some info on what ADAPT has been doing this week, including today:

Press Releases:

Press Coverage:

Remember – early deaths through withdrawal of life-sustaining supports and healthcare is every bit as much a government-sponsored “backdoor euthanasia” plan as any rationing plan you could come up with.  It’s also 100% predictable that, faced with being forced to living in institutions or living without support or treatment in the community, there will be a big increase in people with disabilities of all ages asking for euthanasia or assisted suicide as a more “humane” option.  People who want to yank supports from the old, ill, poor and disabled will bear responsibility for that when it starts to happen.  –Stephen Drake

UK: Pro-Euthanasia Group To Set Up Suicide Assistance “Help Line”

assisted suicide, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, United Kingdom

Just a few years ago, this story could have appeared (with a few tweaks) as a satire in The Onion, or as a skit on Saturday Night Live – or the many British comedy shows that exist.

But no, a British pro-euthanasia group has created a partner organization — which will challenge satire writers, since the truth here already reads like yesterday’s parody.  From The Daily Mail, here is a sample of Outrage as ‘how-to-die helpline’ is launched by euthanasia charity:

A right-to-die pressure group provoked outrage yesterday over plans to sponsor the UK’s first helpline aimed at speeding the terminally ill towards ‘a good death’.

The free phone line, to be set up by a  charity called Compassion in Dying, will ‘promote greater patient choice and control where possible’.

The charity is an offshoot of euthanasia campaign Dignity in Dying and is led by the right-to-die group’s chief executive Sarah Wootton, a former sex equality and abortion campaigner.

Its plan to provide the desperately sick with advice on how to end their lives sparked protests from anti-euthanasia activists, who said the helpline would be used to shorten lives.

The charity says it exists to exploit ‘existing end-of-life rights’ and will pass on information to callers.

However, it comes against a background of growing tolerance of assisted suicide by prosecution authorities, increasing political pressure for the legalisation of assisted dying, and a rising toll of Britons travelling to the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland to end their lives.

It’s doubtful there’s any real journalistic energy going into this story.  What would real journalism look like in covering this?  Here’s a list (not exhaustive) of questions I’d be looking for – directed at Sarah Wootton and others connected to the pro-euthanasia groups:

  • What specific types of “advice” will be offered? Will it include instructions on recommended ways to kill yourself?
  • Will callers be directed to euthanasia activists who will “help” them commit suicide?
  • How will this “helpline” verify that the callers are really terminally ill?  How will they sort them out from non-terminally ill people who want to kill themselves?
  • How will they screen for callers who misrepresent themselves so they can get information on “suicide” when their intent is to murder an elderly or disabled relative and pass it off as a suicide?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for this kind of inquiry.  I see no evidence that the British press is any more competent at covering this issue than the American press.  –Stephen Drake