Newest AP Story on Final Exit Network – NDY Quoted

assisted suicide, final exit network, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, suicide

Until the next round of court appearances and/or criminal charges comes round, I think what we’re going to be seeing is a steady trickle of stories of people who either committed suicide – or want to – with the “help” of Final Exit Network (FEN). Predictably, with few exceptions, the surviving family members will defend the Final Exit Network, having already told their “loved one” that they were “accepting” of the suicide. (Note: there has been one exception to that trend – and I’ll probably get to write about that tomorrow)

The latest entry in that line of stories comes today, published in the Detroit News. It tells the story of the planned suicide of Maxine Poris – through the accounts of FEN members, her correspondence, and her “accepting” daughters.

Anyone reading with a critical eye can read a story of a woman dealing with the pain and depression that is part of fibromyalgia – and someone who appears to have been pretty isolated. In a story like this, we’re not allowed to ask what other kinds of treatments or supports might have helped her live her life, since we are not allowed to ask the dead if maybe they hadn’t really run out of options, after all. Nor are we allowed to ask how hard her daughters talked against her decision or denied the idea that she would be a “burden” on them if she lived with one of them.

Here is a link to the story, along with a quote that AP reporter Greg Blustein must have saved from a previous interview with me. I don’t recall saying this exactly this way, since the subject was suicide and not killing – or outright killing, anyway. But Blustein has the notes and it’s not something I disagree with:

Final Exit’s critics are many. “Instead of dealing with ways to support” the sick and the disabled, “we can pat ourselves on the back and say we’re compassionate and kill them,” said Stephen Drake of Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This could be a long and nasty ride – and just beginning. –Stephen Drake

Peter Singer in Chicago: NDY Moved, But Disability Activism Remains

activism, blog recommendations, infanticide, Our News & Commentary Blog, Peter Singer

On March 9th, Peter Singer made an appearance in Chicago promoting a new book. When he recently and belatedly found out that NDY headquarters had moved from Chicago, he might have figured that he’d get a free pass from any annoying disabled detractors.

A free pass is what he didn’t get. NDY headquarters is gone, but the community of disability activists is alive and well in that city. NDY was always proud to be one integral part of that larger community.

The following is an account from friend and colleague Gary Arnold, who writes the blog Common Ground, – “Notes and commentary on dwarfism, Little People of America and disability.”

Below are the opening paragraphs of “Sing out loud,” Gary’s account of the night Singer came to visit Chicago earlier this month:

On Monday, March 9, a group called the Public Square hosted a lecture by Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. The event took place at the International House on the University of Chicago Campus. Singer’s lecture was titled “The Life You Can Save”; the title echoes his latest book (THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE Acting Now to End World Poverty), in which Singer argues that individuals who are economically comfortable, or safe, in developed countries should do more, and have a responsibility to do more, to help end poverty and starvation in developing countries.

Many people, both university students and community members, attended the lecture, but not everyone was interested to hear about the new book. Five disability rights activists also showed up to remind the audience, or to inform the audience, that Singer is not always in support of saving lives.

Please go read the rest of Gary’s account at his blog. –Stephen Drake

LA Times Op-Ed: “Different assisted-suicide groups, one goal”

assisted suicide, california, final exit network, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

On March 23, the LA Times published an editorial titled Sense and suicide, which bemoaned the damage that the Final Exit Network could do to the mainstream assisted suicide movement. From that starting point, they went on to extol the virtues of legalized assisted suicide, arguing that the expansive eligibility criteria of the FEN would never be tolerated by society. The editorial staff, who, like most of the reporters and editors covering FEN, seem to be drinking from the same large cup of “stupid,” haven’t noticed that a lot of public reaction is supporting the FEN.

Today’s issue of the same paper features a “blowback” op-ed by Stanton J. Price, “a health lawyer and member of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Bioethics Committee, which he recently co-chaired.”

Below are some excerpts from Price’s excellent refutation of the Times Editorial:

Different assisted-suicide groups, one goal

Both Compassion and Choices and the Final Exit Network take the definition of “intolerable suffering” beyond terminal illness. They believe that a person suffering from a condition that he or she believes is unbearable (rightly or wrongly) should legally be allowed assistance in ending their own life, whether by inhaling helium from a tank or overdosing on barbiturates. This is a frightening prospect for people with disabilities, particularly those who think they may be burdens on their family and for those of us fighting for disability rights.

Price reminds people of a pivotal deciding vote in the legislative defeat of the last attempt to legalize assisted suicide in California:

For The Times to write about the Final Exit Network, “Society is unlikely ever to condone the kind of ethically questionable ‘help’ such groups offer,” is naive. When this issue was before the California Senate’s Judiciary Committee two years ago, then-state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) voted against the bill and said that he “could not resolve the risk that the power of money will ultimately define [assisted suicide’s] parameters.” To me, Dunn has a more realistic view of society than The Times.

Please go and read this op-ed in its entirety and comment on it. Right now, there are no comments, and it would be good for Mr. Price and the editors to know there are people out there who appreciate his insight. –Stephen Drake

Drake & Sobsey: “Let’s put this pet theory to sleep” on MercatorNet

articles, dick sobsey, euthanasia, myths, Our News & Commentary Blog, pets, reality check, stephen drake

About a month ago, I wrote two blog entries dealing with the mythology vs. the reality of pet euthanasia. It’s an important topic, since euthanasia advocates often say something along the lines of “we can put a suffering dog to sleep, but we make humans suffer.” All the variations on this theme imply that all acts of pet euthanasia are acts of kindness to alleviate the suffering of a beloved pet.

The two articles have been edited and made into an article now available on MercatorNet, which has a publishing focus, in part, in “reframing ethical and policy debates in terms of human dignity, not dollars and cents or political calculation.”

The original blog entries drew on Dick Sobsey’s writing and research. He agreed to work with me and we submitted this as a coauthored piece.

I’m providing a link and an excerpt. MercatorNet has a generous redistribution policy, but it’s only right that I show my gratitude by directing you to their site to read the article. –Stephen Drake

Stephen Drake and Dick Sobsey | Friday, 27 March 2009

Let’s put this pet theory to sleep

We have suffered long enough the euthanasia lobby’s myth that society is kinder to animals than to humans.

Over the years, we’ve gotten thoroughly sick and tired of the repeated use of the myths surrounding pet euthanasia as an argument in favor of providing the same “service” for humans. The myth seems to gaining new vigor in recent months.

Clarification on Facebook Entry

clarification, facebook, Our News & Commentary Blog

One person has submitted a comment expressing a concern that the instructions regarding access to this blog on facebook. Since I was sloppily wrote with facebook users as my readers, I forgot that people who don’t use it might think the blog was actually moving there – which would mean only facebook users could access the blog.

That is not happening. This blog will continue to be readable in whatever way you are currently accessing it.

The facebook instructions were meant to give some people an additional option for reading this blog – for facebook users only.

Nothing, really, has changed about how anyone can read this blog – except for facebook users who want to use the networkedblogs feature.

I apologize for the confusion. –Stephen Drake