For Immediate Release:
September 2, 2021
Berkeley, California – In observance of Suicide Prevention Month this September, disability and patients’ rights leaders from California and across the United States joined together in solidarity to voice clear, unequivocable opposition to a lawsuit which seeks to relax already weak safeguards which protect against bias and abuse in physician-assisted suicide.
Signatory organizations also advocated for the expansion of underfunded palliative and long-term options so that critically ill individuals could receive the comprehensive physical, emotional, social, religious and spiritual care needed to live among their families, loved ones and non-disabled peers, rather than prioritizing expedited demise of already at-risk individuals.
The joint declaration came just days after legal action was claiming laws requiring self-administration of lethal drugs discriminates against people with disabilities in California, where assisted suicide has been legal since June 2016. Estimates suggest approximately 400 people die each year in the state by taking lethal physician-prescribed drugs, but no reliable accounting system is publicly available at present.
Statements against the pro-euthanasia lawsuit are universally opposed to this change in the existing statute, in part, because the expansion of physician-assisted suicide affirms an ableist bias and is inherently skewed against disabled and other already at-risk communities and, as such, should be soundly rejected.
Statements from participating organizations:
“Advocating for assisted suicide under the guise of equal access flies in the face of decades long attempts by disability communities to live, learn and earn alongside our non-disabled peers. Prioritizing “aid in dying” rather than providing disabled people with the means we need to live is backwards at best, and at worst, stands diametrically opposed to our most cherished values, goals, and policy objectives,” stressed Marilyn Golden, Senior Policy Analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF). “Chronic healthcare disparities and inequity continue to be the norm rather than the exception among many ethnic, underserved, and poor communities who lack basic access to timely rehabilitative, therapeutic, urgent, palliative, hospice and other under supported health care options. This lawsuit, if successful, would not only set a dangerous precedent — it also puts the lives of already endangered disabled people at even greater risk.”
“This court case will only exacerbate the fact that people with life-threatening disabilities are further driven to despair as a result of fear of being forced into a nursing home or institution, fear of being a physical or financial burden on their families, lack of information about independent living options, and weariness from facing systemic barriers to getting their basic needs met,” reminded Reyma McCoy McDeid, MA (she/her), Executive Director of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL). “In spite of almost two decades of experience with supposed ‘safeguards’ in the Netherlands, significant numbers of non-terminal people with disabilities have, nevertheless, either been coaxed into euthanasia or outright involuntarily euthanized.”
Upon learning of the litigation, Vincenzo Piscopo, President and CEO of United Spinal Association—a national organization of 58,000 members with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D) that has consistently opposed assisted suicide—felt that the commonly adopted concept of the ‘quality of life’ of people with disabilities by both the public and the medical establishment is discriminatory. “They often underrate the ability of severely disabled persons to live successful and fulfilling lives in our communities. Many individuals with spinal cord injuries feel depressed and/or suicidal after injury. Adequate healthcare, rehabilitation and integration into our communities improves outlook and quality of life.” Mr. Piscopo continued, “Quality of life cannot be judged, by third parties, on the basis of what one individual with disabilities thinks or says at a particular time. Treating depression and pain would be the medical community’s response to people without disabilities, and it is the appropriate response for our community.”
Diane Coleman, President and CEO of Not Dead Yet cautioned, “This terrible life-threatening lawsuit turns laws against disability discrimination upside down. As the data shows, people request assisted suicide because their disability related needs, such as qualified home care services, are not being met. Instead of meeting those needs, disabled people, whether ‘terminal’ or otherwise, are being offered a streamlined path to death. That’s ableism and agism, discrimination at its deadliest. It isn’t compassion, it’s contempt.”
“Any program, policy or approach that makes it easier to die rather than providing the supports, services or tools to live independently runs contrary to core tenets of disability civil rights,” warned Maria Town, President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities. “AAPD supports and advocates for laws and policies that protect the rights and dignity of disabled people rather than reinforcing existing prejudices and mistaken negative assumptions about our lives, both individually and collectively as a community, constituency and culture. Advancing access to death rather than prioritizing the means to live would be a huge step backwards and must be categorically rejected.”
From Amber Smock the Director of Advocacy at Chicago’s Access Living: “This lawsuit only reinforces the harmful and false bias that it’s better to be dead than disabled, along with the idea that others can or should take action on behalf of disabled people. It completely fails to recognize the real risk people with physical disabilities too often face — the misuse of assisted suicide. Disabled people already find it challenging to get equal access to mental health supports. We need to be investing in disability competent counseling and supports, not bringing lawsuits that do nothing to address the issues disabled people face.”
Matt Vallière, Executive Director of Patients’ Rights Action Fund concluded, “After years of saying euthanasia takes the power away from patients, assisted suicide proponents are now advocating legalization of euthanasia by allowing medical professionals, family members and abusive caregivers to administer lethal drugs to kill people with disabilities. The move in this case strips away the ‘safeguards’ they themselves put in place to ensure the protection of vulnerable people. The current standard of ‘self-administration’ is a flimsy ‘safeguard’ to begin with because there are no third-party witnesses required to ensure it happens. This lawsuit really begs some questions: are assisted suicide laws themselves inherently discriminatory by setting up a system in which most people get suicide prevention, but some people get suicide assistance? Can you exclude some people from assisted suicide and have meaningful safeguards? Will it happen without patient consent as it does in the Netherlands? No one will ever know, because it all happens behind closed doors.”
Spokespersons from participating organizations are available for interviews both on the record and on background. To arrange for an interview or for more information, please contact:
Lawrence Carter-Long
Communications Director, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Email: LCarterLong@dredf.org
Matt Vallière
Executive Director, Patients Rights Action Fund
Email: matt@patientsrightsaction.org
