Anita Cameron: Three Big Reasons Black People Should Join the Anti Doctor-Assisted Suicide Movement

Our News & Commentary Blog

(Head and shoulders photo of Anita Cameron, an African-American woman.)

Although a 2013 Pew Research Center study shows that 65 percent of Blacks are against assisted suicide, there are not many Blacks who are active in the anti-doctor assisted suicide movement. Here are three reasons that we Blacks must join this critical movement.

1. Our Healthcare System is inherently racist. Studies show that Blacks are treated differently than White patients and receive inferior care, particularly in the areas of cardiac, diabetes, and pain management. Blacks are more likely to die because doctors have overlooked something critical or will not listen to or believe what we have to say about our health and pain. This puts us at a greater risk for persuasion or coercion into assisted suicide should we acquire a terminal illness.

2. Black patients, particularly those of us with disabilities, are more likely to be poor and either not have access to or be aware of services, supports and financial assistance and accommodations, putting us at risk of doctors devaluing our lives and persuading or coercing us into assisted suicide, citing financial burdens on our families.

3. Groups like Compassion & Choices are making inroads into our communities and convincing some Black folks that doctor assisted suicide is a good thing when in fact it is not. We Black folks have a natural tendency toward suspicion of the medical community because of experiments like The Tuskegee Project, sterilization and other atrocities perpetrated against us without our knowledge or consent. As doctor assisted suicide becomes legal in more diversely populated states, Blacks and people of color will be at greater risk of this practice.

It’s time we stop looking at doctor assisted suicide as a privileged White folks issue. It’s also time that we expand our reason for objection from simply a religious issue to what it actually is–a deadly form of discrimination against people with disabilities and seniors. It sets up a two-tiered system where young, healthy folks get mental health treatment for suicidal feelings, while disabled, sick or seniors, especially poor folks, would get the “option” of doctor assisted suicide long before we get quality pain relief and other needed supports. This isn’t something that may happen. Insurers in Oregon and California have already begun to deny people cancer treatment and offer the suicide cocktail.

We need to join the disability community in speaking out and fighting against doctor assisted suicide. Don’t be fooled by Compassion & Choices, their media lackeys or doctors who place little or no value on our lives. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that this is about “choices” or “rights”. It is about discrimination, plain and simple.

Lisa Blumberg: What Principles Should Govern Charlie Gard’s Case?

bioethics, court cases, ethics, futility, Health care decision-making, Lisa Blumberg, Our News & Commentary Blog, Peter Singer, surrogate decision making, treatment withdrawal, United Kingdom, ,

The Charlie Gard case concerns a young British child with a very rare genetic condition that has currently left him unable to move, breathe or eat on his own. His parents wanted to take him to the United States for experimental treatment but his London doctors, believing he has suffered enough, wanted to turn off life support before that can happen.  In the protracted legal fight, the courts have sided with the doctors. The Gards have now given up the case, believing that the time during which there was  hope that Charlie could benefit from the treatment has passed. Their only request now, which entails a battle in itself, is that they be permitted to bring him home.

I cannot get a handle on the situation from news reports.  Is Charlie terminally ill or is he instead locked in? Do his doctors even know? Is he in irremediable pain or is his suffering intuited by his “undignified” circumstances? Would the new treatment, if given timely, have offered a hope of stabilizing his condition or giving him an increase in function, even though he still might have had a considerable disability? Would the treatment be very painful?  Thus, my eye caught on the title in Stat, “Why Charlie Gard’s case is so disturbing to Americans”.

Unfortunately, the opinion piece written by American ethicist Michael S. Dauber would have been better entitled “Why Charlie Gard’s case should not be disturbing to Americans”.

Dauber believes that Americans may be disturbed by a legal body determining the manner of a person’s death.  However, he feels that what must be remembered is that this is type of thing courts do in England.

He goes on to say that “as far as medical ethics theory goes”, the justifications of the courts in this case “are comparatively noncontroversial.” Wrapping up, he asserts, “…it’s important to keep in mind that such decisions are based on perhaps the most essential and cherished elements of ethical care…the alleviation and minimization of human suffering.”

So, suck it up, Americans!  Actually, the case is a much greater cause Celebre in Britain than it is over here.

I cannot comment on the decisions in the Gard case. I haven’t read them. However, is it possible – just possible – that a court in dealing a similar scenario might range beyond the well-being of the person involved and factor in public policy considerations? Might there be a concern that if one family could challenge medical decisions, others could as well, and then where would the health care system be?

Dauber all but ignores the twist in the Gard case. The Gard’s, conceding that there is nothing more that the London doctors can do for their son, wanted to change doctors and approaches. It seems as if the right to die (or for other people to have you die) can supersede the right to try.  This may be what is really troubling folks on both sides on the pond.

In the outpatient world, where medical ethics theory holds a bit less sway, people switch doctors all the time.

Indeed there are ethicists, including some who you may not expect, who believe that the Gards should have been allowed to seek new treatment for their son when there seemed to a narrow window of opportunity, instead of forcing them into court with the clock ticking. How does that minimize suffering?

To repeat, I don’t have an informed opinion on the decisions in the Gard case. I can say though why I am so disturbed by Dauber’s piece. His view at best is parochial. He appears to think that life and death decisions can be solely made “within frameworks of medical ethics” and does not acknowledge other perspectives. He hews to the formula – no likely benefit + likely harm = no treatment – without recognition that various ethicists have defined the terms benefit, harm and treatment in hugely different ways.  Then at the  end of the piece, he conflates medical ethical theory with ethical standards and talks about “enforcing” them. Have ethicists been elevated to an unelected, shadow legislature?  Can medical ethics theory be balanced by a presumption of the merits of survival?

My bent is towards equal protection and due process, principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and derived from the Magna Carta.

NDY Statement on the First Anniversary of the Sagamihara Murders

better dead than disabled, hate crime, homicide, Japan, Our News & Commentary Blog, ,

[Editor’s note: Disability advocates in Japan requested this Statement which was written by Stephen Drake, NDY’s Research Analyst, and will be translated and read during a ceremony to be held on July 26, 2017 honoring the victims of the Sagamihara murders.]

One year ago, 19 disabled people were brutally stabbed to death by a young man who justified his murderous attack by saying disabled people “live like animals, not humans” and that “it’s better that disabled disappear.”

As we mourn, it would be wrong to dismiss this young murderer as uniquely “disturbed” or even “a monster.” Rather, his actions were simply the most extreme expression of the dehumanization, hatred and revulsion of disabled people still embedded in countless countries and cultures across the world.

Disabled people are still often forced into crowded and unsanitary living conditions, barred from participation in society, and even killed. The killing of disabled people most often occurs quietly – in institutions, in families and in smaller hate crimes. And then, when these horrible things happen, society blames disabled people – us – for what society has done to us. Unless society changes, more blatant and brutal acts of disability hate, such as the one that ended in the 19 deaths a year ago, are guaranteed to happen again.

Today is a day to mourn. Tomorrow – and every day – is the time to organize our disability rights and independent living movement. Organize and advocate for a world that respects the disability community for all our diversity and beauty. Organize and advocate for our right to live, go to school and work in our communities. Organize and advocate for our right to enjoy our lives and freedom like everyone else.

Across the world, let’s work together for a time when we can gather, not to mourn our murdered dead, but to celebrate our achievement of equality and justice for all disabled people.

***

A year ago, NDY reported on news coverage of the killings here, and the National Council on Independent Living issued a statement here.

A recent report in Japan Times states that the killer “was indicted in February on six charges including murder and attempted murder, but his trial is unlikely to start soon due to the volume of trial preparation work, according to judicial officials.”

NDY UK Intervenes in Noel Conway Assisted Suicide Case

"death with dignity", aid in dying, assisted suicide, court cases, Not Dead Yet UK, Our News & Commentary Blog, United Kingdom, , , , ,

NDY UK’s Press Release on the July 17 court proceeding includes a powerful statement on the issues from a disability rights perspective.

www.notdeadyetuk.org
********PRESS RELEASE: 16 JULY 2017 @ 14:00 ********
__________________________________

DISABLED AND TERMINALLY ILL PEOPLE INTERVENE TO STOP
NEW ATTEMPT TO LEGALISE ASSISTED SUICIDE

Lawyers acting for Not Dead Yet UK will go to the High Court on Monday (July 17) to intervene in the legal challenge being bought by Mr Noel Conway to remove protections afforded disabled and terminally ill people by the current law prohibiting Assisted Suicide.

Not Dead Yet UK will be represented in Court on a pro-bono basis by barrister Catherine Casserley of Cloisters chambers together with and Chris Fry and Millie Broadbent of solicitors Fry Law.

Not Dead Yet UK recognises and empathises with Mr Conway’s fears for his future but we cannot support his action as we believe legalising Assisted Suicide by any means would put other disabled and terminally ill people at risk. We support his right for all medical, social and emotional support necessary for his life to end naturally and with dignity.

Not Dead Yet UK maintains any imposed safeguards will never be watertight enough to successfully protect all ill and disabled people from a change to the Suicide Act. The Act currently provides much needed protection to disabled and terminally ill people by prohibiting anyone from assisting another person to kill themselves. Even if only one person dies against their wishes as a result of a change to the law that is one death too many and completely unacceptable. We argue that disabled and terminally ill people are just as entitled to this protection as everyone else; to single out one group of society as different to the rest is a dangerous move and will be open to misinterpretation. Legalising Assisted Suicide for disabled and terminally ill people would again set us aside from the rest of society. We would effectively be second class citizens again, with suicide seen as a valid choice for us while non-disabled people would be encouraged to live.

This issue was last considered by Parliament almost two years ago (September 2015) when Rob Marris MP’s “Assisted Dying Bill” was decisively defeated by 330 to 118 votes in the House of Commons. Mr Conway is now attempting to override Parliament’s decision by seeking a change in the law through the Courts.

Disability campaigner Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, one of the founders of Not Dead Yet UK said, “We have successfully seen off attempts to change the law on Assisted Suicide in Parliament. Now we must change tactics to ensure the Courts continue to uphold our equal right to life. The law must not be weakened via the back door.”

Speaking for Not Dead Yet UK, co-founder Phil Friend said, “A change in the law is a terrifying prospect to the vast majority of disabled and terminally ill people who work hard towards achieving equality for all. Until we have reached that objective Assisted Suicide will remain a dangerous and prejudiced option, likely to increase suffering and distress”.

Not Dead Yet UK notes that not one organisation run by or for disabled and terminally ill people supports the legalisation of Assisted Suicide.. The medical profession is also against changing the law, believing it would destroy trust in relationships between patients and those providing their medical care.

Liz Carr, star of BBC1 drama ‘Silent Witness’ states “Disabled and terminally ill people want support to live – not to die. It is important that the Court hears from the people most at risk from any change to the current law. As a long standing supporter of Not Dead Yet UK I am keen to take an active role in making that happen”.

Notes To Editors
1. Not Dead Yet UK is a campaigning network of disabled people founded in 2006 to oppose attempts to legalise assisted suicide for disabled and terminally ill people.

2. Not Dead Yet UK promotes equality for disabled people in a secular context; it is not faith centred or allied to any organised religion. Its supporters come from all sections of the community. Its guiding principles are to value the lives of terminally ill and disabled people and oppose assisted suicide.

For media enquiries and interviews please contact:

NDY-UK    Phil Friend   M 07774 944246 E phil.friends@sky-mail.net

NDY-UK Juliet Marlow    T 01420 477646  E jemwriter@sky.com

NDY-UK Agnes Fletcher M 07748 333565 E agnes.fletcher@talktalk.net

Fry Law Chris Fry M 07837119211 E Chris.Fry@frylaw.co.uk

NDYUK Roger Symes T 020 7362 0220 E roger@wpjobson.co.uk

Alert From NCIL: Healthcare Vote Expected Next Week: The Fight Is Not Over!

disability activists, national council on independent living, Our News & Commentary Blog, ,

Disability advocates across the nation are continuing the fight to save Medicaid and preserve our healthcare, our lives and our liberty. Medicaid is the primary funder of home and community based services that provide independence and freedom, preventing older and disabled people from being shoved away in nursing facilities to die.

This latest Alert from our friends at the National Council on Independent Living is an excellent source of ideas for how each of us can make a difference.

Healthcare Vote Expected Next Week: The Fight Is Not Over!

July 14, 2017 By 

The Senate released their updated version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act(PDF) yesterday, and all of our concerns remain the same. Read the Senate summary (PDF). The new version will still cut Medicaid by $772 billion, with an even more restrictive growth rate and deeper cuts starting in 2025. Fifteen million people will lose Medicaid. The bill also still eliminates the enhanced match for the Community First Choice Option, removes protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and allows waivers to eliminate essential health benefits, on top of adding a new provision to create separate insurance products for people with higher and lower health needs.

NCIL logo - National Council on Independent LivingThis new version of the bill has made NO improvements. Despite that, we’re hearing that Republicans who were undecided or even opposed to the previous version of the bill are now leaning toward voting YES. Republicans are reportedly becoming more unified around this new version, and we cannot let that happen!

The vote is expected to take place next week. That means that we have less than one week to fight this dangerous bill, and every single day counts. We need to make sure our Senators understand how dangerous this bill is for their constituents with disabilities. We need them to understand that we are literally fighting for our lives. And we have less than one week to make sure they hear us.

Take Action!

  • Call your Senators by dialing the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
  • Use Resistbot to have your texts turned into faxes, mail, or hand-delivered letters.
  • Use faxzero.com to fax your Senators for free.
  • Find your Senator’s email address, Twitter handle, and other information through Contacting Congress.
  • Please see our previous alert for additional ways to take action. Every single one of us needs to keep the pressure on our Senators! Call often, send emails, keep protesting, and Tweet at GOP Senators; take action in every way you can!

* Priority Senators

We encourage everyone to reach out to their Republican Senators, but the following is a list of top priority Senators, including phone numbers for all of their offices, fax numbers, Twitter handles, and contact pages, as well as information for their healthcare staffers. Please utilize as many of these options as possible! If these are not your Senators, please make sure to reach out to everyone you know in their states! 

For the list of priority Senators and their contact information, please go here.