 |
Meghan Schrader
|
By Meghan SchraderMeghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and is a member of the EPC-USA board.
As I’ve written, the government has made or attempted to make several major policy changes that weaken disability rights laws in the United States, and the people that I know who have defended disabled people’s dignity for decades would oppose these policies no matter who wanted to implement them.
I am not arguing that everyone who voted for this government or everyone who works with it is “evil,” constitutionally “hateful,” or intended for these policy changes to occur. I am not demanding that individuals have perfect disability rights literacy or agree with the mainstream disability rights movement on every nuance of every issue; I am offering education. I hope that this post can help other euthanasia opponents understand why these policies are not minor “cosmetic” changes, nor are they “culture war” issues, they are thoroughgoing policy shifts that will harm people with disabilities; and are generally things that all euthanasia opponents can oppose in good conscience.
In order to constrain the length of this blog post, I will focus on the subjects of institutionalization, Special Education and efforts to weaken or repeal something called the Final Rule, which enhanced the protections afforded by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, one of the USA’s flagship disability rights laws. Lastly, I will discuss the implications of President Trump’s nomination of Justin R. Olson to be the United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana; because regardless of his qualifications or what kind of person he is, his past statements about disabled people exemplify stigmatizing cultural narratives about disability that I think all euthanasia opponents can work to remediate.
As I’ve shared, I have experienced several bouts of refractory mental illness. I am doing pretty well now, but I have already experienced the consequences of society deprioritizing community support, and President Trump’s executive order increasing federal reliance on psychiatric hospitalization puts me at higher risk of being placed in a long-term, dysfunctional setting during a relapse. I encourage readers to imagine the terror and despair of someone unnecessarily confined in a psychiatric institution, wandering around a dingy, cold hallway listening to other people screaming, trying to get through some bureaucratic, dysfunctional process of being released and establishing support in the community for weeks, months or even years. I don’t think it’s fair for people like me to endure that Hell when other social structures and resources could be used to support us.
Furthermore, education is one of the most important tools that people have to attain jobs and all of the benefits that come from having a job. It’s also a critical component of people learning to socialize, learn critical thinking skills and form healthy relationships. Therefore, our Secretary of Education not knowing any details about The Individuals With Disabilities Act is harmful to students with disabilities and I hope that she learns more about it before making other decisions about Special Education. Dismissing the majority of the Department of Education’s Special Education and Rehabilitation Services staff during the government shutdown interrupted their ability to manage education and employment for vulnerable people. Radically shrinking programs and staff for post secondary transition and employment services for young people with disabilities while nixing plans to phase out subminimum wages will increase disabled Americans’ risk of the same poverty that is driving disabled Canadians to seek “MAiD.” Canceling Special Education grants that fund teacher training and deafblind students, and various proposed overhauls to the Special Education system are also likely to harm those students’ futures. These issues are personal to me, given that I teach young people with intellectual disabilities and was a Special Education student.
Various moves related to the Final Rule also potentially undermine disabled people’s well-being. The Final Rule was an amazing legislative update to the flagship disability rights law Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It established new moral guardrails for the treatment of disabled people, such as increased access to community supports that help prevent institutionalization, new opportunities for disabled parents and better internet access.
The Final Rule also set minimum nursing home staffing requirements to keep residents from being neglected. Nevertheless, the government recently rescinded the Final Rule’s minimum staffing requirements at institutions. The Final Rule’s staffing stipulation was meant to help prevent situations in which disabled and elderly people living in institutions were left to be hungry and sit in their own filth. The repeal of that staffing requirement will worsen the impact of assisted suicide on vulnerable people living in those institutions and is unjust whether “MAiD” is legal or not.
Indeed, the Texas vs. Kennedy (formerly Texas vs. Becerra) lawsuit, which is often framed as solely seeking to repeal the Final Rule's classification of gender dysphoria as a disability, actually also seeks to repeal the entire Final Rule. (The lawsuit originally contained language asking to repeal Section 504 itself, but apparently that part of the lawsuit has been dropped.)
Regardless of what one believes about whether the Final Rule’s clause about gender dysphoria ought to exist, it’s a fact that the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit could be limited to the one clause about gender dysphoria. Instead, the Demand For Relief on page 42 of the lawsuit proposes to do away with all of the Final Rule, because it “creates regulatory burdens” and “imposes additional costs to the states.”
Frustration with the “burdens” of caregiving that underlies assisted suicide ideology should not be allowed to find its way into other policies. One need not support the Final Rule’s clause about gender dysphoria to conclude that the rest of the provisions in the Final Rule are acts of compassion that the human community owes to all people with disabilities.
For instance, the Final Rule also stipulates that healthcare providers use accessible medical equipment. Bear in mind that one of the ways hospital staff have tried to bully disabled Canadian Roger Foley into assisted suicide is to withhold medical equipment and procedures needed to meet his basic needs, and that disabled Canadian Normand Meunier died by “MAiD” because a hospital didn’t keep an accessible mattress on hand which resulted in him developing a festering bedsore. The government repealing the minimum nursing staff requirements in the Final Rule and the Texas vs. Kennedy lawsuit’s efforts to repeal it completely regresses US institution practices so that they are more like Canada’s.
Most importantly for the assisted suicide fight, Section 84.56(a) of the Final Rule forbids doctors from making “quality of life” decisions that cause disabled people’s deaths. This provision is a huge help to our assisted suicide fight; I hate to see us loose that tool because the entire Final Rule was declared unconstitutional. (If you wish to write and ask the 17 attorney generals who filed Texas vs. Kennedy to drop the part of the lawsuit that challenges the entire Final Rule, and/or ask them to specifically preserve Section 84.56 (a), contact information is available here.)
Finally, I think the possible judicial appointment of Justin R. Olson provides an opportunity for opponents to consider how they can help remediate harmful attitudes about disability. When Olson was an ordained elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, he gave a sermon saying that marriage was not intended for “our handicapped friends or our persons with physical disabilities that might prevent the robust marriage that we’re called to.” When Republican Senator John Kennedy asked Olson about that statement, he said, “I was explaining the meaning of Christ’s words that some are, um, to use Christ’s words, are eunuchs by birth, and explaining the meaning in the context of that verse of those who are called to singleness.” Olson then asserted, “I was using that statement as an illustration of why some don’t get married, not as a kind of reason why someone shouldn’t.”
Regardless of context or intent, I think Olson’s statement naturally carries the implication, “Your marriages are inferior so God wants you to be single, disabled people.” I think it’s important for euthanasia opponents to know that such messages alienate disabled people from the support of our faith communities, reinforce the idea that disabled people are sexually and personally undesirable, and thematically constitute what has been called “Preaching Eugenics;” during the original American eugenics era a segment of the clergy promoted that movement’s message that God did not intend for disabled people to get married or procreate. I don’t want people who think like that to have power over disabled people’s lives, so regardless of whether he is confirmed, I hope Olson’s perspective on disability evolves to become more accurate and fair.
Irrespective of anyone’s character or intentions, these attitudes and policies are not ethical, and I think that good-hearted euthanasia opponents from all over the political spectrum are able to understand that they are not ethical. I have faith that America and countries around the world can create better policies and attitudes because there is a long history of bipartisan support for sound disability policies. I have met people from all over the ideological spectrum who care about disabled people, so I hope that our current leaders will begin to make decisions that prioritize disabled people’s well-being. And, I hope that whichever leaders take the place of our current ones-whatever political party they are or wherever they stand on various “culture war” issues-will work with disability advocates to create creative policies that put disabled people’s well-being first. Part of fighting “MAiD” is correcting the pattern of circumstances that make killing disabled people seem acceptable and humane.
%2003%20(1).jpg)
