 |
| Meghan Schrader |
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.
People everywhere have been influenced by ableist belief systems, including some opponents of assisted suicide. There are also a lot of attacks on disability rights in the United States right now. (I just spent time weeping over them and the degradation many disabled people could experience as a result.) Hence, I was thinking that I should offer some disability justice “lessons” for readers who do care about people with disabilities, but may not be fully apprised of what disability justice looks like in general. This post will be lesson number one; I hope to provide a general overview of the principle that the equal right to be alive is foundational to disability justice, but disability justice does not stop there.
It’s important that assisted suicide opponents not embrace regressive ideas, language and attitudes. For instance, at Thanksgiving in 2024 I had a very strange conversation with a family member about accommodations for people with disabilities. This family member has been very good to me. But, during a family event I mentioned the story of the time I considered transferring from one college to another. The director of disability services at the college I was thinking of transferring to told me that the school would not accommodate my learning or psychiatric disabilities, so I didn’t transfer. The family member said, “Well, at least they let you know up front that they couldn’t do it. A school is a business. How can they make money if they have to spend $300,000 accommodating one person’s learning disability?” I changed the topic rather than argue with them. I am very surprised that this family member, who has observed my struggles to fit into the world and has stood by me during my fits of psychotic depression, including making generous personal sacrifices for my well-being, would think this way. They know I use the Americans with Disabilities Act to advocate for myself, so they understand that not making reasonable accommodations for disabled people is illegal, right? Why do they think that accommodating my disabilities would cost $300,000? If every college had that attitude, how would I have become educated? Why don’t they understand that the attitude they just articulated is the root cause of disabled people like me being mentally ill, unemployed, uneducated, impoverished, isolated and maybe even dead? This person is really into people working instead of being on welfare. They understand that I am able to work because my employer uses resources to accommodate me, right? I love my loved one anyway, but that attitude is not one that assisted suicide opponents should embrace.
It is important that assisted suicide opponents set high goals for the full participation of people with disabilities in society. Do not excuse inaccessibility because disabled people ostensibly do not “need” the inaccessible thing.
For instance, the Department of Energy has submitted a proposal to weaken Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act’s requirement that newly constructed buildings be accessible to people with physical disabilities. (The department of energy says that such regulations are “unduly burdensome” for various stakeholders and that it would like to give them more “flexibility” about whether new construction has to incorporate disabled people’s needs.) Anti assisted suicide disability rights groups like the Disability Rights Legal and Defense Fund, and the National Council on Independent Living have said that this change endangers disabled people’s right to use any new government buildings or building features. Yet, some assisted suicide opponents seem ready to dismiss these types of concerns. For instance, another, able-bodied assisted suicide opponent who is generally very good to the disabled told me that they think the proposed rule change will still allow disabled people to access all of the things that we need. They told me that of course they support disabled people accessing buildings and building features that facilitate access to government programs and human rights, but perhaps disability rights didn’t mean that disabled people needed to access everything. (At least I think that’s what they meant.) For instance, the mentor said, if a building that allows wheelchair users to access essential services like medical care adds a solarium, does the solarium really need to be accessible to wheelchair users who would like to use it for sunshine and fresh air?
Why yes, it does. It is possible to build an accessible solarium, so it needs to be built that way, even if building it that way is a “burden” to the builder. That’s kind of the point of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Generally if able-bodied people have access to something good, then disabled people are supposed to have access to that good thing. That’s part of first class citizenship. And, of course, the new regulations wouldn’t just apply to “extreme” examples like solariums, they would apply to government funded buildings in general, which would put basic services at risk.
Moreover, people who are concerned with fighting assisted suicide should view the solarium argument in the context of the assisted suicide issue. What if assisted suicide does get legalized for disabled people and some “MAiD”- vulnerable person thinks to themselves, “Gee, I would feel so much better if I could just go into that solarium for some sunshine and fresh air, but I can’t. I’m a second class citizen; I want to die”? That kind of speculation might sound “silly” to some proponents, but that’s the reality that disabled people experience on an everyday basis.
I have also seen publications who have published very good pieces opposing assisted suicide turn around and use the r word repeatedly, as a joke. Or using words like “midget” to describe Little People. My dudes, you simply cannot do that. Using the r word is a huge no no. So is using the word “midget.” Most people in the disabled community consider both words to be slurs.
Before anyone pounces on the idea that assisted suicide proponents are generally more “enlightened” about non assisted suicide disability issues, allow me to try and humble such people a bit. Assisted suicide supporters also have a history of ignoring disabled people and not understanding disability justice. Right to die leaders have collaborated with Peter Singer, who has argued that raping disabled people is ok and compared disabled people to pigs and orangutans. Right to die leader and “disability rights advocate” Christopher Riddle has compared disabled people who will die in accidents related to assisted suicide to car accident statistics. People of all political stripes cut funding for the disabled, support inaccessible buildings and deprioritize disability justice in their non assisted suicide advocacy efforts. Ableism is everywhere.
But, perhaps it is possible to combine advocacy for justice with grace. No matter where someone stands on the assisted suicide issue, ableism isn’t always entirely the fault of people doing the ableist things. Most people don’t grow up learning about disability history and justice. A lot of people inadvertently allow ableist conditions to exist because they haven’t had the opportunity to understand that these conditions are ableist. But people need to understand that disability justice is like a tapestry, with laws related to things like Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act forming the “threads” of the tapestry. If someone pulls out one thread, then the whole tapestry starts to fray.
So, if you are someone doing the good work of helping the disabled community fight assisted suicide but maybe do not “hang out in” mainstream disability justice circles and you have not had the opportunity to study trends in disability justice and history, try to set aside some time to educate yourselves. Beware of any argument that disabled people should not have access to something nice because making it accessible is a “burden.” This is, after all, the logic motivating the assisted suicide proponents who think the early deaths of “burdensome” disabled people are good.
It is not realistic to expect assisted suicide opponents to agree with one another on every nuance of every issue, but any effort seeking to revert disability rights laws back to what they were in the 1960s is a bad thing. If a disability rights organization that fights alongside you to oppose “MAiD” says that a policy is bad, don’t write their expert advice off. It’s important that anti assisted suicide activists of all political stripes support the disability justice movement’s goals regarding things like accessible buildings, employment, deinstitutionalization, education and community living. Doing that is one of the most important ways that one can connect one’s advocacy for disabled people’s lives with the broader fight for disability justice.
Previous articles by Meghan Schrader (Articles Link)
No comments:
Post a Comment