 |
| Meghan Schrader |
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has made a principled statement responding to Brian Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia for mentally ill homeless people that calls for Kilmeade to resign. I support that statement, but I’ve observed reactions to Kilmeade’s comment from across the ideological spectrum that I think reflect the need for people of all political persuasions to reflect on how they or their ideologies have failed people with disabilities.
For example, a writer for MSNBC asserted that Kilmeade’s comment about involuntary euthanasia represented “right wing narratives about the poor.” Well, yes and no.
In my experience people from all over the political spectrum have contempt for mentally ill, disabled and/or homeless people. It depends on the person.
I have spent a lot of time hanging out in environments dominated by political ideologies of all kinds, and I have experienced the same behaviors from ableist people, whether they like to watch Fox News or MSNBC.
For instance, one of my most traumatic experiences of bullying happened at a legalistic, Calvinist summer camp, and I would be very surprised if the bullies’ parents weren’t conservative Republicans. But, I grew up in Massachusetts’ progressive school system, where guidance and Special Education personnel thought that my learning disability gave them the right to try to force me to drop out of high school. Moreover, eugenics ideology is premised on hatred for people with disabilities, and progressives living between the 1910s and the 1950s generally embraced eugenics as the new cool thing. Eugenics was framed as something that put off the old trappings of Christianity that validated the births and care of people with disabilities and used science to prevent disability from happening in the first place. I think that these ideas are echoed in today’s “MAiD” discussions when progressive-identifying proponents conflate disability justice objections to “MAiD” with religious ones and dismiss the disability justice movement’s opposition to “MAiD” as “moral panic.”
Another example of progressive hypocrisy and ableism can be observed in California governor and “MAiD” proponent Gavin Newsom response to Kilmeade’s comment; Newsom responded by posting Proverbs 21:13 on social media: “Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Newsom’s post made me feel used, because his response to homelessness isn’t really better than Kilmeade’s. For instance, Newsom responded to homelessness in California by spearheading Proposition 1, which made it easier to incarcerate mentally ill people in institutions indefinitely, directing billions of dollars to that effort. Pretty much every disability rights organization in the country pleaded with Newsom to eschew such “Modern Ugly Laws” and spend that money on community support instead, but he didn’t care.
This apathy helps create conditions for the involuntary euthanasia Kilmeade proposes. For example, around the same time that Newsom spearheaded Proposition 1, his Democratic colleague Catherine Blakespear, who I doubt has spent much time thinking about disability justice, introduced legislation to expand California’s “MAiD” law to disabled people with "grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who weren’t terminally ill. Given that people with “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” who also have severe mental illnesses would kill themselves with “MAiD” to avoid being institutionalized, and staff in institutions would coerce such people into dying by “MAiD,” Newsom’s disability policies would result in the coerced euthanasia that Kilmeade suggested.
Moreover, I do not know what vocal “MAiD” movement leader Thaddeus Mason Pope’s political beliefs are, but I doubt that he is a member of the Religious Right, and he has blithely admitted that there will be involuntary euthanasia in the future.
In contrast, examples of conservative ableism, even from some assisted suicide opponents, can be observed in the some of the pieces published by the conservative Christian satire publication the Babylon Bee. Regardless of what I think about the Babylon’s political orientation or its stories in general, I thought the story "Disaster As Canada Switches Suicide Prevention Hotline With Suicide Assistance Hotline” that a conservative friend posted on their Facebook timeline was an incisive commentary about “MAiD” undermining suicide prevention.
But, then the Babylon Bee undermines the benefit of that piece by featuring stories that its editors think are trenchant commentaries on diversity and equity initiatives, like “Secret Service Beefs Up Trump’s Security With Squad of Blind Midgets,” “Meet The LAFD’s First Paraplegic Fireman,” “Powerful: This Broadway Production Called A Little Retarded Girl Up On Stage,” “Mark Cuban Inspires Thousands By Proving Even The Very Retarded Can Become Wealthy,” and “Delta Introduces New Short Plane For Special Needs Pilots.”
These articles use slurs and mockery that have been linked to ableist policies and behavior for decades. Assisted suicide opponents cannot do such things, unless you want disabled people to hate you very, very much. And no matter what disabled people think of you or your ideology, such poisonous rhetoric is not OK.
Moreover, the Republican Party is generally understood to fall on the more “conservative” end of the political spectrum, and this Republican administration has championed several policies that weaken the disability rights infrastructure in the United States. As a former Special Education student who has published research in the field of disability studies and spent a lot of time following disability advocacy efforts, I can tell you that these policies will have a much worse impact on disabled people’s lives than anything published by the Babylon Bee. This is not a partisan position; if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election and her administration were attempting to implement these policies, everyone I know in the disability justice movement would take a position of “Screw Kamala Harris.”
I urge euthanasia opponents to respond to Kilmeade’s comment by understanding that if “MAiD” were ever legalized for disabled people in the United States, the combination of the aforementioned policies would push disabled people towards “MAiD.” Doing everything you can to advance the full participation of disabled people in society is one of the most important things that euthanasia opponents can do to fight both “MAiD” and the high suicide rate among people with disabilities.
I understand that ableism isn’t always the individual’s “fault.” We live in a culture that has made disability history and rights invisible for decades, so a lot of the people doing or saying the ableist things don’t have the knowledge to know any better.
Nevertheless, ableism from across the ideological spectrum is causing fourth-class citizenship for disabled people all over the world. The broader “MAiD” movement falls on a spectrum of ableist violence and oppression; it is a consequence of people from all over the ideological landscape ignoring disability rights. If a society marginalizes and dehumanizes members of a minority group enough, then it becomes easier for the average person to accept killing members of that group. So, in order to fight “MAiD,” it is necessary to correct the pattern of dehumanization and ableism that “MAiD” takes to a lethal extreme.
Therefore, I think that responding to violent, ableist comments from people like Kilmeade requires humble reflection by everyone. Perhaps an example of soul-searching that people from all over the religious spectrum would be wise to emulate is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14. In the parable a Pharisee brags to God about what a great guy he is and says, “Thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there!” This is the behavior that I feel I have observed from people all over the political spectrum with regard to their treatment of disabled persons: people are sure that whatever political agenda they have in mind is righteous and helpful to marginalized people, including disabled people, even as all political “tribes” rarely pursue disability rights for their own sake.
In contrast, I think the Tax Collector’s behavior provides a model for discussions about our culture’s ineffectual and prejudiced approach to disability rights. Addressing the ableism that makes people feel comfortable suggesting involuntary euthanasia requires people from across the political spectrum to “beat their breasts” and “repent” for their complicity in ableism.
Then we can collaborate on creating a world that is diametrically opposed to the world suggested by Kilmeade and Thaddeus Mason Pope. We can work together to make ethical and policy decisions that put disabled people’s interests first, not just with regard to preventing the medicalization of disabled people’s suicides via “MAiD,” but through the creation of social policies that allow disabled people to flourish.
No comments:
Post a Comment