 |
| Meghan Schrader |
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.
Opposition to assisted suicide is generally based on the premise that “MAiD” laws create new situations in which disabled people are pushed toward death because they are “burdens.”
But “MAiD” just takes the “disability as burden” attitude to a lethal extreme. Resentment towards disabled people for being burdens permeates society, which negatively impacts disabled people’s access to healthcare, education, recreation, employment, etc.
Case in point, this administration has moved to weaken or rescind disability rights statutes that it regards as “unduly burdensome” and “inflexible.” This blog post is primarily aimed at assisted suicide opponents who might be thinking that these policy changes are a good idea.
The premise that the aforementioned statutes are “burdensome” and “inflexible” runs throughout the Section 504 lawsuit, the recision of the airline wheelchair compliance regulations, the proposal to loosen requirements that new construction be accessible to people with disabilities, etc. As I’ve said, these changes will worsen the severe oppression that disabled people already experience.
I have been encouraged to look at both sides of these issues: generally disabled people should have access to things, but are there not situations in which claims about the burdens some disability statutes, such as a wheelchair handling rule that airlines say could make them accountable for “acts of God,” might have at least some ethical legitimacy?
In my opinion, no. Those who think that the burdens of inclusion are somehow of equal moral weight to disabled people’s right to accommodations are forgetting the reality of malicious compliance, and the burden that places on people with disabilities.
To illustrate this fact, I’d like to direct readers back to my blog post about the dangers of depleting Special Education staff at the US Department of Education, in which I recount the acrimonious meetings I had with my ableist guidance counselor “Dr. D,” who didn’t want me to take college entrance exams and then insisted on proctoring one of my exams himself, even though proctors had been hired for two other disabled students.
During a meeting that I had to have with him after that test, I said, “And you told me that you were giving the test to two other students, and when I showed up to take the test proctors had been hired to give the test to two other students, and you said you weren’t hiring proctors to give anyone’s test.” “I said that I wasn’t going to hire anyone to give your test,” he taunted. “That’s not what you said at the meeting,” I answered. “Oh,” he quipped dismissively. “And, if you were just going to give us the test together anyway, why would you make it so inconvenient for us by making us take it from the middle of the day until 8 PM? I mean, wouldn’t it be more convenient for you to just come in on a Saturday morning and give it to us? Why would you want to spend your entire evening doing that?” “Meghan, what does your father do for a living?” he demanded. “That’s not relevant,” I said. “Yes it is. What does your father do for a living?” “He’s a dentist,” I said. “A dentist. And does anyone tell him when to do his job?” “That has no relevance,” I answered. “Yes it does. Why should I give up my Saturday just to give you a test?” “Well, then why can’t someone else give it?” I asked. “I do not have to go through the trouble of finding you a proctor,” he scoffed.
As the aforementioned blog post about the depletion of Special Education staff at the US Department of Education explains, ambiguities in the Educational Testing Service’s testing procedures, state standards for Special Education student achievement, IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and lack of oversight of the implementation of these laws empowered this guidance counselor to behave as he did. This administration is seeking to make several core disability rights states more ambiguous, which will enable the kind of bureaucratic sadism that I experienced.
When you give people in power more latitude to interpret laws as they wish because you perceive current laws to be “burdensome,” you are enabling narcissistic bureaucrats to enforce an attitude of: “I don’t care what opportunities you forfeit, what financial hardship you experience or what severe emotional disorder you develop; the important thing is that I not be inconvenienced.”
Potentially frustrating adherence to “burdensome” disability rights statutes so that disabled people can flourish is the same thing as when “MAiD” proponents can’t have the designer deaths they want because “MAiD” causes disabled people’s wrongful deaths. In order for society to meet its moral obligations to disabled people, businesses, individuals, government agencies, etc, might have to be "burdened." Why? Because making key disability rights statutes “less burdensome” gives even more inordinate discretion to every narcissistic authority figure who doesn’t want to give up his Saturday. That’s not fair to people with disabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment