Medical homicide is a discriminatory oppression for the sick and disabled

Gordon Friese

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Following on a most interesting disabled-oriented online zoom discussion (of which the recording is posted below) I would like to share a few reflections.

It is impressive to note the constancy of disabled opposition to assisted death.

The reason for this sentiment is very simple. It lies in our visceral, and perfectly intuitive understanding, that any special authorization of suicide, for the sick and disabled, creates a severe threat to our physical security. 

In the US there has been an attempt to finesse this opposition with the so-called Oregon Model, limiting practice to the terminally ill. But, first of all: no one is actually dupe to this incremental strategy; and second: reserving this lethal suggestion to those in the terminal category does nothing to change its discriminatory nature.

Most importantly, however, and perhaps least often noticed, is that the discriminatory harm involved is not merely suggestive. For since eligible patients may be killed with no penalty for the perpetrator (due to exceptions made to criminal law) all eligible persons are thus deprived of equal protection before the law.

From a civil perspective, this is exactly analogous to depriving a specific group of their right to vote. But from a practical perspective it is much worse, as the disputed deprivation does not involve mere political disenfranchisement. It potentially involves wrongful loss of life.

To graphically depict this situation, it is only necessary to imagine that some specific group has been denied the possibility of installing safety belts, or child seats, in their cars. This is the exact state of persons eligible for medical homicide: they possess no protection, where all others do. And that deprivation is not voluntary: for no one can "opt out" of their defined eligibility.

These facts are especially oppressive, moreover, because this deprivation does not result from a properly representative social decision.

There is a crucial distinction to be made, here, between popular approval, when expressed as democratic support, and that same approval expressed as real demand. In fact, widespread popular "support" of medical homicide does not quantitatively align with the real decisions made by those who are actually eligible to choose (see previous article). And furthermore, when the democratic opinion of disabled persons and their organizations are considered, by themselves, opposition to medical homicide is overwhelming.

We thus find that one small group is being deprived of equal legal protection, against their will, by another much larger group, under cover of democratic process.

This difficulty is supposedly refuted by the claim that a small minority cannot legitimately prevent the majority from enjoying possession of a medical homicide option which they have democratically chosen.

However this claim falls apart, upon collision with one fatal stumbling block: the majority of voters do not, in fact, enjoy any such medical homicide option, because they are not eligible for it.

We thus see that the able-bodied and healthy majority is not deprived of any real legal prerogative, but the sick and disabled minority are, indeed, deprived of a real protection enjoyed by everyone else.

There is therefore, no balance of competing interest. No equivalence at all: a designated minority is being actively oppressed by a majority (in this case on the basis of health and usefulness criteria) clearly against their will, end of story.

I do not often use the word "oppression" when discussing social issues concerning the disabled. I believe, for example that there is a definite distinction between forcing some people to accomplish hard labor, and withholding valuable special benefits from others. In this last case, I generally believe the term "neglect", to be more appropriate.

However, with regards to the legalization of medical homicide, where one group of people --having no skin in the game themselves-- is not merely refusing to provide a special benefit, but is actively depriving others of a preexisting protection which all now enjoy, then, yes: the word "oppression" is perfectly suited to the case.

Finally, restricting this practice to the terminally ill does not reduce this oppression. It actually makes it even worse. Because oppression always becomes more deadly when the oppressed group is smaller.

In the present circumstance, for example, many opponents of medical homicide (and even disabled opponents on occasion) are sometimes heard to express their "understanding" of assisted death for the terminally ill.

Let me be perfectly clear, therefore, in addressing myself directly to those people:

We who are not terminal do not (and cannot) have any such understanding. The statistics, however, are perfectly clear. The terminally ill are not willing to die, any more than you or I (just as you and I are no more willing to die than the typical able-bodied person in perfect health).

To adopt this conciliatory, "reasonable" tone, therefore, is merely to assist the advocates of medical homicide, in stealing the last years, or months, from our own terminal brothers and sisters, and to hasten the day, when that same fate shall be thrust upon ourselves.