 |
| Meghan Schrader |
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and is a member of the EPC-USA board.
Currently the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and MAiD in Canada are having a mutually published debate about whether “MAiD” should be used to help people with mental illnesses kill themselves. I don’t want to distract from Gordon Frieson’s responses to Paul Magennis and Kim Carlson. But Magennis and Carlson also commented on my “Academia Routinely Dehumanizes Disabled People” post to counter my statement, “the majority of the disability community opposes “MAiD.” They claim that this statement is just an “opinion;” that it does not include enough “accurate data.” So, I thought I’d write a blog post responding to their claim.
Statistically, people with disabilities have a higher suicide rate, so I am sure that Magennis and Carlson can find lots of disabled people who would like to kill themselves with “MAiD.” I have also encountered a minority of people with disabilities who support some form of “MAiD;” my opposition to “MAiD” cannot speak for every disabled person on the planet. And, regrettably it is possible that majority opposition to “MAiD” could erode over time as euthanasia becomes more accepted by the dominant culture. But conducting my peer-reviewed research about representations of eugenics, disability and euthanasia in horror films showed me that opposition to “MAiD” is and has long been a part of disability justice culture. A few months ago I used that disability studies training to write a post titled, “Disabled Opponents of Assisted Suicide Are Not A Vocal Minority.” I’m going to re-quote two of the scholars I cite in that blog post.
In his essay in the peer-reviewed anthology The Disability Bioethics Reader, professional ethicist and disability studies scholar Dr. Harold Braswell asserts:
Self-proclaimed “disability rights advocate” and unrestricted assisted suicide enthusiast Christopher Riddle also admits that his efforts to sell death to disabled people set him apart from most of the disability studies field. In his 2017 Bioethics article “Assisted Dying and Disability,” Riddle writes:
What other sources do Carlson and Magennis want? Did every anti “MAiD” disability rights leader, scholar and disabled person have to be a co-author on my aforementioned blog posts?
Frankly, Magennis and Carlson’s determination to obscure disability rights opposition to “MAiD” despite their distance from the negative consequences of that practice shows a lack of humility. Magennis and Carlson defend their assertion that “support for MAiD might actually be quite strong among those living with a disability” using a paid for poll from a “MAiD” advocacy group. But the plethora of disability rights leaders, disability studies scholars and disabled people who have expressed opposition to “MAiD” lead lives dedicated to disability issues. We live with our disabilities and/or spend a significant amount of time studying the experiences, perspectives and rights of disabled persons.
Yet Carlson and Magennis want society to listen to them instead of us.
No community is completely ideologically monolithic. But Magennis and Carlson’s contention that there is widespread support for “MAiD” among people with disabilities, especially for expansive “MAiD” programs like Canada’s, is not intellectually honest. If Carlson and Magennis want their debates about euthanasia to be based on accurate data, they need to accept politically inconvenient data about disability justice opposition to “MAiD.”
Author Note 1: For a nuanced and thorough exploration of disability justice opposition to “MAiD,” watch the film Life After: A Film Maker Investigates Assisted Dying Through The Lens of Disabled Voices Missing From the Debate.
For information about the history of disability justice opposition to “MAiD” read Joe Shapiro’s book No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement.
Author Note 2:
In his comments on my blog post, Magennis asserted that Sammy Choun, the author of the British Medical Journal article I quoted to support my statement that the majority of the disability community opposes “MAiD,” “stated that as fact in the article, but didn’t provide any references or links studies and surveys to back that up.” To read Magennis’s comment, one might think that Choun did not provide any citation for her statement.
But, Choun did provide a reference for that statement in the endnotes of that article, with citation 21. It cites the Third Reading of Bill C-62, which delayed the expansion of “MAiD” to include mental illness until 2027. During that debate Hon. Marilou McPhedran noted widespread opposition to Track 2 “MAiD” among both disability experts and disabled people more generally. She asserted, “The disability community has been articulate in asserting that MAID violates Canada’s international human rights obligations to people with disabilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in certain respects.”
I suppose one might interpret Magennis’s comment about a lack of references for Choun’s statement as reflecting his preference for “surveys and studies” over senate debate transcripts, the United Nations, statements from multiple disability policy experts, and the cries of individual disabled people about the trauma that “Track 2 MAiD” has caused for them. But Magennis’s comment did not acknowledge that Choun cited the 3rd reading of Bill-62; it implied that Choun did not provide any reference at all. Hence, Magennis’s comment strikes me as failing to embody his own admonishment about debate participants avoiding arguments that are “stated sloppily” or “cause uncertainty about what exactly you are stating.”
Author Note 3:
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition did a Zoom panel on disability justice opposition to “MAiD” that includes nuanced discussion of widespread opposition to “MAiD” in the disabled community. It can be viewed here.
Statistically, people with disabilities have a higher suicide rate, so I am sure that Magennis and Carlson can find lots of disabled people who would like to kill themselves with “MAiD.” I have also encountered a minority of people with disabilities who support some form of “MAiD;” my opposition to “MAiD” cannot speak for every disabled person on the planet. And, regrettably it is possible that majority opposition to “MAiD” could erode over time as euthanasia becomes more accepted by the dominant culture. But conducting my peer-reviewed research about representations of eugenics, disability and euthanasia in horror films showed me that opposition to “MAiD” is and has long been a part of disability justice culture. A few months ago I used that disability studies training to write a post titled, “Disabled Opponents of Assisted Suicide Are Not A Vocal Minority.” I’m going to re-quote two of the scholars I cite in that blog post.
In his essay in the peer-reviewed anthology The Disability Bioethics Reader, professional ethicist and disability studies scholar Dr. Harold Braswell asserts:
“The framework of this debate limits the potential for disability discrimination. PAS is itself a moderate iteration of the right to die. And this moderate iteration is, in the USA, only available to individuals who are terminally ill. This makes the American interpretation of PAS relatively conservative even relative to other countries where it is legal. This conservatism makes it possible for some disability bioethicists to justify supporting it, though such support is still relatively marginal within the field.”A peer-reviewed anthology on disability bioethics is clearly a form of authoritative data, and as someone who has also conducted disability studies research on the euthanasia issue, I can tell you that Harold Braswell is right: support for assisted suicide is “marginal within the field.”
Self-proclaimed “disability rights advocate” and unrestricted assisted suicide enthusiast Christopher Riddle also admits that his efforts to sell death to disabled people set him apart from most of the disability studies field. In his 2017 Bioethics article “Assisted Dying and Disability,” Riddle writes:
“While academic literature has a multitude of perspectives on this issue, the public attitude amongst mainstream disability rights scholars, activists, and more generally, people with disabilities, is relatively consistent in its position: assisted dying should not be permitted.”Riddle is one of the generals in Kim and Paul’s pro-MAiD “army,” so I’ll repeat that quote again:
While academic literature has a multitude of perspectives on this issue, the public attitude amongst mainstream disability rights scholars, activists, and more generally, people with disabilities, is relatively consistent in its position: assisted dying should not be permitted.”In the aforementioned comment thread, Magennis asserted that it is important to avoid arguments that are “stated sloppily” or “cause uncertainty about what exactly you are stating.” So, in the interest of avoiding any sloppiness or uncertainty, I’ll cite Riddle’s statement a third time:
“While academic literature has a multitude of perspectives on this issue, the public attitude amongst mainstream disability rights scholars, activists, and more generally, people with disabilities, is relatively consistent in its position: assisted dying should not be permitted.”Riddle is Magennis and Carlson’s compadre, yet he acknowledges that the majority of persons with disabilities oppose “MAiD.”
What other sources do Carlson and Magennis want? Did every anti “MAiD” disability rights leader, scholar and disabled person have to be a co-author on my aforementioned blog posts?
Frankly, Magennis and Carlson’s determination to obscure disability rights opposition to “MAiD” despite their distance from the negative consequences of that practice shows a lack of humility. Magennis and Carlson defend their assertion that “support for MAiD might actually be quite strong among those living with a disability” using a paid for poll from a “MAiD” advocacy group. But the plethora of disability rights leaders, disability studies scholars and disabled people who have expressed opposition to “MAiD” lead lives dedicated to disability issues. We live with our disabilities and/or spend a significant amount of time studying the experiences, perspectives and rights of disabled persons.
Yet Carlson and Magennis want society to listen to them instead of us.
No community is completely ideologically monolithic. But Magennis and Carlson’s contention that there is widespread support for “MAiD” among people with disabilities, especially for expansive “MAiD” programs like Canada’s, is not intellectually honest. If Carlson and Magennis want their debates about euthanasia to be based on accurate data, they need to accept politically inconvenient data about disability justice opposition to “MAiD.”
Author Note 1: For a nuanced and thorough exploration of disability justice opposition to “MAiD,” watch the film Life After: A Film Maker Investigates Assisted Dying Through The Lens of Disabled Voices Missing From the Debate.
For information about the history of disability justice opposition to “MAiD” read Joe Shapiro’s book No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement.
Author Note 2:
In his comments on my blog post, Magennis asserted that Sammy Choun, the author of the British Medical Journal article I quoted to support my statement that the majority of the disability community opposes “MAiD,” “stated that as fact in the article, but didn’t provide any references or links studies and surveys to back that up.” To read Magennis’s comment, one might think that Choun did not provide any citation for her statement.
But, Choun did provide a reference for that statement in the endnotes of that article, with citation 21. It cites the Third Reading of Bill C-62, which delayed the expansion of “MAiD” to include mental illness until 2027. During that debate Hon. Marilou McPhedran noted widespread opposition to Track 2 “MAiD” among both disability experts and disabled people more generally. She asserted, “The disability community has been articulate in asserting that MAID violates Canada’s international human rights obligations to people with disabilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in certain respects.”
I suppose one might interpret Magennis’s comment about a lack of references for Choun’s statement as reflecting his preference for “surveys and studies” over senate debate transcripts, the United Nations, statements from multiple disability policy experts, and the cries of individual disabled people about the trauma that “Track 2 MAiD” has caused for them. But Magennis’s comment did not acknowledge that Choun cited the 3rd reading of Bill-62; it implied that Choun did not provide any reference at all. Hence, Magennis’s comment strikes me as failing to embody his own admonishment about debate participants avoiding arguments that are “stated sloppily” or “cause uncertainty about what exactly you are stating.”
Author Note 3:
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition did a Zoom panel on disability justice opposition to “MAiD” that includes nuanced discussion of widespread opposition to “MAiD” in the disabled community. It can be viewed here.
10 comments:
Don't forget there's an interesting photo on his website which Magunnes or whatever doesn't say how he got...I understand he's in BC...
What is so interesting about the photo on his website? So curious!!!
First of all, Alex, don’t assume you know what I’m going to do. You don’t. You may think you do, but you don’t know the first thing about how I approach these issues, what I believe, or what I’m willing to reconsider. In fact, you might find yourself surprised about some of our upcoming posts on MAiD and mental illness and the concerns we have (but not concerns about capacity).
And Megan — did it ever occur to you that my frustration with your inconsistent and poorly linked references is because I actually want to read what you’re citing? This might surprise you, but my initial reaction to many arguments about MAiD and disability was to dismiss them outright. Over time, that changed. I’ve come to understand that the existence of MAiD, particularly Track 2, does raise questions about what the law implicitly communicates about disability. I don’t believe a full ban is the answer, and I likely never will. But that does not make me immovable or incapable of engaging seriously with your concerns.
What makes engagement difficult is the hostility and reflexive vilification. If someone is open — even partially — to being moved, do you really think contempt is the way to influence them?
You may never convince me to land where you are. I’ve been clear about that. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be persuaded that your concerns are real, valid, and deserving of thoughtful response. Your approach makes that harder, not easier.
And yes — your citations are sometimes sloppy. Above you referenced your “peer-reviewed research” that links to a random Amazon book about anxiety and film. If you want people to take your ideas seriously, the evidence needs to be accessible and accurate.
So thank you for finally providing direct links. I will read them. I will consider them. They may even move me incrementally. That should be the goal: movement, not purity tests.
Unless the goal isn’t persuasion at all.
If the goal is simply to vilify anyone who disagrees with you, then you’re succeeding. But if the goal is to influence thoughtful people who don’t already share your conclusions, you may want to reconsider how you approach these conversations. Because right now, the tone suggests you’re more interested in winning a moral performance than having a serious discussion.
Paul Magennis' & Kim Carlson's "OPINION" THAT A DANGEROUS POISON ONLY CAUSES THE VICTIM TO FALL ASLEEP WHILE BEING KILLED IS “STATED SLOPPILY" AS THAT HIGH DOSAGE OF POISON BURNS AND THEY ADVOCATE THAT ALL SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THIS GARBAGE WITH MANIPULATIVE LIES! In Addition They Go As Far As Claiming A Fake Survey Organized By Killing Cults Of The Devil Contains A Wide Participant When It Is All Them Fabricating It; I Can See Why Nobody From The "ACTUAL PUBLIC" Would Even Want To Engage With Them And Would Be Outraged To Know That Something Like That Exists To Begin With As It Is All Sickening And Nonsense To What They Even Spend Their Time With To Begin;
Well done Meghan. Those folks certainly had their hands full with you.
Paul, there’s a lot to unpack about your comment and I have to go to bed now. But, the reason that the link I provided to my peer-reviewed research “ links to a random Amazon book about anxiety and film” is because *that’s where my qualitative research is published.* if you examine the table of cobtents, you will see that I wrote chapter 9; “The Sound of Disability: Music, The Obsessive Avenger and Eugenics in America.” The essay contains qualitative research that was published after years of studying the history of eugenics, disability, music and film. I assume that you are capable of looking at the table of contents of a book before dismissing someone’s citation as insufficiently “accessible and accurate.”
You thought just saying "peer-reviewed research" was the clearest way to refer to that? And why the Amazon link where the description doesn't make it clear the link between what you said and what the book is about. Why not link directly to the Oxford page that actually has your abstract? Why do you make it so difficult? https://academic.oup.com/book/4915/chapter-abstract/147329507?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I think this is a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect you to read the table of contents in a book that I’ve provided the Amazon link for. You personally prefer the OUP citation of my work. That’s fine, but your preference doesn’t make my citation “unclear.”
Moreover, providing direct links for my statements is not new. My “Disability Rights Opponents of Assisted Suicide Are Not a Vocal Minority” post cites both Braswell and Riddle while linking to the sources that the quotes were taken from. I provide a link to the source for Braswell’s quote, The Disability Bioethics Reader, in the beginning of paragraph three. I provide a link to the Bioethics article that Riddle’s statement is taken from in the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph.
“This might surprise you, but my initial reaction to many arguments about MAiD and disability was to dismiss them outright.”
That doesn’t surprise me at all.
Post a Comment