 |
| Meghan Schrader |
In his comments on my recent blog post, “Disability Opposition to MAiD: Some Clear, Accurate Data,” Paul Magennis of MAiD in Canada contends that my tone “vilifies” “MAiD” supporters like himself. Although I’ve acknowledged that many Oregon model supporters act in good faith, I concur that some of my writing, particularly about Canada-like “MAiD” programs, is harsh. It’s meant to resist the dehumanization of disabled people by countering society’s pattern of sanitizing disabled people’s wrongful deaths.
But if my rhetoric periodically has issues with “hostility,” MAiD and Canada’s rhetoric often has an issue with snootiness.
For instance, on December 10th, 2025, Maggenis and Carlson responded to Gordon Friesen’s article, “Medical Homicide Is Discriminatory Oppression For the Sick and Disabled," by writing this on Facebook:
Magennis and Carlson’s tone communicates an attitude of, “if only you silly, paranoid rubes were as smart as us, then you would understand how wonderful our ideology is.” Their assertions carry the implication: “Get a PH.D and publish some peer-reviewed research; then your opinion will matter.” Well, not everyone has the opportunity to earn a PH.D. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to edit their writing and arguments until they are perfect. This is especially true for persons with disabilities whose lifestyle choices are limited by systemic ableism. Yet those people’s opinions about “MAiD” matter just as much as any bioethics scholar’s.
It makes sense that if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and MAiD in Canada are going to write about one another, that it would be a formal debate. Nevertheless, many of MAiD in Canada’s statements have a sardonic, pretentious tone. Often their assertions suggest that any good faith wish for a debate on their part is intertwined with a desire to prove how intellectually and ethically superior they think they are.
But if my rhetoric periodically has issues with “hostility,” MAiD and Canada’s rhetoric often has an issue with snootiness.
For instance, on December 10th, 2025, Maggenis and Carlson responded to Gordon Friesen’s article, “Medical Homicide Is Discriminatory Oppression For the Sick and Disabled," by writing this on Facebook:
“He attempts to use graduate-level vocabulary and long, winding sentences to deliver grade-nine level reasoning. The result is a convoluted, artificially complex style that imitates academic philosophy without actually doing the work.”I do not share this assessment of Frieson’s blog post, but beyond that, it strikes me that this statement is arrogant and snide, so it was actually really nice of Gordon to have a debate with them.
Magennis and Carlson’s tone communicates an attitude of, “if only you silly, paranoid rubes were as smart as us, then you would understand how wonderful our ideology is.” Their assertions carry the implication: “Get a PH.D and publish some peer-reviewed research; then your opinion will matter.” Well, not everyone has the opportunity to earn a PH.D. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to edit their writing and arguments until they are perfect. This is especially true for persons with disabilities whose lifestyle choices are limited by systemic ableism. Yet those people’s opinions about “MAiD” matter just as much as any bioethics scholar’s.
It makes sense that if the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and MAiD in Canada are going to write about one another, that it would be a formal debate. Nevertheless, many of MAiD in Canada’s statements have a sardonic, pretentious tone. Often their assertions suggest that any good faith wish for a debate on their part is intertwined with a desire to prove how intellectually and ethically superior they think they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment