Thursday, May 7, 2026

Nothing about us, without us"

This article was published by Amy Hasbrouck on her substack on May 7, 2026.

Amy Hasbrouck
By Amy Hasbrouck

Get our words out of your mouth.

Rumour has it that the head of Dying with Dignity, Helen Long, invoked an axiom of the disability rights movement in advocating to expand eligibility for euthanasia to people whose requests arise only from a mental illness. Allegedly Ms. Long, who does not identify as disabled, criticized the parliamentary committee for not seeking input from people with mental illness who want government help to ensure fulfillment of their suicidal wishes. Specifically she said the committee had not respected the principle of “Nothing about us, without us.”

(Ms. Long was reading a text by Claire Brosseau, who is a woman who is seeking euthanasia based on mental illness alone).

Say what?

Assuming Ms. Long doesn’t have the lived experience of disability, one would think that, as a woman living in a culture of sexualized violence, she might be able to make the solidarity connection in a more genuine way than by simply claiming it. I get it that the issues raised by euthanasia of people with psychiatric disabilities may be too specialized for folks who are not disabled survivors of childhood trauma and the mental illness that often flows from it. It probably doesn’t occur to Ms. Long that allowing MAiD for people with mental illness undermines the public policy of Suicide prevention, by allowing (often ableist) mental health professionals to judge not just the remediability of a mental illness, but also the person’s quality of life and human worth. And maybe it doesn’t occur to Dying with Dignity that inappropriate or inadequate mental health care means that people with psychiatric disabilities are requesting MAiD because they haven’t gotten the help they need, and are subject to stresses like homelessness, addiction (from attempts at self-medication), and stigmatization.

If Ms. Long really cared about disabled people, she would know that, while some disabled individuals support assisted dying, disability organizations that advocate for equality, acceptance and accessibility oppose medical killing. ADAPT and Not Dead Yet have opposed medical killing since the mid 1980s. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities took its position against legalized medical killing in 1996, at the height of public support for Robert Latimer, who murdered his daughter Tracy in 1993. Surely Ms. Long knows that disability advocates recognize and object to the belief that disabled people are (supposed to be) better off dead, and the growing popularity of assisted dying … as promoted by Dying with Dignity. She would also know that disability advocates are aware that the option to “choose” state-provided euthanasia is fast becoming a duty to die.

If she knew the first thing about ableism, Ms. Long would know that MAiD discriminates against disabled people by definition; disability is among the eligibility criteria enumerated in the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition. She would also know that MAiD was provided to many non-terminal disabled people even before the 2019 Truchon decision and the 2021 adoption of Bill C-7, which created “track 2” eligibility for people whose deaths were not “reasonably foreseeable.” Even if Ms. Long didn’t have the advantage of the lived experience of disability discrimination to guide her in evaluating Bill C-14, and its early implementation, anyone who claimed the solidarity of “nothing about us, without us” should have noticed what’s happened in the ten years since legalization; the failure to improve access to palliative care, the reports of same-day euthanasia and MAiD requests linked to “external pressure” (poverty, inadequate and inaccessible housing, and treatment denials) the 100,000 euthanasia deaths and the transformation of an “exceptional” measure to an “expected” response.

When people’s livelihood and self-image depends on not understanding something, they probably won’t understand it. Apparently, Ms. Long’s personal, pecuniary and political interests depend on her not knowing that it is very uncool to appropriate a disability rights principle in advocating a position the disability rights movement strongly opposes.

So please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.

Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet and a past-President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

12 comments:

Carley Robertson, MD said...

Excellent points and well-written.
Truth in a readable form.
Thank you, Ms. Hasbrouck.

Meghan Schrader said...

“ So please, get our words out of your (nasty) mouth.”

Right on, Amy! The attempts by privileged, able-bodied euthanasia advocates to appropriate disability culture are so freaking gross.

Disgusted_Canadian said...

Thank God For Amy Hasbrouck And All Her "CORRECT AND VALID CONCERNS"; THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT WHO ARE LIKE THIS WHO SEE EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON! THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY KILLER-ADVOCATES WHO GO ON EVERYWHERE ON ALL TYPES OF MEDIA INCLUDING MAINSTREAM NEWS STATING LIES ABOUT THE KILLING-AGENDA THAT "CANADIANS SUPPORT EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE" WHICH IS NOT TRUE AND ESPECIALLY NOT TRUE OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE ANY TYPE OF ILLNESS INCLUDING LIFE-THREATENING, DEMENTIA, MENTAL ILLNESS, DISABILITY, ETC... WHO LIKE Amy Hasbrouck Stated DO NOT GET PROPER-LIFE-PROVIDING-CARE BECAUSE OF PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION AND INEQUALITY AND MOST OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES DO NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDING DEATH AND THOSE THAT DO HAVE BEEN ABUSED TO THE POINT THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER AND EXACTLY LIKE Amy Hasbrouck MANY ORGANIZATIONS ARE AWARE OF THIS AND HAVE OPPOSED KILLING BECAUSE IT NOT JUST WRONG AND EVIL BUT BECAUSE OF THE KNOWN FACT REGARDING THOSE CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS NOT EVEN RECEIVING PROPER CARE TO BEGIN WITH SO YES IT IS DISABLED INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITY WHO DO NOT SUPPORT KILLING AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ALONG WITH DYING WITH DIGNITY AND ALL SORT OF KILLING-SUPPORTERS HAVE GOT IT ALL WRONG AND REALLY DO NEED TO STOP SPLASHING AROUND LIES AND THEIR OWN PROPOGANDA BECAUSE THERE REALLY IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THEIR LIES AND IT IS OBVIOUS AND REALLY UNFAIR TO BE SPEAKING SUCH NONSENSE WHICH MOST KILLING-SUPPORTERS DO AS YOU SEE THEIR EVIL AND RECKLESSNESS OBVIOUS AND EASILY AND THIS IS ALSO ABUSE TO THE DISABLED INDIVIDUALS, AND COMMUNITY AND IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW!!!

Paul said...

It's interesting that you've left out that Helen Long did not say this about herself. She was reading a statement from Claire Brosseau, who was saying "nothing about us, without us" in the context of the parliamentary committee refusing to hear from the very people they were debating about--her, for example. Given that mistake, everything else in this post is wrong. Might be time for a correction?

Alex Schadenberg said...

Amy wrote the article and stated that her comment was a rumour, therefore Amy wanted the article to stand as it was written.

Meghan said...

I stand with Amy.

Paul said...

You do understand that's not a defense? You both have been corrected. Do you care about truth at all? You were sitting next to Helen when she read that statement, and you say you personally maintain this blog. Do you think bearing false witness against someone is appropriate? Christian? I remember in church them telling me about a certain commandment you might want to read again.

Meghan Schrader said...

Moreover, it is not really appropriate to invoke the axiom “nothing about us without us” while contending that a few wrongful deaths are an acceptable price to pay for personal autonomy, which is the impact of Canada’s “MAiD” policy.

Regardless of anyone’s intentions or personal circumstances, “MAiD” is causing wrongful deaths within a specific marginalized group. It’s not logical to invoke the axiom “Nothing About Us Without Us” while advocating for “MAiD” to be expanded even further, knowing that it will cause even more wrongful deaths.

At it’s core,“Nothing About Us Without Us” is a statement about interdependence; it reflects the conviction that social policies need to be built on what helps and empowers disabled people as a group. Invoking radical personal autonomy to try to get society to build social policy on individual suicidal ideation directly contravenes that principle.

Helen Long’s policy goals are diametrically opposed to a philosophy of “Nothing About Us Without Us.” This is true even if the quoted activist who invoked the axiom also happens to have a disability.

Paul said...

I can't believe I have to explain this to a disability rights advocate, but that's not what the term "nothing about us, without us" means. It signifies the belief that disability rights should not be created without including the voices of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations. That parliamentary committee didn't have a single person testify that is fighting for that right.

But none of that is the point. Amy wrote a bit piece about Helen long under the claim she said that about herself. Which she didn't. You are all really tying yourselves in knots trying to defend this. The points you just made have nothing to do with the FALSE claim that Helen envoked that phrase for herself. You don't get to move the goalposts and move on.

Meghan said...

Paul says:

“I can't believe I have to explain this to a disability rights advocate, but that's not what the term "nothing about us, without us" means. It signifies the belief that disability rights should not be created without including the voices of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations.”

Paul: It is true that “Nothing About Us Without Us” “signifies the belief that disability rights should not be created without including the voices of persons of people with disabilities and their respective organizations.” But, that is only PART of what that phrase means. The phrase ALSO reflects the broader disability rights community’s emphasis on community rather than raw personal independence.

Seminal disability studies scholar Paul Longmore puts the difference between the disability rights movement’s conception of autonomy and assisted suicide supporters’ conceptions of autonomy best when he asserts:

“Some people with physical disabilities have been affirming the validity of values drawn from their own experience. These values are markedly different from, and even opposed to, nondisabled majority values. They declare that they prize not self-sufficiency but self-determination, not independence but interdependence, not functional separateness but personal connection, not physical autonomy but human community.”

And, that’s one of the most important reasons why “Nothing about us without us” is a motto of the disability rights movement. “We” and “us” are the operative concepts.

In contrast, the assisted suicide movement’s motto is, “My life, my death, my choice.”

It’s not the same ethic.

Here is a blog post where I explore those ideas further:

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2023/02/schrader-disabled-people-must-continue.html?m=1

Moreover, right to die advocacy has a long tradition of flagrantly ignoring and misrepresenting the input of disabled people and our respective orgs, as I’ve discussed in these blog posts:

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2026/02/disability-justice-opposition-to-maid.html?m=1

https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2024/08/disability-rights-opponents-of-assisted.html?m=1

Given the cultural milieu, it was perfectly reasonable for a marginalized person like Amy H. to draw on her own experience of the rumor she heard when she wrote the blog post. It was also fine for her to say that appropriating the disability rights movement’s phrase to support policies that disabled people largely oppose is inappropriate.

Paul, you and Kim seem to get great pleasure out of trying to police what euthanasia opponents do or do not say. You seem to have the impression that you and Kim are like “professors” and we euthanasia opponents are your lowly “students.”

But your comments are generally sophomoric. You often lack any special expertise to justify your arrogance.

Kim said...

Meghan once again you point out how much you assume about us in stating we "lack any special expertise". What do you actually know about our lived experience with disability or mental illness? Nothing! And yet you are brazen enough to call us "arrogant"...previously you called us "privileged".

But to return to the actual point of us commenting, Amy is spreading a rumour about Helen Long and EPC is showing how it condones spreading false information (Alex was sitting next to Helen). Helen made the statement "nothing about us without us" as a quote from Claire, an individual living with a debilitating mental illness. Many marginalized groups (i.e. LGBTQ +, indigenous, etc) have utilized this term since disability rights started using it in the 1990's. If you want to oppose MAiD at least do it with some honesty and integrity.

Meghan Schrader said...

Kim:

Here are 2 things I definitely know about you both:

1. You are both white
2. You are both employed

That means that even if either of you do have disabilities (which is statically unlikely, given that able-bodied people tend to be the world’s reigning majority) you are financially and socially in a much more privileged position than the disabled Canadians barely managing to eat on government assistance. Those are the people that your movement’s thirst for death is hurting the most. And that would be true even if you can find a few token disabled people to support your cause.

I stand by my previous statements about Amy’s blog post. My comments were completely honest, thoughtful and made with integrity.

(Which is more honesty and integrity that you in the right to die movement generally show to people with disabilities as a group.)