Texas disability medical futility case to be heard in court.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Michael Hickson

I have good news. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear the disability discrimination "medical futility" case of Michael Hickson who died on June 11, 2020 after being denied basic care by St. David’s South Austin Medical Center.

Thaddeus Pope published the following comment on his medical futility blog on March 8, 2026:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a disability discrimination case may proceed where Texas providers withheld life-sustaining treatment based on determinations that the patient's inability to walk or talk meant that he had a low quality of life.

"We hold that a plaintiff asserts a cognizable claim for disability discrimination based on adverse medical treatment decisions—or decisions not to treat—when allegations show that the treatment was based 'solely,' in the pejorative sense, on the individual’s disability."

The family of Michael Hickson may now proceed on this and some other claims in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

This ruling, combined with new DHHS regulations targeting medical futility determinations, raises significant red flags for hospitals withdrawing life-sustaining treatment over patient or family objections.

The disability rights group - ADAPT - published a powerful video by Melissa Fridie Hickson concerning the death of her husband Michael, who was also the father of her 5 children.

The Michael Hickson case is particularly egregious since the doctors unilaterally decided to deny Hickson treatment, they denied him basic care based on "quality of life." The legal decision stated:

(“St. David’s Healthcare”) stopped giving food and fluids to Michael Hickson, a loving husband and father of five who was hospitalized for illnesses that he had previously overcome. The doctors told Michael’s wife that his inability to walk or talk meant he had a low quality of life. Michael passed away.

Link to previous articles about Michael Hickson.

• The deadly quality of life ethic (Read).
• ADAPT of Texas Demands Investigation into Michael Hickson's death (Read).
• ADAPT of Texas protests Hospital killing of Michael Hickson (Read).

Lesson in Disability Justice 2: Opposition to Recent/Proposed Disability Policy Changes Is Not “Hysteria”

Meghan Schrader

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

I was asked to write blogs for the EPC concerning the “MAiD” movement's undermining of disabled people’s human rights. However, “MAiD” is not the only practice with a corrosive impact on disabled people’s lives. 

Therefore, as a disability justice advocate in the anti assisted suicide movement, I think it’s important for euthanasia opponents to know that in the past year there have been several proposed and/or implemented policy changes that dismantle or weaken disability rights laws in the United States.

These policy changes are opposed by pretty much everyone I know in the disability justice community; including groups and advocates who make opposing assisted suicide part of their mission. I am going to go into more detail about what most of those policies are and why they are harmful in a subsequent blog post, but what I wish to focus on in this post is the proposition that I’ve heard from some assisted suicide opponents, who do sincerely support disability justice in general, that the disability rights groups warning about the impact of these changes are getting misinformation from biased news sources and engaging in “woke politics” and “hysteria.”

Meh. 

The disability justice model would oppose these policies no matter what political party wanted to implement them. I urge assisted suicide opponents not to reflexively dismiss concepts like “systemic,” “ableism” and “systemic ableism” as “hysteria” just because those ideas are being articulated by those who embrace other ideologies that you strongly oppose. I’ve lived with disabilities all my life. I grew up in America’s dysfunctional Special Education system, where I experienced social policies that empowered prejudiced people to push disabled people towards choices that have a corrosive impact on their futures. I have published research in the field of disability studies and have followed the disability justice movement’s activities for many years. So, although no ideology or source of information is infallible, I think it’s reasonable for me to trust information from other disability rights advocates more than information from sources and people who have spent significantly less time studying disability policy. 

I also think people from all over the ideological spectrum can agree that society has moral duties to people with disabilities. I see no reason why people of differing ideologies cannot, at times, put practicality first and work together to fulfill these responsibilities. 

I think assisted suicide opponents who want society to meet its obligations to disabled people need to understand that the disability justice groups opposing the aforementioned policy changes are staffed by lawyers, advocates and scholars who have fought for disability justice for decades. Those groups aren’t relying on information from social media or biased news sources. Their leaders are primarily people with disabilities who are reading the texts of these proposed policies and drawing their opposition from years of fighting for disability rights. 

I urge other assisted suicide opponents to recognize that fighting ableism requires comprehensive knowledge. Certainly there are many news sources with clear political biases of all kinds, but in this case the “biased news sources” are reporting what disability justice advocates have said, not the other way around. If groups like the ARC, the Association of University Centers on Disability, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the National Council on Disability, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the United Spinal Association, the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Council on Independent Living and all of the people at the ADAPT Americans With Disabilities Act anniversary party I attended recently tell me that a trillion dollars have been cut from Medicaid and that this will restrict home and community based services for people with disabilities, I trust them more than I trust President Trump’s website. The aforementioned groups/individuals have fought for disability rights for decades and President Trump has not.

Opposition to these new policies does not mean that disability justice advocates are not grateful for the rights that disabled Americans have. As a disabled American I am very thankful that the Americans with Disabilities Act gives disabled Americans more rights than disabled people have in other parts of the world; the law has served as the model for the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of People With Disabilities. But, despite the ADA and similar laws, Americans with disabilities face discrimination every day. Although not everyone who supports an ableist policy is a bad person, assuming the competency or positive intentions of whoever happens to embrace your preferred political party or ideology is not realistic. The disability justice movement’s opposition to various policies might seem like “hysteria”  to some people, but that is generally because so many disabled people and our allies have been put in situations where safeguarding disability rights seems to require one to become, well, “hysterical.” 

Despite how blunt I can be on this blog or on X, I am, somewhere in my heart, still a “people pleaser;” I like being kind to others. So, when I self-advocate for accommodations for my Nonverbal Learning Disability and bipolar disorder, I try to be a nice, reasonable person. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thoroughly explained why I need an accommodation very nicely and politely and still found myself in situations that compromised my dignity; ones where I didn’t have much energy to devote to being “nice;” or it seemed that being “nice” needed to be of secondary concern, such as confrontations, acrimonious meetings and even “hysterical” screaming matches with virulently ableist people who had power over me and other people with disabilities. Every day disabled people interact with people who sneer at our efforts to get an education or a job; people who think disabled people are inherently violent, people who assume that people with disabilities are lying about our impairments, people who aggressively manipulate loopholes in disability rights laws and people who angrily complain about even the trivialist effort to accommodate someone’s disability. That is why so many disability justice advocates oppose “MAiD”: Disability justice advocates know how difficult it is for individuals to resist the impacts of ableist policies, so that movement largely recognizes “MAiD” as creating new situations in which disabled people are bullied into dying. 

I encourage “MAiD” opponents to recognize that deep history and common personal experiences have given disability justice advocates insight into the impact of disability rights laws. Disability justice advocates have every justification to oppose things like subminimum wages, the recent Medicaid cuts, dismantling the Department of Education, proposed changes to IDEA, cutting Special Education funding, and cutting funding for postsecondary structures that serve people with disabilities. Disability rights advocates have every reason to oppose the Section 504 lawsuit’s efforts to vitiate the entire Final Rule.  It is wholly reasonable for disability justice advocates to resist laws that reverse the disability justice movement’s progress in stopping arbitrary institutional confinement of disabled individuals. It is perfectly logical for disability justice advocates to oppose the proposed recision of portions of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act that incentivize employers to hire people with disabilities. It is wise for disability rights advocates to oppose repealing portions of Section 503 that outline how employers must comply with fundamental portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Disabled people and our allies are perfectly justified in assuming that the Department of Energy’s attempt to loosen rules requiring that new construction be accessible to people with disabilities will not turn out well. 

In short, the disability justice movement’s suspicion about assisted suicide is equally valid when applied to other policies. I think that even if not all of the anticipated consequences of these policies come to fruition, that will be primarily because of the disability justice movement’s efforts to mitigate those harms. 

I have been asked to remember that not everyone who supports the aforementioned policy changes is “evil.” I don’t think all supporters of these policies are evil, just like I don’t think that everyone who supports “MAiD” is evil. But, just “not being evil” is  not enough for disabled people to be treated as equals. It is not realistic to expect every assisted suicide opponent to agree with every disability rights group or advocate on every nuance of every issue, but the things disability justice advocates want for disabled people: jobs that pay at least minimum wage, access to new construction, a good education, a strong social support system, home and community based services, etc-are generally policies that everyone on the political spectrum can agree about. Those policies benefit disabled people regardless of what other social group they belong to; they are not conjured from “hysteria.”

So, EPC blog readers, embrace your full potential as assisted suicide opponents. Listen carefully to the experiences and history of the disability justice advocates who work alongside you to oppose “MAiD.” If you want your anti euthanasia advocacy to flower into something really wonderful for people with disabilities, support disability rights policies that allow disabled people to flourish; ensure we experience equality and dignity in all domains of life. 

• Lesson in Disability Justice 1: Disability Justice Is a Whole Cloth Effort (Link). 

Meghan Schrader: Are My Blog Posts Tantrums?

Meghan Schrader

By: Meghan Schrader
Meghan is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member. 

Previous blog articles by Meghan Schrader (Link).

Recently an X user wrote in response to my toilet blog post: “Meghan Schrader's tantrums won't affect any Canadians who wish to access MAID but tell her thanks anyway.” I imagine that this is the reaction that most right to die leaders will have to that post if they read it: “Dude, throw my book in a toilet if that makes you happy. I’m still going to do what I do.” I’m sure there are many readers out there who think that my blog posts and X comments are “tantrums.”

Well, in a way, they are. Although civil disobedience has a longstanding role in disability justice advocacy, me throwing someone’s internationally acclaimed collection of snuff stories in a toilet is probably as effective as a “tantrum;” it is unlikely to change the situation on its own. I was asked to write blogs for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition so I do, even though I don’t think that the people in charge of the publishing companies that have republished Green’s dreck in multiple languages are going to see my blog post about the toilet and conclude, “Oh my gosh, Meghan’s right, Canada’s “MAiD” program is disgusting! And to think we spent all that time promoting Green’s Ted Talk!”

But I enjoy using hyperbole. I love John Oliver and Stephen Colbert’s use of sarcasm and observational comedy to lampoon cultural trends. I wish people like that would do segments about how the “MAiD” movement helps take the world’s abuse of people with disabilities to its lowest common denominator and some of my statements are meant to be a blog post or social media version of that. Unlike me and most other assisted suicide opponents, Colbert and Oliver have billions of followers, but are their skits going to make all of the injustice in the world go away? No, but perhaps their comedy still has a role in contributing to public discourse about oppression. I have, at times, spoken harshly in the wrong context and have needed to apologize, but that is rare. The intended objects of my most intense statements aren’t wounded souls whose terminally ill parent shot themselves, they are the shameless ableists who want to kill disabled children and set up up doctors panels to decide whether people with severe mental illnesses like I’ve experienced should be killed without their consent.

Although I realize that my own impact is limited, I can’t help but want to push back against the proponents’ entitled expectation that opponents will respond to all of their goals with the utmost respect and nuance. I am capable of nuanced debate, but since a lot of my advocacy happens in short blog posts and X threads, I’ve generally decided to model a lack of tolerance for persons who bully vulnerable people into assisted suicide.

I think all activists have to use the tools we have with humility. Much smarter disability justice scholars and lawyers who have published award-winning books and done Ted Talks have worked to change the adherents’ minds, yet they have not been able to convert them all. I believe in God, and I’m sure that He is working to interrupt the right to die movement’s activities. If His intervention has not made all of the proponents’ activities go away, why would I think that my blog posts and Twitter threads can do that?

But I don’t think throwing up one’s hands and letting the right to die movement go unanswered because one does not have a lot of power is the right response either. A lot of disabled people who aren’t privileged enough to publish their thoughts in a peer-reviewed journal or lead parliamentary hearings have used the lifeline of #DisabilityTwitter to help oppose assisted suicide. (I still find X to be an accessible platform and valuable opportunity for community, but since Elon Musk ridiculously elimated Twitter’s nascent Accessibility Experience Team in 2022, a lot of these individuals have moved to BlueSky.) Regardless of what platform is being used, I think using social media to bring awareness to Canada’s “MAiD” program helped prevent the expansion of “MAiD” to people with mental illnesses that was planned for 2023. My “useless” X presence gave me the privilege of helping my friend “Amy,” and that was definitely worthwhile. ADAPT’s 2014 protest outside a conference of the World Federation of Right To Die Societies did not cause that organization to collapse, but I still think it was valuable for ADAPT to show up and communicate that not everyone is willing to fawn over a movement that treats disabled people like pigs and car accident statistics. Singer and songwriter John Pike produced a scathing, satirical music video about Canada’s “MAiD” program called “Public Service Announcement From the Canadian Government” and I think that video is one of the coolest things around.

History is full of things that no longer exist because enough ordinary individuals refused to put up with them. Historically, the disability justice movement has played a critical role in slowing and stopping the assisted suicide movement’s efforts; that’s why one bioethicist who used to support assisted suicide apologized in 2004. It’s why “MAiD” did not sweep across the globe after Oregon’s law was passed in 1994 or during the uptick in right to die sensationalism in 2015. It’s why so many Labour politicians in the UK voted against its assisted suicide bill and why the New York assisted suicide bill was opposed by 27 Democrats.

Privileged “MAiD” activists who have admitted that they are willing to murder marginalized people seem to have the smug expectation that everyone will eventually join their death cult. Some of the content of my advocacy is my attempt to help make unequivocal, continuing opposition to their agenda visible in whatever small way that I can.

The hundreds of disability justice advocates who aren’t me aren’t giving up. That’s why the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of People with Disabilities opposes “MAiD.” That’s why most disability justice organizations in the world have fought assisted suicide. Righteous indignation over disabled people’s wrongful deaths is why disability justice pioneers with more talent than me are filing lawsuits and publishing their own anti assisted suicide work.

That movement to prevent disabled people’s wrongful deaths is worth being part of. And hopefully someday that opposition will reinstitute disabled people’s equal access to suicide prevention, which is key to advancing our human rights in general. So I will go ahead and keep having my “tantrums.”

Previous blog articles by Meghan Schrader (Link). 

Honoring Diane Coleman. Founder of Not Dead Yet.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Diane Coleman

I have written and published previous articles honoring Diane Coleman, the founder of Not Dead Yet. The most recent article was written by Clay Risen and published in the New York Times on November 20, 2024. 

Risen begins:

Diane Coleman, a fierce advocate for disability rights who took on Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the right-to-die movement and the U.S. health care system, which she charged was responsible for devaluing the lives of Americans like her with physical and mental impairments, died on Nov. 1 at her home in Rochester, N.Y. She was 71.

Her sister Catherine Morrison said the cause was sepsis.

Risen explains what Diane did before founding Not Dead Yet:

Ms. Coleman was born with muscular spinal atrophy, a disorder that affected her motor neurons. She was using a wheelchair by 11, and doctors expected her to die before adulthood.

Instead, she blossomed, graduating as valedictorian from her high school and receiving a joint J.D.-M.B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1981.

It was only after several years of working as a consumer protection lawyer that she shifted her energies to disability rights, joining a flourishing movement that was pushing for anti-discrimination laws at every level of government, including improvements on transit and in buildings.

Ms. Coleman was a member of Adapt, considered one of the most militant disability rights groups.  She participated in scores of protests, blocking the entrances to buildings where conferences were held or government offices were housed.  She was arrested more than 25 times.

Risen explains why Diane focused on preventing assisted suicide:

In the 1990s, she shifted her attention yet again, to assisted suicide and the right-to-die movement. Though the movement was aimed at people with terminal illnesses, legislation in many states expanded to include people with significant disabilities.

Gifted with a dark sense of humor, in 1996 she founded a group called Not Dead Yet, a reference to a memorable scene in the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” in which a man tries to pass off an infirm — but very much alive — relative to a man collecting dead bodies.

“To put it bluntly, she was blunt,” Jim Weisman, a disability rights lawyer, said in an interview.

Working on a shoestring budget, Ms. Coleman organized protests against right-to-die legislation, became a regular guest on television news programs and testified four times before Congress.

Diane explained why assisted suicide threatened people with disabilities:

At the core of her critique was the argument that the idea of a “right to die” was evidence of how little society valued people like her and a warning that the health care system was broken.

“It is already possible in some states for impoverished disabled, elderly and chronically ill people to get assistance to die,” she told the House Judiciary Committee in 1996, “but impossible for them to get shoes, eyeglasses and tooth repair.”

Diane challenged Peter Singer and Jack Kevorkian. Risen writes:

Not Dead Yet showed up at Princeton University in 1999 after the university announced the hiring of Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher who had argued for voluntary euthanasia for people with disabilities.

Never shy with a quote, Ms. Coleman told the British newspaper The Independent that Mr. Singer was “a public advocate of genocide, and the most dangerous man on earth.”

Her biggest target was Dr. Kevorkian, who became a household name in the 1990s and early 2000s for assisting patients in ending their lives. She sent protesters to his house outside Detroit, and she reveled in his 1999 conviction for second-degree murder after he helped a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis end his life.

“It’s the ultimate form of discrimination to offer people with disabilities help to die,” she told The New York Times in 2011, “without having offered real options to live.”

Risen finishes the article by recounting some of Diane's many accomplishments:

When she was 6, Diane was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, which doctors later said was actually muscular spinal atrophy and would require surgery. The adoption agency told the Colemans that they could send her back. They declined.

Instead, they encouraged her to work hard in school and to attend college, at a time when many people with disabilities did not. She graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Illinois in 1976, and she received law and business degrees from U.C.L.A. five years later.

She spent eight years working for the California Department of Corporations, where she focused on consumer fraud. She attended her first protest in 1985, against the lack of wheelchair lifts on Los Angeles buses, and she joined Adapt a year later.

In 1989, she moved to Nashville, where she developed plans for an independent living facility for people with disabilities. She continued that work after moving to Chicago in 1996, the same year she founded Not Dead Yet.

Ms. Coleman’s first marriage, to Michael Yester, ended in divorce. She later married Stephen Drake. Along with her sister Catherine, he survives her, as does another sister, Denise Coleman.

Ms. Coleman and Mr. Drake moved to Rochester in 2008, to be close to his family. By then the muscles controlling her breathing had begun to weaken, and she was using a ventilator. 

Still, she remained the chief executive of Not Dead Yet until her death, insisting that her fight was not just for people with disabilities but for everyone.

“The disability community is the canary in the coal mine,” she told The Village Voice in 1996. “This assisted suicide-euthanasia issue is a test for our nation. If we as disabled, chronically ill or terminally ill people are declared better off dead, who will be next?”

More articles honoring Diane Coleman:

• The Great Diane Coleman has died. She has left an amazing legacy (Link)
•  Not Dead Yet comments on the passing of Diane Coleman (Link)