Last week, I referred a caller to the Final Exit Network (FEN) to John B. Kelly, a Not Dead Yet opponent of right-to-die (RTD) laws. The person was inquiring on behalf of his brother (I'll call him Carl) about the education and training services that FEN offers to applicants who want to hasten their deaths. The brother was trying to learn if FEN could help Carl, who was despairing of his condition.
One of the most organized efforts to defeat right-to-die (RTD) legislation wherever it is proposed is spear-headed by Not Dead Yet (NDY) under its current President, Diane Coleman. NDY claims to represent, or be representative of, at least 12 disability rights groups who oppose RTD legislation. Coleman's failed appeal to Maine Governor Janet Mills to veto the RTD law, passed narrowly by Maine's legislature, presents an outline of the arguments used to oppose such RTD laws.
Lamar Hankins discusses how the disabled are devalued and prevented from having the same rights non-disabled people have. What a person considers a fulfilling life should be decided by each person, not by the opinion of any other person, including by someone who is disabled.
In Part 1 of this series, I addressed ten criticisms of MAID laws, particularly those in Oregon and Washington, though most such laws are modeled largely on Oregon's law. In Part 2, I look at criticisms of MAID laws concerning economic pressures, coercion, depression, inadequate resources for MAID clients, doctor shopping, inadequate Medicaid rules, ableism, and the failure of the drugs prescribed to MAID clients. My hope is that we can learn from opponents of MAID laws how to make the laws better.
With this post, I begin a multi-part series about the views of those who oppose medical-assistance-in-dying (MAID) or have written critically about MAID laws. I think there are some good ideas that we can learn from these critics to help us improve MAID laws, though that is not their intent. They will oppose MAID under any law, no matter how carefully written.
Disability rights groups that oppose self-determination for people who seek physician-assisted dying (PAD ) argue that such people should not have the right to decide for themselves when their lives are no longer tenable. Nevertheless, the disability rights groups do make points related to PAD that are worth considering; for one, they have helped me realize that over the last ten years I have become disabled.
The idea suggested by some disability rights advocates, that most of us will be disabled in one way or another by the time we reach the end of our lives, has been borne out in my experience. Virtually everyone I have known who has died has met, days or weeks or months before their deaths, the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. How can we assure that those who are disabled are not coerced into ending their lives too soon?
Understanding disagreements between DWD advocates and disability rights advocates may be a way to find some common ground between the two groups. This is Part 1 of a multi-part series exploring the issues.
This National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a workshop last week that was intended to explore the evidence base and research gaps relating to the implementation of the clinical practice of allowing terminally ill patients to access life-ending medications with the aid of a physician. The workshop examined what is known, and unknown, about how physician-assisted death is practiced and accessed in the United States; it was not to be a focus of the workshop to discuss at length the moral or ethical arguments for or against the practice of physician-assisted death. It was billed as a neutral space to facilitate dialogue in order to help inform ongoing discussions between patients, their providers, and other health care stakeholders. What follows is a report on that workshop.
In Part 1, I began explaining why the disability rights group Not Dead Yet opposes Death With Dignity laws and the right to die. I also provided the most recent data from Oregon’s experience with its DWDA to refute some of the claims of Not Dead Yet.
All of the arguments made against the DWD laws by Not Dead Yet are false or misleading.
