Two recent videos strongly oppose medical aid in dying (MAID) because of disability discrimination risks. First, Democracy Now profiles the new film Life After. Second, Progressives against Medical Assisted Suicide (PAMAS) have a 36-minute film Thoughts on Medical Assisted Suicide. But both fail to connect their evidence to their case.
Let me start with two concessions. First, there is rampant disability discrimination in society and in healthcare. This is illegal and harmful. And we should work harder to mitigate it. Second, MAID is designed for persons with disabilities who find living with those disabilities intolerable. Yes, U.S. laws are limited to certain disabilities like terminal cancer and advanced ALS. But the laws both are for and are used exclusively by persons with disabilities. And they use them primarily for disability related reasons (like being unable to engage in activities they find meaningful).
But the MAID opposition films overwhelmingly use disability discrimination cases regarding life-sustaining treatment. For example they profile Elizabeth Bouvia and Michael Hickson. This shows that the risks of bias and discrimination are not unique to MAID. They affect decisions about withholding and withdrawing all sorts of treatments.
So why focus on MAID? Far more people die from withholding and withdrawing treatment. And these decisions have nowhere near the safeguards and oversight that MAID has. Clinicians unilaterally withhold or withdraw treatment over patient or surrogate objections. But nobody provides MAID without at least quadruple confirmed consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment