On disability, euthanasia and the State Election

In my last blog entry, I began by quoting former US Vice President Hubert Humphrey on the moral test of a good government. I argued that the only true measure of a just society (not just of government) should be how we treat those who “live at the margins”, experiencing poverty, dysfunction, disability, homelessness etc.

This disability question is extremely and personally important to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have a young son with Down Syndrome and my wife’s brother lived his whole life with a significant disability. My Upper House running mate, David McCabe’s brother also lives with a disability. I know that Dave would agree with me when I say that the profound and immeasurable privilege of sharing in the lives of these wonderful individuals in all their pains and their joys makes progressing justice and dignity for those with a disability ‘deeply personal’.

Secondly, as some of you will know, I am a long time campaigner against euthanasia and assisted suicide. When I read the literature, it is blindingly obvious to me that the mere legalization of voluntary euthanasia (VE) or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in places such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and some US States, at the very least, becomes the ‘elephant in the room’ for those living with a disability in those places.

As many disability activists have noted, it is not that they feel their lives at imminent risk. It is more about the eventual extension of who qualifies for VE and PAS to more and more groups of persons. It is about doctors, trained to save, who become desensitized to the value of life once they begin down that path. Think about questions of scarce and expensive medical resources and a judgement about who is worthy to receive them and who isn’t. And, closer to home, once society accepts that some lives are of more value than others, it is not difficult to foresee the beginnings of a subtle shift away from principles of equity and justice for the disabled.

This is scary stuff indeed, but it is also the reality in some places and it might be where we’re heading too.

As many of you will recall, SA Greens MLC, Mark Parnell’s recent euthanasia bill was defeated in the Upper House by one vote not two months ago. The closeness of the debate shocked me, especially considering the flaws in the bill and the clear risks associated with it.

I was also shocked, and deeply dismayed by the references in speeches by Mr. Parnell and the Hon Ann Bressington to a talk given by Dr. Paul Collier on the steps of Parliament House on the 28th of October at a rally in favour of this bill organised by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

As Mr. Parnell mentioned, Dr. Collier was a candidate at the last State Election for Dignity for the Disabled (now Dignity for Disability) and may stand again for the March 2010 election.

Let me say, at this point, that I respect every person’s right to hold and promote their views. I also know something of Dr. Collier’s work and admire his advocacy and passion. The fact that by his appearance at the SAVES rally and by the references to what he is reported to have said (appearing in Parliamentary Hansard), it is obvious to me that he supports a right to choose euthanasia and would, I imagine, therefore support pro-euthanasia legislation. That’s his right.

I do question, however, the fact that, by the wording of the SAVES leaflet for the event, he spoke as a representative of Dignity for Disability. Even if he were to have made it known (and he may have) that what he said that day in favour of euthanasia was his own private view and not necessarily that of Dignity for Disability I would seriously question the right of anyone to formally represent any organisation whilst espousing a view on something so fundamental as life and death, where the organisation had no policy position on the issue and where, in all probability, the membership had not the opportunity to express their views.

As for Dr. Collier’s candidacy at the next election, I would suggest that his public position on such a contentious issue, (particularly for those with a disability, as I have already discussed) has the potential to fracture the organisation and to dissipate support. If the candidates have yet to be chosen, I urge their selection committee to give this matter serious consideration.

Ultimately, if Dr. Collier is a candidate for the Upper House, then I respectfully suggest that South Australians who want a fair go for disability have a clear choice: support for the Democratic Labor Party is representative advocacy that respects life – what we call true human dignity.

Your views are welcome. I would love to hear from people living with a disability and those who represent the various peak bodies.

Note: anyone who wanted to follow up literature supporting my position vis-a-vis disability and euthanasia and assisted suicide would do well to read the online version of the US Disability and Health Journal this month, particularly the article by Diane Coleman.

(Go to: www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com/current) You can also read a summary article at: www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_death_better_than_disability.