Dignity for Disability - continuing betrayal of the disabled

I've blogged before about the Dignity for Disability Party and their lead candidate's support for voluntary euthanasia.

Dr. Paul Collier passed away during this last week. In his passing he is widely recognised for his excellent work in advocacy for the disabled in many ways. It is indeed fitting that he should be remembered so.

One correspondent to this blog attacked me following my speech against euthanasia last weekend where I railed against D4D for the pro-euthanasia position of Dr. Collier. (see here) That person said that Dr. Collier's position on VE was a private matter and that he spoke at the Voluntary Euthanasia rally as a private citizen (I have proof that this was not the case, but, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that this is so).

Someone's personal view on this issue is normally exactly that; personal. However, when someone represents a group for whom such a matter is of intrinsic interest and contrary to the science and basic human dignity of those they represent, then such a view needs to be made public. My criticism of D4D is essentially that they knew about Dr. Collier's position on this issue but did not think to advise their membership and their potential voters.

It would be a travesty and a moral outrage, in my opinion, if people living with disabilities, their friends and families, supported D4D because of their advocacy only to find at some future time that their elected candidate voted for a VE bill.

Let's briefly revisit the issue by way of explanation. The disabled are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society. They need and deserve our support and protection is such ways as to enable them to enjoy their rights and full access to the goods of society on a par with everyone else.

The spectre of euthanasia is directly contrary to these aims. In the Netherlands, where VE has been practiced for decades (and legal for about a decade) children born with disabilities are routinely euthanased without consent (under the Groningen Protocol). Both in the Netherlands and in Switzerland, people with disabilities are over represented in the assisted suicide and euthanasia statistics. Again in the Netherlands, support services for the disabled, the infirmed and those with terminal illnesses are under resources and, in some cases, almost non-existent. Why? It stands to reason: They have other choices.

Make no mistake, the existence of voluntary euthanasia makes the disabled more vulnerable, not less. Read Alison Davis' story HERE to see what I mean. Thats why the US Journal on Health and Disability recently devoted an entire edition to the issue of Assisted Suicide - a close associate of VE. They concluded, in all their articles, that legalised Assisted Suicide (and VE) is never in the best interests of the disabled. (See the January 2010 edition HERE)

The Adelaide press ran appropriate and sensitive stories on the passing of Dr. Collier. According to the electoral act, his name remains on the ballot and his votes pass to the number two candidate, Kelly Vincent.

Kelly Vincent has been outed by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society as also supporting legalised VE. (see HERE . Click on Legislative Council and scroll down). What is going on here?

I hesitate to draw conclusions about the intentions of D4D but I'm none-the-less compelled to note that there's something seriously wrong here. As a parent of a child with a disability I feel personally betrayed that what we might call a 'peak advocacy body' is not acting in my child's best interest nor in the intrinsic best interest of any disabled person.

No matter what fine and lofty achievements this group can claim for the disabled, their support for voluntary euthanasia through the views of not one, but two, Legislative Council candidates casts an all-consuming shadow. Without the fundamental protection of their lives in law and in practice, the disabled will become more vulnerable; the quiet whispers about comparative 'quality of life' will eventually become audible.

A vote for D4D is not a vote for the best interests of the disabled