Once when I was in
college, I went to a talk by a disabled guy.
He was in a wheelchair and, if I remember correctly, had a slight speech
problem – not too much unlike me. He was
arguing against abortion, saying that if abortion is allowed, it’s likely that
fewer people like him – like me – would be born.
I thought it was a
bit of a stretch. I thought that it was
a cheap, cheesy, emotional argument. I
certainly heard him and got where he was coming from, but I also thought he was
using his disability to grab attention and pull heart strings to make his
pro-life argument.
I am kind of having
a similar feeling when it comes to the end-of-life act recently signed by
Governor Jerry Brown here it California.
I think it is compassionate and sensible for people who are terminally
ill, with no more than six months to live and with unrelenting pain and no
ability to enjoy life, to be allowed to get a prescription from their doctor
that will hasten their death if they so choose.
At least I want to think this. It
fits in nicely with my liberal and progressive viewpoint, and all of my friends
are happy, relieved, that Brown signed the bill into law.
I also hear the
disability groups, though, who say that the law is bad, that it’s a slippery slope,
that it will be used to deny care and services and perhaps kill off burdensome
disabled people. Yes, there are lots of
requirements in the new law to stop this from happening, but I still hear the
disability groups’ arguments, as knee-jerk and emotional as they are, and I get
them. I want to believe that, of course,
the law won’t be used to deny care and services and worse, but sometimes, when
I have to make a lot of noise and fight and fight for what I need (like new
footrests on my wheelchair, as has currently been the case), I can’t help but
wonder if they are right.
Another thing that
makes me uncomfortable about the new law is that it says that the legal drug
has to be self-administered. Now, I can,
with some difficulty, take a pill myself – if the bottle is open, that is. But what about those who can’t use their
hands or arms and can’t take a pill themselves.
Again, this is a case where the disabled are unheard, where their needs aren’t
considered. Or is it that, in this case,
they’re heard too much?
Interesting point, especially the last sentence. As usual, you have opened my mind even more. Thanks John!
ReplyDelete