In a formal and respectful process that took several years (2002-2006), disabled people around the world worked hard on a comprehensive document that would reflect their actual social conditions, expose the stigma, threats and problems they face daily, and illuminate a path forward to full equality as human beings. After years of negotiations and dedication, they identified 50 “articles” that constitute the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 10 is the Right to Life. Not surprisingly, search as you might, you will not find an articulated Right to Death.
And yet the right to death on demand for people “suffering” from disability has dominated Canada’s news-making on the topic of disability since 2015. The Supreme Court pulled a sleight of hand by subsuming the right to “death with dignity” as something that is part of the right to life. Strange, though, isn’t it, that international disabled people’s organizations failed to think of that when they were hammering out the details of what would make disabled people substantively equal on the world stage? Did they just forget?
Well no, of course not!! Disabled people didn’t demand “death with dignity” as part of their international negotiations because it wasn’t — and isn’t — something that would make their lives more equitable, livable, secure and dignified. On the contrary, organizations of people with disabilities consistently reject the idea of doctor-assisted death because they recognize it as just another manifestation of the pervasive stigma and threat against which they need to guard in their fight for substantive equality.
The pro-MAID folks at DWD responded with fury to the report I covered in my last blog post, ie. the recent release of the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee charged with reviewing and following up on countries’ progress towards meeting their CRPD treaty obligations. In their press release, they claim that the committee was guilty of making its recommendation to repeal Track 2 MAID based “on unfounded reasoning and unsubstantiated grounds. ” It didn’t seem that way to me — the report was exhaustive and thorough in its careful and detailed review of reports by state parties and civil society groups, not only on Article 10, but on the other 49 articles as well. The evidence they relied on — both video and written submissions — was extensive and is available and accessible on the UN site.
DWD’s statement ends by insisting that what they are promoting is an equality argument. “Those with a disability must have the same right to autonomy and end-of-life choice as all people across Canada”. And in fact, we agree. People with disabilities who are dying should have the same rights as people without disabilities who are dying. That’s equality.
But the Track 2 law, adopted in 2021, does not “solve an injustice”, or create equality, but rather creates an injustice. Disabled people are singled out from the rest of the population for “different” treatment. Track 2 MAiD is exclusively for disabled people. Why? Because they’re “special”; their lives are too difficult for non-disabled people to imagine, so they are free to assume that if they had that disability, they would prefer to be dead. This is the exact attitude that’s behind disability discrimination, which has proven to be real and onerous enough to require that people with disabilities have specific protection under human rights codes and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not the right to be dead, but the right to be fully human and vibrantly alive.
How is it helpful to people who are fighting for their lives against poverty, homelessness, violence, a virus, a catastrophic injury, or any of the myriad things that can befall an embodied human being — how is it helpful for them to be “reassured” that, as long as they have a disability, they don’t have to fight; they can just give in to death and save themselves the struggle. People who don’t have a disability are expected to fight like hell and live as long as possible, and no medical professional has the right to suggest otherwise to them in the absence of a terminal diagnosis. In fact, for those non-terminally-ill folks, “giving up” is seen as a symptom of a psychiatrically significant loss of hope and might occasion a visit from a psychiatrist, social worker or some other mental health professional, or perhaps a chaplain or spiritual advisor.
DWD argues that “It is important to acknowledge that Track 2 MAID was established as a result of a court case brought by two Canadians with disabilities [Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu] who fought for the right to access MAID without being excluded on the basis of their diagnosis” — which in fact they never were. They were excluded because they were not dying. Let me point out that, while Nicole Gladu was financially secure, Jean Truchon was facing institutionalized confinement and loss of independence due to his inability to find affordable alternate housing and care. The two cases were not the same and should not have been treated as such. The Federal government failed the disability rights communities by failing to appeal this terrible decision and reaffirming the standard of reasonable foreseeability of natural death (RFND). The UN Committee called them out on that failure.
DWD’s statement goes on to say that, “This decision was an affirmation of the original Carter ruling — a case that was also brought by two Canadians with disabilities.[Lee Carter on behalf of her mother Kaye; and Gloria Taylor].”
Let me say, we are not in denial of these facts. We frankly and openly acknowledge that there are people with disabilities who are suicidal even though they do not have a terminal illness. Their wish for death is sometimes very complicated and their stories of poverty, homelessness, childhood abuse, loss of important caregivers, loss of financial security, loss of health, loss of motivation, loss of hope are as complex and compelling as any of the stories told by non-disabled people with death wishes. Surely we don’t propose to end all human suffering by assisting the suicides of all who wish for death? No, the appropriate response is suicide prevention, not assisted suicide.
Organizations of people with disabilities struggling to achieve equality in Canadian life and society do not support this bogus “right”. They find it makes them more, rather than less likely to encounter negative attitudes in hospital emergency rooms, in government and community support offices, at food banks, even on the streets. People with disabilities have always lived with people looking at them and wondering why they were still alive and wouldn’t they rather be dead, but now that MAID is available, people are daring to ask their question out loud: Why are you choosing to be alive and eating up resources that could be used for more worthy recipients? DWD does not want to acknowledge this reality, but people who have encountered these attitudes have told their stories.
It is this reality that the UN CRPD Committee is taking into account and responding to, not just something they made up or something based on “unfounded reasoning and unsubstantiated grounds.” Disabled groups don’t have the research budget and organizational structures to produce slick shiny research reports that DWD might find more convincing or respectable. But the UN Committee doesn’t require slick products to convince them that disability discrimination is alive and well globally, and that MAiD for non-dying disabled people undermines their fight for equal respect and recognition internationally.
Full human rights for people with disabilities come with a price tag, to be sure. But that is irrelevant in their fight for substantive equality, nationally and internationally. Canada must honour the international treaties it signs and ratifies.
