A coalition of “disability rights” advocates is launching litigation against an element of the federal medical aid in dying (MAID) legislative regime that permits access to MAID for those whose deaths are not “reasonably foreseeable”.
Excellent article that debunks the myths spread by slippery slope enthusiasts, even those who claim to speak for all disabled people in the name of protecting so-called vulnerable populations.
This piece relies on a poll by the lobby group Dying with Dignity, but polling doesn’t dictate rights, especially heavily skewed polling. The fact is, MAID Track 2 (for those not at end of life) specifically targets persons with disabilities—a protected Charter group. That doesn’t sound like equality to me. If this law singled out Indigenous or LGBTQ+ communities, it would be seen as a massive insult. Track 1 MAID, for terminal conditions, is not being challenged—people with disabilities can still access it like everyone else.
I guess the question is how it would be possible to not 'target' people with disabilities for a context that is literally predicated on having an irredeemable medical condition. As I say in the post, this 'targetting' argument is either irrelevant or simply disingenuous.
Irremediable medical conditions are, by definition, disabilities....to argue that MAID doesn't specifically target persons with disabilities when it's applied to people with irremediable medical conditions is disingenuous. assuming that individuals eligible for MAID, including those with disabilities, are always making fully informed decisions ignores the systemic barriers and social inequities they face. pervasive emphasis on autonomy overlooks that true choice requires real alternatives—which many with disabilities lack due to inadequate support and resources. Again, relying on a poll commissioned by an advocacy group with a clear agenda further undermines your argument. whether its from Ipsos or not selective wording can manipulate public perception. Rights and constitutional protections shouldn't be determined by skewed polls from vested interests. I wish you would focus on defending the rights of marginalized groups rather than aligning with lobby groups like Dying with Dignity. They definitely could use an Emmett brain.
These are so invaluable, Emmett. I appreciate the nuanced, clearly written explanation for non-Charter experts like me. Jonathan Rose
Excellent article that debunks the myths spread by slippery slope enthusiasts, even those who claim to speak for all disabled people in the name of protecting so-called vulnerable populations.
Thank you for this analysis; I particularly appreciated the links to the bioethicist’s substack. Eric Mathison has some very helpful insights!
We can always count on you to clarify such illegitimate issues. THANK YOU!
This piece relies on a poll by the lobby group Dying with Dignity, but polling doesn’t dictate rights, especially heavily skewed polling. The fact is, MAID Track 2 (for those not at end of life) specifically targets persons with disabilities—a protected Charter group. That doesn’t sound like equality to me. If this law singled out Indigenous or LGBTQ+ communities, it would be seen as a massive insult. Track 1 MAID, for terminal conditions, is not being challenged—people with disabilities can still access it like everyone else.
Also, the poll was conducted by Ipsos, a reputable polling firm.
I guess the question is how it would be possible to not 'target' people with disabilities for a context that is literally predicated on having an irredeemable medical condition. As I say in the post, this 'targetting' argument is either irrelevant or simply disingenuous.
Irremediable medical conditions are, by definition, disabilities....to argue that MAID doesn't specifically target persons with disabilities when it's applied to people with irremediable medical conditions is disingenuous. assuming that individuals eligible for MAID, including those with disabilities, are always making fully informed decisions ignores the systemic barriers and social inequities they face. pervasive emphasis on autonomy overlooks that true choice requires real alternatives—which many with disabilities lack due to inadequate support and resources. Again, relying on a poll commissioned by an advocacy group with a clear agenda further undermines your argument. whether its from Ipsos or not selective wording can manipulate public perception. Rights and constitutional protections shouldn't be determined by skewed polls from vested interests. I wish you would focus on defending the rights of marginalized groups rather than aligning with lobby groups like Dying with Dignity. They definitely could use an Emmett brain.
You're just repeating the same points I've already addressed. And I am the one defending the rights of the marginalized.
........right. So painful.😭EM readers beware of his "disability rights" commentary.