Disability Rights Organisations Oppose Aid In Dying Bill—Response

On Monday Aug. 6, the L.A. Times California section had a front page story on how disability groups successfully helped kill Assembly Bill 374 (aka: "California Compassionate Choices Act"), modeled after Oregon's law. This is a letter in response.

Dear Editor,

The opposition of Disability Rights Organizations to Aid in Dying in California does not represent the opinion and wishes of their constituents.

National and selected State polls, when indexed properly to identify persons with disabilities, repeatedly illustrate that we (I am myself a T6-7 paraplegic) endorse this choice and favor laws that provide carefully safeguarded Aid in Dying.

We favor having this choice, despite the feared but undocumented travesties of organized medicine and HMO's, in close to the same percentage as persons who do not identify themselves as having a disability.

Sixty to seventy percent of us would vote for a law like AB 374, which is modeled on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

In fact, Persons with Disabilities are better protected in Oregon than they are now in California or any other state in the union. Under AB 374 and the Oregon Act, the wish to terminate or limit medical care or resources rests squarely with the patient and only when that patient has a confirmed terminal diagnosis.

Under the law, pain management and depression are assessed formally and have to be treated before a physician can write a lethal prescription, one that the patient can still decide not to take. In fact, half of those who qualify under the Oregon Act do not take the prescription given to them because the control represented by this choice allows them a better quality of life and they die in hospice care of natural causes.

Many of those whom you cite have long been struggling to get better access to medical care for persons with disabilities, especially for those who may not have the means to afford it. I applaud their efforts in that regard. However, they have latched onto the issue of Aid in Dying as a way to galvanize the public and draw attention to their issue. As your reporter pointed out, for these groups to oppose legislation that guarantees and protects choice, while at the same time becoming bedfellows with the radical right and other groups who opposed the ADA, makes no sense.

And that is why AUTONOMY, Inc. was originally founded by some of the leaders in the disability community who were among those who drafted the ADA and the Architectural Barriers Act. To provide a voice for what the majority of persons with disabilities really want.

Persons with disabilities in Oregon have not been wheeled off in large numbers to fill lethal prescriptions. The fears expressed by Longmore, Golden et al, may be occurring in California but they do not exist where this law has been enacted. If, however, a wheeler in Oregon is already in the final stages of life, after fighting as hard as they have just to live every day, and they should want to end their life peacefully with family and friends around them at a time of their choosing in their own home, they will have that choice.

Californians, with and without disabilities, should have that same choice, and close to eighty percent of Californians agree. Shame on Sacramento lawmakers, no matter which party, for not representing the wishes of those who elected them.

And just because a choice is there, you do not have to use it. Just like you do not have to vote, no one can force you to vote or to use AB 374.

But that does not mean you should be able to prevent me from voting or dying in the manner that I please. Don't tell me how to die, that should be my choice. I have earned it. We all have.

Paul A. Spiers. Ph.D., Chair, Board of Directors, AUTONOMY, Inc.
Boston, Mass.