Category: News and Views
Was it the New York Times' intention to assault or diminish the basic
tenets of the disability community's civil rights law virtually on
the eve of its 19th anniversary? The New York Times' decision to
publish Peter Singer's latest long essay entitled 'Why We Must Ration
Health Care' (7/15/09) two weeks before the anniversary of the
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act demonstrates either
deliberate malice or reckless disregard of the reality of disability
as an important demographic representative of nearly 20% of the
American population.
As anyone who has read "Why We Must Ration Health Care" knows, Singer
spoke "hypothetically" of assigning a life with quadriplegia as
roughly half that of a life without any disability at all. On this
"hypothetical" basis, Singer lays out a case for denying health care
to people with significant disabilities on the basis that our lives
have less value than the lives of nondisabled people.
This is Peter Singer's most direct assault on the value of the lives
of people with physical disabilities past the age of infancy that we
have read. His policy proposals allowing for the killing of newborns
with disabilities and people with significant cognitive disabilities
are already well known.
While this is a bolder assault than we have seen from Professor
Singer in the past, it's hardly surprising. What's surprising and
deeply disturbing is that the NY Times editorial staff have sought
him out as a writer on more than one occasion.
Reluctantly, we have to suspect that the NY Times accepted this piece
because of its content, agreeing with Singer that our lives have
lessened value and that we represent a drain on the collective
economic and health care resources of our country. It's hard to
imagine the NY Times green-lighting an article that targeted any
other group in such a way - e.g. immigrants, the poor, or other
groups who have been targeted as scapegoats in the health care
debates. Did the editor in charge of publishing this issue even
notice that Singer used no factual information at all to support his
devaluation of people with disabilities?
We have to wonder what went through the heads of the editorial staff
when they thought about the reactions of readers - with or without
disabilities - to the large graphic that read "__ YEARS OF A
NONDISABLED LIFE IS WORTH __ YEARS OF A DISABLED LIFE."
Contrast this with Senator Edward Kennedy's essay on the fight for
universal healthcare in the current issue of Newsweek. Talking about
people with disabilities he said, in part:
Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled
Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home.
Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to
install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day.
Obviously, the definitions of justice that Senator Kennedy uses are
very different from the definitions favored by Peter Singer and the
NY Times.
The proposed treatment - or nontreatment - of people with
disabilities also violates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, which President Obama signed on July 24th, 2009.
While the Singer essay violates the spirit and vision of the
Convention in numerous ways, the most pertinent section of the
document is spelled out in Article 25 (f), in which obligates
signatories to "prevent discriminatory denial of health care or
health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability." This
is important. Article 4(d) states that countries that have signed the
Convention agree to "refrain from engaging in any act or practice
that is inconsistent with the present Convention."
The American disability community, Senator Kennedy and an
ever-growing majority of the international community all recognize
that public policy has to embrace the inherent equality of the lives
of people with disabilities - and public policy must reflect that in
practice. The NY Times and Professor Singer stand opposed to the
more progressive voices of social justice, inside and outside of the
United States.
So, we in the disabled community have to fight against discrimination every single day, and yet this wank-stain has a college degree and is allowed to share his Hitler-esque opinions with the world? He thinks that people with cognative disabilities should be killed because their lives are worthless, and yet I guarantee all of them combined have more sense than he does. And the New York Times is supposed to be this world-renowned publication... really?
Right... now that I've expressed my opinion of that story in a thoroughly unprofessional way... there's a petition somewhere protesting this, but the link was not provided in the e-mail. If I can find it, I'll post it.
Becky
For reference one can go to
here.
Hope I got that link right, it's been a while since I've done one of those.
I read that article when it first came out and didn't have the same reaction you did. Instead of thinking the article was putting down the entire accessibility community, I thought the article raised some interesting questions. At what expense do we sacrifice a life? and When is existing not living?
But you make some interesting points.
Bob
Utilitarian bioethics. That's what we're dealing with here. We handicapped folks cost too much money, so let's kill them all so the rest of the world can be happier and have more stuff. What a load of crap. I actually just read a Dean Koontz novel in which the villain was a member of that particular community. He would deliberately get his drug-addicted wife pregnant knowing that her child would most likely be born with some kind of defect or deformity, for the sole purpose of killing said child by his or her tenth birthday. The book was One Door Away from Heaven in case anyone's interested. It was a very good read. Then there was another Koontz novel, Dark Rivers of the Heart, in which the villain practiced a similar belief, though he in fact believed he was doing these people a favor by "ending their suffering." And if I'm not mistaken Singer is deep into the Utilitarian Bioethics community, so an article like this from him is hardly surprising.