Euthanasia in Canada, Supreme Court Ruled this Morning

[Northwind]

That should be kyriarchy

 

[ChemGal]

What people aren't aknowledging is that what makes disability disabling are external barriers created by society.

And by not aknowledging somebody's impairment as their baseline normal that they might otherwise be content to live with if the barriers were managed or overcome - they may not be suffering enough to want to die. This ruling says these barriers (because disability is about external barriers) are a valid reason to want to die and so be it. I don't believe they are. I think they are confusing individual choice with a failure of society to address barriers.

It's like saying well I know the prejudices you face seem insurmountable, and you feel your family or support system is burdened with your care - and without that your pain or challenges to daily life is too much to bear...so looks like you're at the end of your rope. I don't blame you. No! That's the only reason I could see why a PWD would feel so hopeless as opposed to anyone else who didn't have a terminal illness, and our job as fellow human beings would be to help them find hope to live!

That wasn't the point I was taking when I was replying to your comment.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think what is complicating this is that the definition Seeler posted was, AFAIK, used before the one you are using. Giving up the first doesn't come very easily, especially when it's based on the roots of the word.

It's a shift in thinking about what causes the 'disabling' effects.

 

[Ritafee]

Being systemically oppressed is rather complicated.

Do tell ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That wasn't the point I was taking when I was replying to your comment.

What would you consider suffering that is too much or almost too much to bear? What would the cause of that be, that couldn't be overcome (in a non-terminal person with a disability)?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Do tell ...

Well, there's the politics of 'normal' to contend with. There's usually the assumption that everyone is starting with the same advantages or 'level playing field' that get built into policy. Those are two - which are related. There are the outdated definitions of disability that access to social programs and benefits are based on. There are things like having to be on disability welfare to get a travel discount - which is a billion and one dehumanizing hoops - but to be working poor with a disability you aren't eligible for much help even though you need it. There's the idea that needing help is a burden and a drain rather than a condition of being human, and a human duty to other humans - that our systems are built on the assumption of - more and more.

Basically our systems are built with standard norms not differences in mind.

 

[ChemGal]

What would you consider suffering that is too much or almost too much to bear? What would the cause of that be, that couldn't be overcome (in a non-terminal person with a disability)?

Why is that for me to decide for someone else?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Why is that for me to decide for someone else?

Because there is a MAJOR difference if they are basing their suffering on something, some attitude or other barrier, imposed on them by society or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Yes PWD do face barriers "normal" people do not have to face. That does not mean their suffering is worse or their barriers are worse than those faced by others. I would also not assume that someone who doesn't appear to have a disability is in fact without disabilities.

You are making a huge assumption when you say I do not recognize the barriers PWD face. A huge one.

When we are part of a group that has been oppressed in any way it is easy to assume the other has it easy. That is as dangerous as believing a group has been set back 30 years because of a court ruling.

I have worked in this system and have seen insensitive helpers. That does not mean all helpers are insensitive or ignorant of the issues people face.

I learned a new word last week - "kyrarchy" It might be a good one for you to learn when you are focused on oppression.

It does mean the barriers they face are more difficult and complicated than the ones others don't have to face. PWDs are systemically oppressed. That means in every system in which they are unequal they are facing barriers. I don't assume you don't understand anything about PWDs, not by far, but you are getting offended by me challenging aspects of your perspective. Not my intention to offend you, Northwind.

 

[Delightful Life]

but you are getting offended by me challenging aspects of your perspective.

that's a possibility

she also could be getting offended for other reasons

just because i mentioned it above doesn't mean that its True...both you and her get to 'hash it out' *looks at the hash that this thread is and laughs...*

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

that's a possibility

she also could be getting offended for other reasons

just because i mentioned it above doesn't mean that its True...both you and her get to 'hash it out' *looks at the hash that this thread is and laughs...*

It's not a hash but it is a broken record - not the Guinness kind but the needle stuck on the broken LP kind.

 

[Ritafee]

There's usually the assumption that everyone is starting with the same advantages or 'level playing field' that get built into policy ... definitions of disability that access to social programs and benefits are based on ... like having to be on disability welfare to get a travel discount - which is a billion and one dehumanizing hoops - but to be working poor with a disability you aren't eligible for much help ... needing help is a burden and a drain rather than a condition of being human, and a human duty to other humans

Sounds to me like a good way of leveling the playing field would be to have a Guaranteed Annual Income for every human citizen regardless of whether they are 'working' or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Sounds to me like a good way of leveling the playing field would be to have a Guaranteed Annual Income for every human citizen regardless of whether they are 'working' or not.

Yeah. But this ruling is going to happen before (or if) that ever gets worked out. And, like I said, the guaranteed annual income might need to be more for those who need more extensive supports like homecare - and there would still be grumbling about that.

But it's not only that. Systemic discrimination has to do with speed and productivity, about running against the clock, about rules in post secondary institutions, about how facilities are built, about how transportation is designed, about how social and cultural events are organized, about how political and legal representation is provided, about how communication is facilitated. It's not just about income. It's about competition in general in many ways. It's even about little things like how self serve coffee stations are standardized in coffee shop franchises. It's about employee candidate selection processes...it's about innumerable things. Of course having more means to remedy problems helps but attitudes are a biggie to overcome in order to change or modify how we design all our systems within systems and the policies that support them.

 

[ChemGal]

Sounds to me like a good way of leveling the playing field would be to have a Guaranteed Annual Income for every human citizen regardless of whether they are 'working' or not.

From what you have posted in the past, it sounds like you are in favour of this while removing other govenment programs. I think those other programs are more vital than a guaranteed income.

 

[Mendalla]

From what you have posted in the past, it sounds like you are in favour of this while removing other govenment programs. I think those other programs are more vital than a guaranteed income.

Depends what other programs we're talking about. By definition, a guaranteed income replaces EI and welfare. If it continues past retirement age, it could subsume OAS, too (but likely not CPP). It would not replace, say, Medicare or the need to expand things like drug and home care coverage under Medicare.

 

[ChemGal]

Depends what other programs we're talking about. By definition, a guaranteed income replaces EI and welfare. If it continues past retirement age, it could subsume OAS, too (but likely not CPP). It would not replace, say, Medicare or the need to expand things like drug and home care coverage under Medicare.

I agree that's how it would probably work. That's not how I understood some earlier comments though.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That should be kyriarchy

I don't assume that oppression of PWDs isn't also a consequence of oppression like gender or race. In fact, that's what the social model is about - is very similar to looking at race or gender inequality. I recognize that when a person has a disability, the oppressive factors are even moreso if they are also women and/ or trans or gay or lesbian and/ or non-white. It all has roots in patriarchy. Even still those are systemic barriers that society creates, that are not insurmountable or hopeless, and unlike disability they have not been named in this ruling as a reason one might seek assisted suicide. If they were there'd rightly be moral outrage by the public. Why not so in the instance of naming disability in the ruling? I suspect it's because of lack of awareness about the shift to the social model definition and how the old medical definition is entrenched in institutions and in attitudes - that having a disability makes one insufficient by default.. People with disabilities for most of history were not even considered human let alone equals and they are late to achieve human rights. They're the last 'rights movement' to be recognized.

 

[Mendalla]

I agree that's how it would probably work. That's not how I understood some earlier comments though.

I see @UnDefinitive has started a thread on it in Politics.

 

[Northwind]

It does mean the barriers they face are more difficult and complicated than the ones others don't have to face. PWDs are systemically oppressed. That means in every system in which they are unequal they are facing barriers. I don't assume you don't understand anything about PWDs, not by far, but you are getting offended by me challenging aspects of your perspective. Not my intention to offend you, Northwind.

PWD are not the only ones affected by systemic oppression. Barriers come in different forms. I am not offended that you are challenging me. I find it offensive that you would suggest that PWD are the only ones who legitimately suffer. That is taking a victim stance.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

PWD are not the only ones affected by systemic oppression. Barriers come in different forms. I am not offended that you are challenging me. I find it offensive that you would suggest that PWD are the only ones who legitimately suffer. That is taking a victim stance.

I have never said that! I realize others legitimately suffer, but when it comes to systemic discrimination, PWDs disproportionately suffer the effects of systemic barriers. Their concerns are politically under-represented and under-represented in all areas of the public sphere and under-represented or poorly depicted in the media for the most part. They have higher rates of poverty and higher rates of unemployment and underemployment. Transgendered people are a group that still suffers as much if not more discrimination but, comparatively, generally, PWDs have significantly higher levels of poverty and unemployment/ underemployment than people without disabilities (regardless of gender or ethnicity). That's not a victim stance that's a fact. And if people are victims of systemic discrimination, what's wrong with calling a spade a spade? It's bad. Why sugar coat it? We should be able to say it like it is, and that it is not acceptable.