The Difference with Differences

A few things have happened in the past few days that have reminded me how important it is that we all be witnesses in our everyday lives to our Catholic and Christian faith.

I was speaking to a person I consider to be a very strong, moral and ethical person today, but then he said something that caught me off guard. We were speaking about another person I'd just met, and he was giving me some background. He told me the person's daughter had Down's Syndrome and then said "and that's a bigger burden than anyone should have to carry. Poor guy."

I was so shocked, I didn't say anything. And by the time I recovered, we'd moved on in the conversation and I didn't feel up to bringing it back up. So now I'm blogging about it. Don't get me wrong- I know that the attitude society promotes is that people with disabilities are somehow less human or less worthy of life, but I'm shocked when people I respect say things like that.

Why is it "poor guy"? Why is it such a "burden"? Why is it a burden no one should have to carry? Doesn't he see the implication in his speech- that the daughter would be better off dead? I don't understand. I know that raising a child with a disability is not easy, but I don't think raising any child is easy. A disability might create more challenges, but it also has the potential for great blessings. I don't have a lot of experience with people who have Down's, but what I've seen is people who are more human, loving and caring than the vast majority of this world (myself included.) What do you say when people say things like that?

This brings me to the other recent experience- the area I am living and working in has a lot of immigrants, and these immigrants are visible minorities. Before I moved here I was aware that there are tensions as a result, but I can't help but wonder in the last few days if those tensions are excacberated by people's conduct.

I've noticed that when these immigrants (many of whom are now Canadian citizens, or at least permanent residents) deal with others, they are looked down upon as being unintelligent. I don't think they are- they don't always speak English well, but that doesn't make them stupid. And yet, people assume that because they don't speak English, they must be idiots, and they speak down to them, role their eyes or avoid dealing with them all together. And I see the frustration on the faces of these immigrants who are just trying to get though each day.

I can't imagine how scary and difficult it would be to leave my country and move to another one where, not only do I not speak the language, but I look like an outsider. I got a small taste of that in Italy this summer-I don't speak Italian and I'm so pale that I just screamed tourist and it was hard- and most people there wanted to help me.

Here, people seem to go out of their way to make things difficult for these immigrants. For example, I've seen people be denied appointments, or forced to come back 3 or 4 times because they didn't understand, yet if they spoke better English, someone would take the time to explain it for them.

Maybe the worst was a comment I heard today- "yeah he's Chinese, but his English is pretty good, so there's no reason to not help him."

To me this is the same attitude as the attitude towards people with disabilities. We are all human- equal in dignity and deserving of respect by virture of that inate dignity. Yes, some people are more work to deal with than others, but if we are all children of God, we should do the extra work, and be happy to do it.

If we call ourselves Christians, should our lives not be a witness of His gospel? We need to be Christ to each other, and we need to stop seeing everyone as other and start seeing everyone as our neighbor.

And maybe if we can do that, we can reverse this culture of death we seem to be spiraling further and further into.

Judicial Activism Strikes a Second Time in Montana

Last December, a Montana District Court judge legalized assisted suicide in the state of Montana. (See my post on that here.) On Wednesday, the same judge refused to issue a stay of the decision pending the outcome of an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. (A stay would prevent the decision from coming into effect until the appeal was decided on.) The Attorney General for Montana requested that the decision be suspended pending appeal. (See story here.)

However, traditionally in the court system, controversial decisions are stayed until the higher court makes a decision on it. By ignoring that, Judge Dorothy McCarter is deciding that she has the right to force on Montanan's whatever she wants, irrespective of precedent or the rule of law. The people of Montana have not voted to legalize assisted suicide, and the elected legislature has not passed a law permitting assisted suicide- this one woman had made that decision for the entire state! If that doesn't smack of judicial activism, what does?

So, as of last Wednesday, the people of Montana have a "right" to assisted suicide. These are dark, dark days for Montana. Unlike Oregon and Washington who can at least claim to have some safeguards to protect vulnerable people (though we know how well those work) this decision by Judge McCarter provides for no safeguards, no process by which they can even claim to attempt to protect vulnerable people. Until and unless the Montana Supreme court throws out this decision, the elderly and persons with disabilities in Montana are in great danger from their doctors and even their families. If you are tired of dealing with Mom's dementia, and convince her doctor (or, her doctor convinces you) Mom can be put down like a dog, thanks to Judge McCarter. No one can ask any questions about why it happened, or if Mom even requested it, because according to Baxter v. Montana, physician assisted suicide is legal. Feeling the pinch of the recession, and tired of waiting for your inheritance and Dad lives in Montana? No problem, just have the doctor do away with Dad and that inheritance is yours, courtesy of Judge McCarter and Baxter v. Montana. Maybe you don't have a desire to see the vulnerable members of your family killed, but are you sure about your doctor?

I am sure that some of you who just read that paragraph are now thinking I am, at the very least exaggerating and very possibly just trying to stir up the pot. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These sorts of things happen routinely in jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide (and even in jurisdictions that haven't.) It was reported yesterday that Martin Ryan was starved to death over 26 days while staying in a hospital. Oh, and he had Down's syndrome. In the UK a few weeks ago, two paramedics responded to the equivalent of a 911 call from Barry Baker having a heart attack. Mr. Baker was also disabled. He collapsed before they arrived, but the line to the 911 service was still recording. That tape picked up the paramedics saying that he was "not worth saving." They decided (and remember, this was recorded) that they would just tell the hospital he was dead when they arrived.

We in the Western world live in a society where the culture of death reigns supreme. Judge McCarter's actions show that she is a member of the culture of death and will do whatever is necessary, even defying tradition and precedent to ensure her ideology wins out. That is not the role of the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law made by the duly elected legislature/parliament/commons/congress of the land. They are not to make law, and yet that is exactly what Judge McCarter has done.

The deaths that will come in Montana as a result of her decision are directly attributable to her, but she will face no consequences here on Earth for it. Instead she will be, and is being, lauded for her bold and courageous decision.

What a sick, sick world.

H/t to Disability Matters and Secondhand Smoke

Valley View Centre

I began today feeling like I was back in kindergarten because we were going on a field trip. I'd mocked the trip, and tried to think up a dozen ways to get out if it so I wouldn't have to waste my Friday. But in the end, I could come up with no compelling excuse not to go, so like a good little student I showed up at 7:30 this morning to embark on a trip to Moose Jaw. And I'm glad I did.

While I could say a lot about my Law and Disability class (and I have) it has been a really good class to get me thinking and considering ideas and viewpoints I've never considered before, especially around the area of disability. It, more than any other class I've taken at law school has made me re-evaluate how I view others, and to broaden my understanding of being "pro-life." Our field trip today was to the Valley View Center in Moose Jaw, SK. The VVC is one of the few remaining institutional care homes left in Canada for persons with cognitive disabilities. See the Saskatchewan Government Fact Sheet here.

As we approached the facility, I had no idea what to expect; my prof hadn't told us much about the facility, except to mention that there was controversy over its very existence. Some organizations want nothing more than to see it shut down because they view any form of institutional living as a violation of human rights. The Friends of Valley View want to keep it open, and the reason my prof gave was because it is home to the residents who live there, and moving somewhere else would be traumatizing to them.

We were told at the very start of the visit that the VVC allows very few visitors in because it is the home of the residents, and just as you and I wouldn't want a bunch of strangers to suddenly walk into our home, they wouldn't want it either. That really hit home to me. They broke us up into groups of two or three to see the facility, and I was amazed by it. As the staff member who showed me around pointed out, the VVC is its own little community with every service you could imagine available on site for the benefits of the residents; a doctor's office, dentist, even a barber shop/beauty salon.

What stood out to me as we saw VVC was, first, just how big the place was. Currently there are just under 250 residents, but at its peak the VVC was home to over 1400 people. However, all the residents I met seemed very happy and very content. The people who work at the VVC are very friendly, and obviously care a lot for the residents. As we walked around, we were told of the huge culture shift the VVC has undergone, even in the last few decades. The current model and vision statement is "living life to the fullest," and based on what I saw, the VVC is doing a wonderful job of that. They are trying to make the place a home, not an institution, despite the solid concrete walls everywhere. The homes have been personalized with photos and drawings, and they are currently preparing for Christmas by decorating. It seemed like every second verbal resident I met was asking about when the Christmas Party was- it seems to be the event on the social calendar that everyone is looking forward to.

Leaving the VVC, I don't have a problem with the institution being open. The people who live there are cared for and loved, and the people who work there genuinely seem to enjoy their jobs. And I can certainly see the argument of the Friends of Valley View that it is a home for people, and it's not right to take that from them. But I also understand the other side; our culture has shifted, and we no longer believe that institutionalizing people is the best way to do things. Living in the community is better for all involved. My prof called the current situation a "détente"- neither side is really talking about the other side, and the idea at present seems to be let everyone who lives there be, but no new residents will be accepted. That means in a few decades the centre will close, simply because there are no more residents left.

I found myself thinking about the centre, and people with intellectual disabilities specifically on the ride home. While there is definitely an economic argument to made for institutional living, an economic argument can also be made for group home living as well. But economics isn't everything, and I think that as the culture of death continues to pervade this world, we need to have people with disabilities living and working in the greater community just so we can all learn that they are people as well, people who deserve the full protection of human rights. When we talk about assisted suicide and euthanasia, and also the termination of unborn children with "defects" we are talking about discrimination on the basis of disability. The more that people interact with people with disabilities of all types, the better equipped we will all be to be citizens. People with disabilities are no more different from "normal" people than black people are from white people, or women are from men. Yes, there are differences in our abilities, but we all have something to offer to the world, and we should all be allowed to offer it to the world. No one should be hidden away because they are "different," but at the same time, we have to make accommodations for the differences to enable everyone to live the fullest life they can. Funny, that's also the VVC's vision statement. In a perfect world, the residents of the VVC wouldn't have to live there to get the love and care they do; it's something we would all provide in the greater society as a whole.

Too bad the whole culture of death and viewing people as burdens gets in the way.

The Positives of the Election

I decided to look at the election results from a new perspective this morning and be positive about them. However, after looking at them all day, I'm afraid I can't be positive. The cause of life lost yesterday. Not only in the presidential, senate and congress races, but also in the ballot measures. (Aside for the 4 family victories, there's not much to be positive about.) Americans seem to have soundly rejected life.

Washington passed I-1000 which legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Supposedly only for those with a terminal illness and less than 6 months to live, but if Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland are any indication it won't remain that way.) The truly scary thing about I-1000 that goes further than Oregon and actually requires the doctor who prescribes assisted suicide to state the underlying illness was the cause of death. Read it here yourself. Washington State now has the dubious distinction of becoming the 4^th place in the world to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. Washington is no longer a safe place to be elderly, disabled, have a terminal illness or suffer a serious accident.

Michigan approved Prop 2 which allows the unrestricted and unregulated destruction of human embryos for experimental purposes. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, 50 million humans have been aborted. How many more have died as lab experiments or in the In-Vitro process, let alone by the pill? How many more will now die in Michigan?

In California, Sarah's Law (Prop 2) which would have required parents to be notified 48h before their underage daughter had an abortion failed. The purpose of this law was to catch predators that were using abortions to cover up the rape of young girls.

In South Dakota, a measure to ban abortion failed.

In Colorado, an attempt to define personhood beginning at conception failed.

Not only that, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has a 0% pro-life record.

And to top it all off, Catholics helped Obama to win.

Chilling Class

In reading about euthanasia, especially the Latimer decision, what has always stuck out to me is how quickly people sympathize with Robert Latimer and ignore Tracy Latimer. (For anyone not familiar with the case, Tracy was Robert's 12 year old daughter who suffered from cerebral palsy. He killed her to "end her suffering" by piping carbon monoxide into the cab of his truck, and was convicted of 2^nd degree murder). See here to read the case. However, I have never really discussed the case with anyone who wasn't anti-euthanasia.

Until today.

In Disability and the Law.

With 18 law students.

Who will eventually be in the position to shape policy and legislation and maybe even interpret the law.

And all I can say is that I was chilled by the absolute callousness of the discussion. Nobody wanted to judge what Robert Latimer did. One said that he couldn't begin to imagine how hard the decision must have been, and that he was sure Latimer only did it out of love. Another said that the case left out an essential fact; that "Tracy was suffering unbearably and her parents tried to get help for her, but no one would give it." This is a law student, who presumably read the case, and the article we were discussing. In that, it was quite clear that Tracey's parents viewed further surgeries, which would have eased her pain, to be mutilations they couldn't support. But yeah, the essential fact that there was nothing anyone could do to ease her suffering was left out. Grrr! Selective reading anyone?

And no one wanted to talk about it from Tracey's perspective. I find that interesting, because in the very first class of the year, the professor mentioned that one of the things that hurts people with disabilities the most is the fact that they suffer from "benign neglect." That is, we make policies and decisions based on able-bodied persons without thinking of the impacts on persons with disabilities. And he encouraged us always consider what the impact of a decision is on people with disabilities. But apparently we don't have to do that when we are talking about euthanizing persons with disabilities because they aren't autonomous and able to consent. I'm not making this up!

One of the things we are taught in law school is that we need to open our minds to consider all elements of the issue, right from the basics, but in this class, everyone just assumed that there is such a thing as a "life unworthy of living." In fact, several people used that exact phrase to discuss the Latimer and Rodriguez cases, and the euthanasia/assisted suicide debate in general. And yet, doesn't that phrase implicitly assume its premise; the very thing we are taught not to do?

These are the same people who dismissed the Hendin and Foley (106 Mich. L. Rev. 1613 2007-2008) report on Assisted Suicide in Oregon as "completely biased." Apparently Hendin and Foley are wrong to advocate for palliative care because that assumes everyone wants palliative care, and don't really want to die.

These are the same people who spent 15 minutes discussing whether suicide can actually be the "logical, reasoned and rational choice." We had to ask this because, as lawyers we have to start from the basics and question everything. They analogized choosing suicide to choosing to refuse treatment.

These are the same people who agreed the Supreme Court of Canada is a conservative institution because of the elites who are appointed to it, and believe that the courts judgments reflect how society used to be, not how it is today.

I could go on about this, but you get the idea. I was absolutely horrified by the entire discussion, even more so when I remembered that these are the people who will help you draft your will, power of attorney and advanced health directive. These are the people who will run for and win political office at all levels of government. These are the people who will become civil servants and draft legislation. These are the people who will be appointed to the bench to interpret the law.

Is anyone else chilled by this?

Fallacy of the Living Tree

I spent today working on my major paper (in Law and Disability) on the topic of euthanasia of disabled infants and children, and I can't help but feel depressed by the relativism our society has embraced. I've read chilling journal articles that argue infants with disabilities should not live because their lives are not worth living. They are "damaged" and "different" and "not normal." The children's doctors and parents are choosing to "end the suffering" by actively or passively euthanizing these children. That is murder- infanticide, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Instead, some countries, like the Netherlands, have passed, or are considering passing laws, that allow for children to be euthanized because their lives will be full of pain and suffering. These types of laws generally follow after euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized.

Thankfully, Canada has not legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide. In the Rodriguez [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 decision, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, denied the right to assisted suicide to Sue Rodriguez. The majority's main concern was the public policy issues it raised, and the slippery slope arguments. However, that was 15 years ago. The composition of the court has changed, and I fear that if the right test case was brought before the court, that decision would be reversed, and euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada would be legalized. Jocelyn Downey, the Canada Research Chair on Health Law, has stated publicly that she is looking for the next Rodriguez to attempt to overturn the criminal code provisions against assisted suicide.

This brings me to the point of this entry. I find it incredibly frustrating that once an issue is decided, our legal system allows it to be continually looked at, and the Supreme Court has the power to overturn previous decisions on essentially a whim. What gives them that power? Our constitution apparently. The court claims they have the right to interpret the laws passed by our elected Parliament. This is to prevent antiquated laws, which violated modern social mores and norms, from holding Canada back. This is referred to as the living tree doctrine, and the court uses it regularly to overturn the common law, and laws crafted by Parliament. The idea is that the constitution should be read in a purposive way, allowing it to change with the times.

This means that no matter how many times an issue comes before the court, it is always open to them to redefine the issue so it fits in with what they see as the modern understanding. So, notwithstanding that precedent set in Rodriguez, a Supreme Court today could rule in the opposite direction. No matter how many precedents there are, the court is free to overturn the current law. Can anyone say relativism??? It also depresses me. We can work hard to prevent the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in case after case, but even if we defeat it 100 times, the 101st time, it's open to the court to look at the constitutional question and say we should use the living tree doctrine.

And yet, even if that's true, we have a duty to fight the good fight in every case, and to put forward the best possible argument no matter what, because if nothing else, history shows us that once something becomes legal, it becomes even harder to root out. Funny how the court never uses the living tree doctrine for then.