A Bad Cripple Goes to NYC

Last month Joseph Fins invited me to talk at Weill Cornell Medical College where he is professor of Medical Ethics. I was somewhat surprised by his invitation. Fins is the past president of the American Society of Bioethics (ASBH), a Hastings Center Fellow, and a major figure in bioethics. Our dealings in the past had been testy. Let me correct that, I have been severely critical of Fins and others about the lack of interest and concern about disability access at ASBH meetings. Last Fall I sent Fins a blistering email and as President of the ASBH he was well within his rights to hit the delete button.  Much to his credit, Fins did not delete my email nor did he reply in kind. Instead he called me directly and suggested I become part of the ASBH Presidential Task Force on disability. He also asked me to come to his office for lunch prior to the ASBH meetings in Atlanta so we could discuss the lack of access at past ASBH meetings. A week later we participated in a meeting in Atlanta with many others interested in making the ASBH meetings accessible.  While the results have been meagre there is at least an on going dialogue for the first time. 

Simply put, Fins is a major player in bioethics. He is also a larger than life figure—a big gregarious man. If he is a room you will know he is present. I enjoy his company and respect his extensive scholarship in neuroscience and neuroethics. He reminds me of the many outstanding neurologists I was exposed to growing up on neurological wards of 16 morbidly sick kids. And oddly enough it turns out his father as well as mine worked in the lucrative world of advertising—real life Mad Men. 

I was surprised and delighted to be invited by Fins to talk to residents in the morning and faculty in the late afternoon. I was surprised because invitations like this are infrequent. I consider myself an engaged scholar—I work in my area of expertise, bioethics and disability studies, but act as a scholar and disability rights activist. I am for example on the board of Not Dead Yet and at the same time work and teach at Syracuse University in the honors program. My position in disability activism and academia is to a degree liminal. I am not a bioethicist. I am not a hard core activist. I am neither fish nor fowl and I am doing my best to establish a unique position. I suppose one could characterize me as a buffer that works in two mutually antagonistic fields. It helps that I have legitimacy in academia and disability rights. I am crippled—no way to ignore that. But I also have a PhD from a prestigious Ivy League university that gets my foot in the door. Most importantly, I think I can make a real contribution via the sort of talk Fins asked me to make. 

In the last year it has become clear to me that my work resonates in the health sciences—especially in teaching hospitals. Physicians know our health care system is failing people with a disability. They see first hand the over whelming effort made during critical care to save people’s lives. These lives are then lost or destroyed in the weeks and months that follow when the required long term social and physical supports are grossly inadequate. It must be gut wrenching to watch. Imagine treating a person after a traumatic spinal cord injury and taking them from the crisis of injury to medical stability. What a great victory. But the knowledge that this same person is given an ill fitting wheelchair, an inappropriate wheelchair cushion, and after two weeks of rehabilitation is sent to a nursing home at the age of 25. This social failure must break the hearts of all involved not to mention be soul crushing for the person who was injured and is trying as hard as humanly possible to reinvent them self.

I suspect Fins gets disability far more than his peers in medicine and bioethics Fins sees well beyond any given diagnosis and considers familial, social, and economic issues. If framed correctly, I can envision him incorporating a disability rights perspective that could improve the lives of people with a disability. Based on how Fins described his recent research and his forth coming Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury. Ethics, & The Struggle for Consciousness, his work has had a profound impact on his conception of disability. But I know something Fins does appreciate enough but will over time come to realize. We are treading into uncharted territory and mine fields abound. Incorporating a more nuanced discussion of disability in the health care setting, especially in medical education, is going to be an uphill battle. Great social skills are required as are an open mind, willingness to admit error, and the swift ability to accept change. All this is based on the premise of mutual respect. For my part, I am deferential to clinicians. I go out of my way to reassure them that I am not “in the trenches” nor do I make the life and death decisions they do. I am in short not here to second guess—a statement that prompts a veritable sigh of relief. Fins did the same thing with me and showed the respect that is too often absent in the life of a scholar with a disability. 

Fins went all out to make me feel welcome. The medical school picked up my expenses and Fins made sure I was escorted every where I went. He introduced me to people as his colleague and was gracious at every turn. In the morning I spoke to residents with Fins and two other scholars in a good sized auditorium.  We had a wonderful lunch at the faculty club and I got to spend some time with Kim Overby discussing her work. Kim was kind enough to show me where I was going to be speaking to faculty. To say I was more than a bit intimidated would be modest. My first thought was I am in way over my head. I half expected Obama and Putin to walk in the door with an entourage and discuss the crisis in the Ukraine. I was deep in the heart of power central. 

Rather than read my paper, “A Thick Description of the Atypical Body in the Health Care Setting”, I talked off the top of my head. I tried to accomplish three things: establish the devaluation of people with a disability that can and does result in unnecessary death. I suggested a Geertzian approach to patient care in the form of a thick description that could lead to greater enlightenment. I essentially argued medical knowledge takes one only so far, the webs of social significance of any given patient must be understood. Lastly I discussed the Tim Bowers case as an example of a life needlessly ended. I took strong exception to the reaction of most bioethicists—that Bowers asserted his autonomy and though his death was sad it was his choice to make. I tried to emphasize Bowers was given the illusion of choice and provided an overwhelmingly negative assessment of disability.

I think my talk went well. I am sure three people left the room clearly unhappy with my words--perhaps there were more.  While I am unsure how my words were received I have no doubt those that escorted me around were taken aback by how inaccessible the hospital was. Locked bathrooms abounded. Accessible entrances were blocked off. Getting from point A to point B required great thought and an obscure path of travel. As one would anticipate the more prestigious the location in the facility the greater the lack of access. The Faculty Club and Boardroom bathrooms were grossly inaccessible and gorgeous. Getting in and out of the building was a not easy either. The accessible entrance was blocked off after 5pm and required some creative maneuvering. It was one of those rare times needless obstacles actually made me happy. If my existence were truly valued I doubt bathrooms and entrances would be inconvenient or absent. This drove home an abstract quite effectively.  

The Return on Disability: A Capitalistic Profit Model I Approve of

In the last 25 years the statistics associated with unemployment and disability have not changed significantly. Between 66 and 70% of people with a disability are unemployed. These are grim numbers. The reasons for the shockingly high unemployment rates have been keenly debated. Businesses are loath to hire people with a disability. Years ago I had a student who was stunned by these numbers and wanted to do a fieldwork project. She proposed to go to the mall and ask the big national clothing stores, Gap, Banana Republic,  American Eagle, Ann Taylor, etc for a job application. She wore the same clothing and told the same background story each time. On one visit she would simply walk in the store and ask for an application. She got an application 99% of the time. She would return one week later wearing the same clothes but using a properly fitting wheelchair. She was not given one application. Every store told her they were not hiring. The point here is the social bias against hiring people with a disability is overwhelming.

The CBC report is not perfect. The focus was on people with cognitive issues rather than physical disabilities. Yet this flaw is not in fact a flaw at all. People with cognitive disabilities certainly encounter the greatest employment based bias. What amazes me is the lack of vision among business leaders. On the rare event I go to a retail store and am exposed to a disabled employee the odds of me providing repeat business are pretty much 100%  The odds of me recommending the store are also 100% It is so rare to see a disabled employee they provide the best sort of free marketing. And believe me the word gets around. The flaw as I see it is that hiring disabled employees is too often tied to a powerful executive with close ties to the disability community. This executive, usually a parent of a child with a disability, can put a hiring program in place for people with a disability. Long ago I recall the Home Depot hired many men and women with Down Syndrome. The sad reality is once this executive moves on all disabled employees end up getting fired.  The bottom line is that employees with a disability are almost universally superior to those who have no disability. Thus if businesses want to increase profit margins they should hire employees with a disability. One barrier needs to overcome--baseless bias.

On Comments and Hate

I have struggled in recent months. My struggles are not personal or professional. My struggle has been blog related. Bad Cripple is a labor of love. It is my effort to reach as wide an audience as humanly possible in an effort to promote and advocate for the civil rights of all people with a disability. Until recently I eagerly looked forward to comments made by people who read my posts. I no longer feel this way and have reluctantly begun to moderate all comments.

I have been subjected to an increasing amount of hate email. I have always gotten hate email--one of my first posts that took the cure industry to task promoted some nasty comments. Initially harsh comments surprised me.  Six hundred posts later I have developed a very thick skin. My skin is being severely tested these days. I am getting email and comments that goes well beyond nasty and can only be considered hateful.  Some of the hate email I get hits too close to home. I have created an archive of this email because I am worried. I am sure my concern is misplaced but as a professional worrier I cannot stop worrying.

Two groups of people appear to hate me. First, people with a disability, mostly those with a spinal cord injury,  that want to be cured. No procedure is too risky No operation could be classified as too dangerous. Money spent on ramps, elevators and wheelchair access is deemed a waste. A cure is around the corner. Cure and cure alone is the only worthy goal I am told. My advocacy for disability rights is perceived to be the product of bitterness. My critique of the cure industry enrages people whose sole focus is on a cure for spinal cord injury. These people do not want to hear about how inadequate modern day rehabilitation is. To them, rehabilitation is not needed because they will be cured. My words are despised as is my lack of interest in cure.

The second group of people that send hate email are the parents of children or adults with severe disabilities. I have been told repeatedly that I know nothing of their lives. Like those with a spinal cord injury, they want a cure above all else and at minimum appropriate social supports. They are emphatic on this point. There is no pride in disability. The very idea of disability pride is an affront. Disability these parents assert is terrible. Worse yet, the disability rights movement has left them behind. Disability rights scholars such as myself whose identity is positively linked to disability ignore their lives and suffering.

I will readily acknowledge I have a privileged body. I am independent. My autonomy in the traditional sense of the term has not been compromised by paralysis. Basically I can wipe  my own ass and have control of my bladder and bowels. I perform all my ADLs without assistance. Pain and many other typical post spinal cord injury related complications do not affect my life or work. I am well aware many, most in fact, people with a disability encounter far greater social and physical obstacles. As a parent,  I can only imagine what it is like to watch one's child with a disability suffer. I understand how hard it must be to see snow fall and know that for days if not weeks you will be stuck inside because snow removal is inadequate. I understand life in a nursing home is a terrible thing to endure. I understand poverty associated with disability can and does kill the human spirit. I understand chronic if not life long unemployment can lead one to believe their life has no value. I understand accessing the health care industry can be difficult and frightening. I understand respite care is grossly inadequate for those that provide total care for a disabled person. I understand the never ending fight for appropriate social support is draining in the extreme.

Believe me I get it. I have been thinking about disability for the last three decades. I advocate for myself of course. But my advocacy work and scholarship is dedicated to those that cannot fight for themselves. In short, I advocate for all people with a disability. I do this because it is the ethical thing to do. It is something I will spend the rest of my life doing.

The point of the above is to ask those that have a strong or even violent reaction to my work to please think before you send me an email or submit a comment. Please do not tell me that you hope my son will be paralyzed like Christopher Reeve. Do not tell me you hope my bothers and sisters all become disabled, develop a seizure disorder or dementia. Do not tell me my parents are ashamed of me or I am paralyzed for their past mortal sins. Please do not tell me I am the Anti-Christ. Please do not tell me I am filled with rage and hatred because I cannot walk. Please do not tell me you hope I am in  car crash and die a slow death on the side of the road. Do not wish my house burns down.  Do not curse me or tell me I am going to rot in hell for eternity. All these comments have been sent my way within the last two months.

What good can come from such comments? How can I possibly respond? Criticism I get. I am happy to engage others who disagree with me. I always learn something from those who hold opposing view points. In part this is why I loved the comment section of Bad Cripple. But what I really do not get is why. Why lash out at me? Perhaps these comments are indicative of post 9/11 American culture. Dissent has somehow morphed into a tawdry if not anti American enterprise. Those that oppose the status quo are unpatriotic and possibly dangerous. I know my words can be upsetting to others--others who have an entrenched and often antiquated conception of disability. I have no doubt those that embrace a charity or medical model of disability will not like my work. I know my words can be harsh. I have taken others to task--others with and without a disability. I take no joy in this and instead am trying to make a much larger point. I use the moniker Bad Cripple for good reason. I am bad because I am not willing to bow down to others. I am capable and willing to assert my civil rights awarded to me 23 years ago by the ADA. If I was black and the year was 1950 something I would be considered "uppity". Like historic figures in the civil rights movement I advocate equality for all.
Hence, I am on the side all people with a disability. I have made this choice knowing it will not make me popular. I can live with this.  What bothers me is the hate and venom that has been sent my way by others with a disability. I am on your side. I always will be.  Question me. Challenge me. But please do not hate me.  This is a waste of time and energy. Important work needs to be done to protect and advance the civil rights of people with a disability.  Hate is counter productive.

Stand Ins: Jennifer Johannesen and Others Without a Disability

I am routinely the only wheelchair user when I socialize with friends or meet with professional colleagues. I cannot help but be aware I am different--atypical. My experience as the sole cripple is a constant and takes a mental toll.  As Kermit the Frog would say "it's not east being green".  Green I am. Different I am. Apart I am. Excluded. Belittled. Demeaned. Welcome to my life. Does the fact my life is often perceived by others to be less valuable bother me? Absolutely. When I feel overwhelmed and socially isolated I stop and think. I force myself to acknowledge that I am very lucky. The vast majority of people with a disability encounter far more prejudice than I do--especially those with profound cognitive and physical disabilities. This approach helps but does not change the fact I am far too often alone. My difference is impossible to ignore.

I can only conclude that the vast majority of people without a disability are quite content to avoid me. I also know disability is feared. Well are the one minority group that can be joined instantly. An unsettling thought for sure and the source of much gallows humor among physicians in training. When it comes to disability separate is apparently equal in the estimation of people with no knowledge of disability.  Disability history is rife with exclusion in a myriad of forms. Atrocities in the form of death, unimaginable brutality, and horrific physical abuse are constant as well. This history, the dirty side of disability is not taught and largely unknown outside of disability studies. Few people not directly touched by disability want to talk about disability Jennifer Johannesen is an exception. Link: http://johannesen.ca/2014/02/i-thought-i-knew-everything-already-part-2/ In "I thought I Knew Everything Already (part 2)" she wrote:

 no one wants to deal with people with disabilities. In [Peace's] words, no one gives a shit. For many of us, it’s an uncomfortable experience to be in the presence of obvious difference, perceived vulnerability, awareness of societal failure. And more importantly, we don’t have the time or patience or interest to understand how they are impacted by our discomfort. We don’t want to know how society has failed them. Those who are angry or frustrated are especially easy to ignore.  

I am often placed in the "angry" category and am accordingly easily silences. Johannesen is correct in stating it easy to ignore angry people. No person without a disability wants to acknowledge they are part of a socio-cultural system that purposely excludes people with a disability and utterly fails to provide adequate social supports. But this is the world we live in.  The so called social safety net is in tatters, stripped to the bone. Worse yet people with a disability are hopelessly splintered. Deaf people advocate for qualified interpreters. I advocate for ramps and elevators. People who care for loved ones with profound disabilities advocate for social supports in the form of well trained and paid personal care workers. What is totally absent is a unified front. I cannot help but note the irony here--the medical model of disability is inadvertently used to splinter disability rights and advocacy.

Not all people that support disability rights have a disability.  People such as Jennifer support disability rights as do many others in and outside of academia. I find this support gratifying. Frankly, I will take support from one and all. I find Johannnesn's words fascinating as it highlights the individual toll and ethical conundrums that arise for a person without a disability that supports disability rights. Thus I found the following striking:

I think I am often invited to speak as a convenient stand-in – or I should say, I offer myself as a convenient stand-in – an articulate, dispassionate speaker without an axe to grind and who doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable...

I, on the other hand, am a quintessential good Canadian. My ease with speaking, the ‘tie it all up in a bow’ sort of way I summarize massively complex and nuanced ideas, the lightheartedness with which I can share adorable photos of Owen now that it’s all over – all of these things help make disability consumable and palatable. I now see my complicity in crafting an easy persona to suit public sensibilities. The audience and I can pat ourselves on the back for doing good work, and in the meantime Bill still can’t get in through the front door.

Consumable and palatable I am not. When I read those words I was stunned; enlightened but stunned. Johannesen is particularly insightful. I know there is a profound difference between use. My presence require work and thought because the world is not designed for people like me. I get that symbolically my presence alone carries weight. But the idea in an academic setting my presence makes others uncomfortable enabled the veritable light bulb to go off in my head. I suppose I just refuse to believe more than two decades after the ADA was passed into law I would have such an unsettling influence on others. This in part explains what took place at William and Hobart Smith last Fall when a conference ostensible about disability was no accessible. Link: http://badcripple.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-unexpected-humiliation-at-conference.html  Among the apologies I received from the organizers the most common word utilized  was mistake.  Did a "mistake" happen. No. No mere mistakes were made. To deem the lack of access and obvious lack of thought was no no mistake. To deem it a mere mistake negates the fact my civil rights violated. The college broke the law--federal law. If black participants were asked to enter through the "white only" door would this be deemed a mistake? Not a chance. It would cause outrage and be considered a gross violation of civil tights legislation. This connection was never made by the organizers--people supposedly concerned with disability rights issues.

Johannesson really hit the nail on the head. A person without a disability speaking about their experience caring for a child or adult with a disability is far more palatable. And what can Johannesen and others without a disability do? I do not know. This is an ethical dilemma I have never confronted. This dilemma has increased my already considerable respect for those without a disability who advocate for disability rights.  Thanks to Johannesen I better understand why many people without a disability identify themselves as such before they talk about disability. A comment in the past I felt was not necessary.

I have Icicles!

This is what I see when I walk out my door. I have icicles that go from my roof to the ground. A good eight foot long icicle.  As long as the water remains outside of my home I am a happy man.

Journalistic Ethics: An Addendum to the NYT Deconstruction

The day before the NYT article was published that I just took to task Mr. Mitton posted the below to his blog Death with Dignity. Link: http://dying-with-dignity.blogspot.com A hyper link to Mr. Mitton's blog was included in the NYT article. Eckholm however does not label the link or give url for the blog. I find this unacceptable given the fact the entire article relied on Compassion and Choices and the words of its president Barbara Coombs Lee. I am not at all surprised Compassion and Choices are now using and exploiting Mr. Mitton for their larger political goals--the passage of assisted suicide legislation. Read the below and explain how Compassion and Choices is the ethical organization it presents itself to be.


I find it amazing that within minutes of the New York Times posting my article online that Compassion and Choices glommed onto it like it was an article all about them! They are the very people/organization to turn their backs on me when I went to them for help in making my statement. They told me to go away and now they want to claim this article as theirs. No question this pisses me off! C&C’s Facebook post

In all fairness, they should have said on their Facebook post that Compassion and Choices decided to completely turn their backs on me and my situation! As soon as the news broke of dying with dignity in New Mexico, I started to research how it happened. It was a lawsuit brought on by C&C and the ACLU. My next step was to contact both. I had no problem getting in contact with C&C but I’ve not been able to make a dent getting through to the ACLU. I wanted to be someone that could do a little hell raising and speaking out about my situation before I pass.

I told them my plans of how I am not about to wait out the last moments of death before going, that I was going to go on my own terms. Though I qualify for hospice care, I am passing on it. The help that I would get from a hospice is something that I just won’t be needing. When I can no longer cook for myself, get up and down the stairs to my apartment, and/or use my Mac/software is when I am going to go, after eating a very nice last meal.

A couple days later I get a phone call from Pamela Mottola of C&C stating that in order for us to work together that I would have to agree that I would only starve myself to death as my form of dying!!! AYFKM!!!!

Everyone that I have told that story to, my friends who know me first show rage, then amazement and then end up laughing because of the insanity of it all! I am an ultimate foodie! I live to eat and food is about the most important thing in life. At least for me it is! To suggest that I starve myself to death is about the most bizarre and upsetting thing that I have had to deal with as far as this situation goes in a long, long time. It was truly an insult to me and I let Pamela know exactly this. The next day C&C quote “this effectively ends our relationship”. Yet minutes after the article comes out about me today, it is C&C that is trying to glom onto this article like it was about them.

Yes, they do serve a purpose. They helped New Mexico for sure. But it is not helpful for them to try to find puppets to die the way they demand the person die in order to get their help! That is EXACTLY what happened in my situation! No! This is a matter of choice! My choice! Not theirs! No one is going to be able to enforce their way of my dying my death. Not the State of Colorado and not Compassion and Choices.

Compassion and Choices turned their backs on me yet it was my face and my cat that was their last post on Facebook. They should have been fair about this and posted that they already were well aware of me! Now they ought to just keep it there and accept the flack the they might get.

NYT Bias: The Unethical Support for Assisted Suicide

A few days ago the New York Times published an article on its front page, “Aid in Dying Movement Takes Hold in Some States”, by Erik Eckholm. Link: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/us/easing-terminal-patients-path-to-death-legally.html?hp&_r=0 As an opponent of assisted suicide, I cringe when I read most articles published by the NYT that discuss end of life issues. I bemoan the lack of journalistic rigor, questionable ethics, and sloppy language used by Eckholm and many others who have published articles in the NYT on end of life issues. For the last week I tried to ignore what Eckholm had written. Yet I was and remain angry. I am not angry at Eckholm or the NYT. I am angry for the people who read this article and thought it was “fair”. There was nothing “fair” about this article. My anger does not stem from disagreement. I am happy to engage those I disagree with and do so on a regular basis. What angered me was how grossly one sided the article was. Those unfamiliar with the heated debate surrounding assisted suicide will completely miss the fact the article and author are grossly biased.  For instance, Eckholm wrote Compassion and Choices, the leading advocacy group for assisted suicide, believes “giving a fading patient the opportunity for a peaceful and dignified death is not suicide”. Out of context this appears to be a given. We all have the right to die with dignity. We want to insure people in their final hours have a peaceful death. We all want a compassionate end of life. We all care about the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill. We do not want these people to suffer. Eckholm presents assisted suicide as being about the milk of human kindness.

Stop the emotional gravy train. Think, really think about the implications of assisted suicide. Dig a little deeper, read a few articles by ethicists, and it will become very clear death is a complex subject. Few die at home surrounded by loved ones. Most people die in a hospital. Given this, the end of life issues cannot be constricted the individual level. Death is part of the health industrial complex. We do not die in a social vacuum. We die in institutions called hospitals or nursing homes. Articles such as the one by Eckholm rely heavily on the individual and anecdotal evidence to promote assisted suicide. Thus I balk when Eckholm presents  Compassion and Choices as the sole arbiter and advocate for a compassionate  and peaceful end of life. Those unfamiliar with Compassion and Choices and the complex issues families face when end of life approaches are easily swayed by emotion. Who could be opposed to good end of life care? Only religious zealots or bitter crippled people like me who want to impose their suffering on others (these words are often thrown in face). I am told “just because I made a decision to live my life with a disability does not mean others are capable or desire to the same thing”. Following this line of logic, I am a narcissist who does not care about human suffering. We all know people with a disability suffer. I am suffering. It is what we crippled people do. I do suffer but do so because of the deep stigma associated with disability. My “suffering” is socially created by ingrained disability based bias and bigotry. The sad fact is most people without a disability, and certainly the vast majority of those working in the health are system, cannot imagine my life and the life of all those with a disability is valued. We crippled people lead a good life in spite of the hostile social and physical environments we must navigate.

Eckholm and others who advocate for assisted suicide conveniently ignore the above. Eckholm follows a well worn script. They typically follow a three step process. First, quote an obscure religious leader who is opposed to assisted suicide. In this case Eckholm quotes  Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, NM who stated “the church teaches that life is sacred from conception through to natural death”. Conception nor natural death are not defined but the suggestion is such a notion is based on religious orthodoxy and not science.  In addition the Archbishop ominously foresees assisted suicide legislation could have “dangerous consequences”. These is no mention of a single non religious disability rights organizations that also points out the inherent dangers to assisted suicide legislation. Step two, find a person with a disability or someone facing the end of his or her life that can be exploited and used to push for assisted suicide. Paint a grim picture of this person’s perceived quality of life. In this case Eckholm used Robert Mitton, a man “with a failing heart”. Mr Mitton does not want to endure another brutally painful surgery. Colorful or overly emotional language is used to derail sober analysis. For example, Mr. Mitton was told by doctors “the only way to take care of this is to rip me open again and that’s not what I’m going to do”. Mr. Mitton, cue the melancholy music, wants to die in peace. Mr. Mitton believes a dignified death “should be a basic human right”. Step three, quote someone from Compassion and Choices. In this case it is the president of Compassion and Choices Barbara Coombs Lee who maintains “there is a quiet, constant demand all over the country for a right to die on one’s own terms”.  The conclusion is not hard to reach: who in their right mind could oppose assisted suicide? 

The emotional and anecdotal approach to end of life care or so called aid in dying is presented in a way that appears to be fair. The formula concocted and utilized by Eckholm and others does not permit a person such as myself or any disability rights groups for that matter to enter into the discussion. Systemic social analysis is effectively derailed. We crippled people, however, upend the legal and social band wagon. Our existence, an existence we value, causes too much discomfort. Worse, we people with a disability are articulate and organized. We point out in no uncertain terms that our lives are worth living. We point out all lives are worth living. We are not religious fanatics. We are merely human. We crippled people are human as are the elderly and terminally ill. I am human. Our bodies are different. As a result of our bodily difference, symbolically we represent a threat to others—typical others who fear death and disability. Let me tell you there is nothing to fear. We will all die. This is a given. Death is not a human right. Death is the fate all who are born will inevitably face. Human rights are about living. Living these days is not easy. Not when social supports for the disenfranchised are cut to the bone. It is not easy to live when food stamps are cut and too many people cannot afford to pay rent and eat. It is not easy to live when one cannot afford health care insurance or pay for prescribed medications. If we are going to have an emotional discussion let’s discuss why life is so hard for so many. Let’s discuss what drives a human being to believe their life has no value.