Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-sglwb Total loading time: 0.411 Render date: 2021-04-20T21:27:52.548Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Susan M. Behuniak
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Le Moyne College, 1419 Salt Springs Road, Syracuse, NY 13214. behuniak@lemoyne.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Brief of Respondents, Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
2. Brief Amici Curiae of Bioethicists, Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
3. “Facts about a death with dignity: policy and people living with disabilities,” Compassion & Choices, http://www.compassionandchoices.org, accessed March 21, 2010.Google Scholar
4. “What the disability rights movement wants,” Not Dead Yet blog, http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/drmwants0305.html, accessed March 21, 2010.Google Scholar
5. “Why disability rights activists oppose physician assisted suide,” Ragged Edge Online, January 18, 2006, http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/closerlook/000749.html, accessed September 2, 2011.Google Scholar
6. Fadim, Pamela, Minkler, Meredith, and Perry, Martha, “Attitudes of people with disabilities toward physician assisted suicide legislation: Broadening the dialogue,” Journal of Health, Policy and Law, 2003, 28(6): 9771001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Rochefort, David A. and Cobb, Roger W., eds, The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994).Google Scholar
8. Stone, Deborah, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, rev ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002).Google Scholar
9. Ginsburg, Faye D., Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar
10. Jacobs, Andrew M., “The right to die movement in Washington: Rhetoric and the creation of rights,” Howard Law Journal, 1993, 36: 185214.Google Scholar
11. Marker, Rita L and Smith, Wesley J., “The art of verbal engineering,” Duquesne Law Review, 1996, 25: 81107.Google Scholar
12. “End of life language choices matters: It's ‘aid in dying,’ not ‘assisted suicide,”’ Compassion & Choices fact sheet, http://www.compassionandchoices.org, accessed March 21, 2010.Google Scholar
13. Goebel, Brian C., “Who decides if there is ‘triumph in the ultimate agony?’ Constitutional theory and the emerging right to die with dignity,” William & Mary Law Review, 1996, 37: 827901.Google Scholar
14. Baxter, Robert, Supplemental Affidavit, Baxter v. Montana, June 28, 2008.Google Scholar
15. Baxter v. Montana , 1st Jud. Dist. Ct, Montana, ADV 2007–787, December 5, 2008.Google Scholar
16. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
17. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
18. Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz , 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977).Google Scholar
19. Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 133 (1973).Google Scholar
20. Compassion In Dying v. Washington , 79 F3d 790 (1996), at 813–814.Google Scholar
21. Washington v. Glucksberg , 512 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
22. Vacco v. Quill , 512 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
23. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct, Montana, ADV 2007-787 (2008).Google Scholar
24. Baxter v. Montana , 354 Mont. 234 (2009).Google Scholar
25. Derse, Arthur R., “Is there a lingua franca for bioethics at the end of life?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2000, 28: 279284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Gentzler, Jyl, “What is a death with dignity?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2003, 28: 461487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Goldberg, Michael, “Against acting ‘humanely,”’ Mercer Law Review, 2007, 58: 899918.Google Scholar
28. Caplan, Arthur L., “Dignity is a social construct,” December 24, 2003, British Medical Journal, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7429/1419#51703, accessed January 21, 2010.Google Scholar
29. Shepherd, Lois, “Dignity and autonomy after Washington v. Glucksberg: An essay about abortion, death, and crime,” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1998, 7: 431466.Google Scholar
30. Pullman, Daryl, “Human dignity and the ethics and aesthetics of pain and suffering,” Theoretical Medicine, 2002, 23: 7594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Behuniak, Susan M. and Svenson, Arthur G., Physician Assisted Suicide: The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Issue (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar
32. Ackerman, Felicia, “Assisted suicide, terminal illness, severe disability, and the double standard,” in Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate, Battin, Margaret P., Rhodes, Rosamond, and Silvers, Anita, eds (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 149161.Google Scholar
33. Milner, Julie Levinsohn, “Dignity or death row: Are death row rights to die diminished? A comparison of the right to die for the terminally ill and the terminally sedated,” New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 1998, 24: 279337.Google Scholar
34. Campbell, Courtney S., “Suffering, compassion, and dignity in dying,” Duquesne Law Review, 1996, 35: 109124.Google Scholar
35. Reitman, James S., “The debate on assisted suicide: Redefining morally appropriate care for people with intractable suffering,” Issues in Law & Medicine, 1995, 11: 299330.Google Scholar
36. Ramsey, Paul, “The indignity of ‘death with dignity,”’ The Hastings Center Report, 1974, 2: 4762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Nuland, Sherwin B., How We Die: Reflections on Life's Final Chapter (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), pp. xvixvii.Google Scholar
38. Agrawal, Manish and Emanuel, Ezekiel J., “Death and dignity: Dogma disputed,” The Lancet, 2002, 360: 19971998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Allmark, Peter, “Death with dignity,” Journal of Medical Ethics, 2002, 28: 255257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, “Language and reality at the end of life,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2000, 28, 3: 267278.Google Scholar
41. Giannet, Stanley M., “Dignity is a moral imperative,” British Medical Journal, 2003, 327: 14191420.Google Scholar
42. Dworkin, Ronald, Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Vintage Books, 1993).Google Scholar
43. Macklin, Ruth, “Dignity is a useless concept,” British Medical Journal, 2003, 327: 14191420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Bastian, Hilda, “An offensive slogan,” British Medical Journal, 2003, 327: 14191420.Google Scholar
45. Proulx, Kathryn and Jacelon, Cynthia. “Dying with dignity: The good patient versus the good death,” American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine, 2004, 21: 116120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Tucker, Kathryn L., “Advocacy for social change: Improving care and expanding options at the end of life,” Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 2002, 19: 163174.Google Scholar
47. Compassion in Dying v. Washington , 79 F.3d 790 (2006).Google Scholar
48. Coleman, Diane, “Disability activists criticize administration and Supreme Court on Gonzalez ruling,” Not Dead Yet press release, January 17, 2006, http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/gonzalessupctrulingpr.html, accessed December 30, 2008.Google Scholar
49. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).Google Scholar
50. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 19 F.3d 790 (2006).Google Scholar
51. Mikochik, Stephen L., “Assisted suicide and disabled people,” DePaul Law Review, 1996–97, 46: 9871002.Google Scholar
52. Neumann, Ann, “Jill Stanek and Not Dead Yet shake their fingers at me, I respond,” February 19, 2010, http://otherspoon.blogspot.com/2010/02/jill-stanek-and-not-dead-yet-shake.html, accessed September 6, 2010.Google Scholar
53. Siegel, Mark C., “Lethal pity: The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, its implications for the disabled, and the struggle for equality in an able-bodied world,” Law & Inequality, 1998, 16: 259288.Google Scholar
54. Not Dead Yet News Commentary, http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com, accessed September 2, 2011.Google Scholar
55. Coleman, Diane, “Assisted suicide and disability: Another perspective,” Human Rights Magazine, winter 2000, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_winter00humanrights_colemand.html, accessed December 30, 2008.Google Scholar
56. Brief Amici Curiae of Not Dead Yet et al., Vacco v. Quill , 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
57. Lewis, Clair, “Disabled people need assistance to live, not die,” February 26, 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/clair-lewis-disabled-people-need-assistance-to-live-not-die-1911313.html, accessed March 17, 2010.Google Scholar
58. Griswold v. Conneticut , 381 US. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
59. Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U.S. 438 (1972).Google Scholar
60. Baird v. Belotti , 443 U.S. 622 (1979).Google Scholar
61. Brief of Respondents, Vacco v. Quill , 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
62. Coleman, Diane, “Testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives,” April 9, 1996, http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/house1.html, accessed December 30, 2008.Google Scholar
63. Miller, Paul Steven, “The impact of assisted suicide on persons with disabilities: Is it a right without freedom?” 1993, Issues in Law & Medicine, 9(1): 4762.Google Scholar
64. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct, Montana, ADV 2007-787 (2008).Google Scholar
65. Wendell, Susan, “Toward a feminist theory of disability,” Hypatia, 1989, 4: 104124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Corbet, Barry, “Physician assisted death: Are we asking the right questions?” New Mobility, May 2003, http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/pad.html, accessed December 30, 2008.Google Scholar
67. Johnson, Harriet McBride, Too Late to Die Young: Nearly True Tales from a Life (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005).Google Scholar
68. Marker, Rita L. and Smith, Wesley J., “The art of verbal engineering,” Duquesne Law Review, 1996, 25: 81107.Google Scholar
69. “Characteristics and end-of-life care of 525 DWDA patients who died after ingesting a lethal dose of medication as of January 7, 2011, by year, Oregon, 1998–2010” (table 1), Oregon Public Health Division, http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/yr13-tbl-1.pdf, accessed September 2, 2011.Google Scholar
70. “End of life concerns of the participants of the Death with Dignity Act in 2009 who died” (table 3), February 3, 2010, Washington State Department of Health, http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/DWDA_2009.pdf, accessed September 6, 2010.Google Scholar
71. Peace, Bill, “Assisted suicide in Washington: The death toll 36,” March 6 2010, http://badcripple.blogspot.com/2010/03/assisted-suicide-in-washington-death.html, accessed March 21, 2010.Google Scholar
72. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 188 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *