Suggested citation:

Kelly, T. L. (1999). "A Life Worth Living: a Commentary on Marta Russell." (Unpublished graduate paper, Portland State University, May 1999). Portland, OR: Author.

Introduction

Before reading Marta Russell's book Beyond Ramps I thought that assisted suicide was mainly an issue concerning one's personal freedom to do as one chooses with one's life, or death. I saw it as a progressive liberal "right to choose" issue. But after reading Russell's work, I realize now that I must reconsider my view. Russell points out that assisted suicide as a sanctioned route out of the dominant socioeconomic paradigm, compliments a conservative political view that self-worth is a function of the economy. In effect, it is a symptom of the overall complex problem of economic terrorism. Russell argues in "Beyond Ramps" that the disabled are not only marginalized but invalidated in a paradigm that assumes that a person's self worth is measured only by their ability to generate capital. I am disabled and so I know what it's like to be marginalized. Yet, I have never associated that marginalization with economic terrorism, so I have concurrently held the view that some circumstances call for euthanasia and assisted suicide, if not only to relieve perceived burdens on the individual, but also to relieve perceived burdens on society and on the ecology of the planet due to over-population. I have at times considered my own disability an economic burden to myself and others, and have followed the logical argument that I am worth more dead than alive. But this argument is based on the view that disability is somehow all wrong while non-disability is somehow all right. Russell clearly points out that this view is skewed, citing that one in five have some sort of impairment that qualifies as disability. (Russell, p. 16) How do I reconcile my views on the value of euthanasia and assisted suicide with what I agree now with Russell about economic terrorism and the skewed logic of what constitutes normalcy? I will explore these conflicts in this paper, and suggest a possible point of reconciliation.

Economic Terrorism

Economic terrorism occurs when the worth and vitality of cash flow in a society is placed above the worth and vitality of the life of any one individual in that society. When we sanction assisted suicide as a valid option for an individual whose motives are in part or in whole to relieve society of the economic burden of their care, that is economic terrorism. When we sanction pulling the plug on life support systems for an individual whose primary burden is economic, whether that burden rests on society or a few family members, that is economic terrorism. These acts are economic terrorism because in an ideal economic setting for that individual, he or she might not make the choice to die. For example, Larry McAfee, who was made paraplegic and dependent on a respirator after a motorcycle accident, petitioned the courts for the right to die after his care degraded to the point where he perceived his life as not worth living. His view was based on the quality of care he was able to afford. On the other hand, Christopher Reeves, who was also made paraplegic and dependent on a respirator after an accident, and who has a lot of money at his disposal, enjoys his life in spite if his disability because the quality of his care and thus the quality of his life is substantially greater than anything McAfee can afford. Russell argues successfully that the only difference between these two people is money. It follows that assisted suicide and euthanasia is most often a decision based on the debilitating burden of economic terrorism.

A Life Worth Living

I have held the view that someone who faces a life of debilitating physical pain and suffering, whether due to disability or disease, should be allowed to choose death. I also held the view that part of the solution to chronic over-population of the planet, which results in so many other problems we face, is to allow for voluntary instances of euthanasia. However, my beliefs are grounded in ethereal idealism and not on any facts presented or perceived - I am simply trying to come up with simple all-encompassing solutions to huge complex problems. Perhaps that is the key to why we don't solve these problems very well - because we keep attacking them with simplistic quick-fix solutions that, in the long run, invalidate the very humanity they profess to preserve. By process of elimination in asking myself the tough questions about where these problems come from, I come to the conclusion that we are trying to measure what constitutes a life worth living. If that is the problem, then we are attempting to put the cart before the horse in our solution, by concentrating on "mercy killing" rather than working on elevating the quality of life for everyone. If economic resources are targetted to this long-term effort rather than to quick-fix solutions that only put band-aids on the problem but never cure it, then we'd have spent our money well. (However, it seems this is also an idealistic view - which brings me back to the beginning of the problem - thinking only in idealistic terms.)

Changing the Way We Think

Russell suggests that we must change the way we think about "ability" and "disability" before we can solve the problems inherent in quality of care of disabled individuals. We must learn to see "disability" as having worth in and of itself, and not perceive individuals with disabilities as only having worth in spite of the disability. However, Thomas Kuhn asserts in his renowned theory of paradigm shifts that it is impossible for designated groups of people to reconcile their views if they are entrenched in different paradigms, except through revolution. (Kuhn, 1996) This theory permeates most educational theories of the 20th century. In effect, there is no way for the paradigm Russell suggests to reconcile with the existing dominant paradigm about disability unless there is a revolutionary shift in thinking. How can this revolutionary shift occur, in light of the problems that make assisted suicide and euthanasia so enticing as quick fixes to rid the planet of perceived burdens? Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts is not the only view there is, despite its widespread popularity on several fronts. Karl R. Popper, for one, challenges this "myth of the framework", i.e. the idea that two people can reach agreement only if they already accept the same framework (or paradigm), and therefore that changing from one framework to another cannot be a rational (or, in practice, non-violent) process. (Popper, 1996) He finds that it is possible for two paradigms to reshape their parameters around perceived relationships in thinking - relationships, as opposed to similarities, which Kuhn's theory requires. Relationships are different from similarities in that they form bridges of thinking without necessarily resembling each other. The key is to find the points of logical connection. Russell asserts that a paradigm shift needs to occur along these lines, but does not suggest how it might occur.

Conclusion

Is one of the main blocks to character development in children a poverty of challenges? In other words, we spend so much time shielding our children from pain and suffering, that they never develop those vital components of character and strength that only come from engaging pain and suffering. This practice of protecting children can result in young adults with no or little conscience, which is formed in part by engaging real challenges and struggles. We have seen lately the tragic consequences of children with little or no conscience randomly killing crowds of students and/or their parents. How did these kids grow up to have so little regard for human life? Perhaps they have never had the experience of overcoming seemingly impossible odds, or experienced the humility of struggling with tasks perceived as simple to the "normal" population, as the disabled do nearly every day of their lives. Those who are disabled in body or mind have a sort of character health that is missing in some "normal" populations. The importance of the development of "character health" is a possible point of connection between the paradigm of normalcy and the paradigm of disability, for the disabled as a population in this equation are perhaps more "healthy" in this respect. Raising the awareness of character health might be a step toward reconciling the perception of the disabled and the healthy. With that connection made, raising the quality of life for most (if not all) is a logical segue. The value of a life which brings the wisdom of character development is on par with the life of one who exemplifies physical and mental health. This is still a relatively simplistic approach, but it is a start for further development of a measure of "a life worth living."

References

Russell, Marta. 1998. Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract. Common Courage Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd Ed. University of Chicago Press.

Popper, Karl. R. 1996. The Myth of the Framework. Routledge.