I've seen a lot of discourse on disability and assisted dying as Bill C-7 (amending medical assistance in dying (MAID) to remove the requirement to be near death) goes through Parliament. A lot of it has been advocacy against the bill based on disability concerns. 1/

My goal is not to challenge the experience of disabled people who share these concerns (summary: the extension of MAID will negatively impact disabled people since we are more marginalised and many of us suffer without being near death, thus pushing us towards MAID) 2/

Nor am I challenging the good intentions and sincerity of the belief of disabled people with that opinion. However, I do find it problematic and some points even a bit offensive. Before I explain why, another preface: I don't research MAID. 3/

I don't have extended knowledge on relevant data. My opinion is based on my personal experience, the experience of disabled friends and my education, including disability studies texts. I agree without reserve that the socio-economic situation of and the adequate access to ... 4/

health care by disabled people is abismal in Canada. There is also no doubt that the situation of BIPOC, queer, immigrant, etc, disabled people is worst (i.e. intersectionality). What I don't like and find troubling is equating this deplorable reality with a lack of agency. 5/

The medical system, and MAID especially, is built around measuring consent. The moment someone is able to consent (and thus understands their action), I don't think anyone else can deny that person agency. Can a disabled person decide to go through MAID in part ... 6/

because of their situation? It's quite possible, although I've yet to see actual proof of it. If it happens, it would be unfair for sure. But living a life of pain and suffering is at least equally as unfair, and for many people it is a fate worst than death. 7/

What I think is more unfair is to not have the option to get MAID because you are disabled but not at the "end of your life" (I have an issue with the expression since I think if you want MAID, you are at the end of your life, you decided so). It basically saying that ... 8/

because you are disabled and otherwise marginalised, you are incapable of making the decision to chose MAID; you have no agency in the matter. The state and disability organisations supporting this position know better. I find this position deeply paternalistic. 9/

I'm a bit offended by those who push the argument further by stating that not objecting to Bill C-7 in its current form is somehow a moral failure. I am in favour of extending MAID and this is based on my ethics and my morality. Maybe not yours, but that doesn't make me ... 10/

immoral. My voice--and those of others who share my views--as a disabled person is not less valuable. We can have disagreements, but this appeal to morality (as if it was objective) troubles me. This discourse affects me particularly because my disability is pain. 11/

I have a chronic pain disorder. It is not curable. I can only somewhat manage it. MAID is absolutely not on my mind, but if one day my pain becomes intolerable and I think my life is not worth living anymore, I want the option to end it with dignity and on my own terms. 12/

I want my agency to be respected and not others who do not know my experience to tell me what is best. We absolutely should also push for a better quality of life for disabled people. We can also work to have the best means of assessing content and capacity. 13/

But the current inequality of the system shouldn't be a reason to create another inequality by rendering MAID inaccessible to disabled people who meet the criteria except the unnecessary one of being near "natural" death. We can both extend MAID and work to improve our life. 14

Finally, some have said the gov should've appealed the decision instead of complying with it. There is no obligation to appeal. And I'm happy they didn't. Not just because I'm for the extension, but because the gov should not appeal when they agree with the reasoning ... 15/

or when they think it's pointless. There is no need to waist public funds just for the sake of appealing. That decision belongs to the gov & I'm happy we are moving away for the Harper style of automatically appealing everything. 16/16