Not a Pretty situation
Assisted suicide, euthenasia, mercy killing, call it what you will - it's been in the news a lot recently, notably with the case of Diane Pretty. This article details Red Disability's view on the issue, which is not necessarily that of the disability rights movement as a whole.
It is certainly true that there has been a lot of patronising and downright disabled-ist, and often hypocritical, bilge streaming from the media on this issue. They wail about the quality of life of certain people with disabilities - totally ignoring the fact that it is not the disability, but capitalist society's intolerance of disability, which reduces our quality of life. They also seem to be encouraging people with disabilities and illnesses to take their own life, implying that it is a sensible move for disabled people whereas it is considered abhorrent when a non-disabled person takes his/her own life. In a lot of ways, the implication is that the life of a disabled person is worth less than that of a non-disabled person - compare and contrast the media reports of Diane Pretty's death with those of the death of Princess Diana or the Queen Mother! No wonder, then, that the call for assisted suicide has often been equated with "creeping eugenics".
However, we believe such a view to be over-simplistic. Certainly we would not condemn those who consider assisted suicide any more than we would condemn those who attempt suicide themselves. Although it is true that Diane Pretty's own website mirrors the views espoused by the Establishment (in some places sounding like something from a telethon!), there is a difference between those who consider assisted suicide and those in the Establishment who egg them on.
The likes of Diane Pretty have decided that their own life is no longer worth living, for whatever reason. To criminalise them and those who would support them (even if it is the wrong kind of "support") is not the answer; indeed, suicide was decriminalised because the criminalisation of those who attempted suicide was doing more harm than good.
There is also the question of each person having the right to control over their own body. We support the right of women to have abortions (even when it is a disabled foetus which is being aborted) yet we are opposed to the sterilisation of disabled people without their consent. We are opposed to age restrictions on cochlear implants for deaf kids, yet we support people's right to refuse treatment for their medical conditions. Likewise, it is possible to support the decriminalisation of assisted suicide while remaining opposed to eugenics and the extermination of disability.
We believe that those who would kill themselves would be making the wrong choice. But, at the end of the day, they should have the right to make that choice.
We definitely have no time for those who would ally themselves with "pro-life" anti-abortion groups. Such groups are not only moralising right-wingers, they are often hypocrites - their followers have been responsible for fire-bombing abortion clinics in the US!
To reduce the number of contemplated and attempted suicides, those who feel their life is so worthless should, in the immediate term, have access to necessary counselling and emotional support. In the longer term, real social and economic measures must be taken to improve the quality of their lives. In a recent "right to die" case it was argued that, if the disabled woman had access to the wealth and facilities of Christopher Reeve, she would probably not consider ending her life. With this in mind, it seems obvious that, in a society where all disabled people have the right to the resources necessary to live a full life, the right to die would gradually become an unimportant argument.
To achieve such a society, we must overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism.