THE ASSISTED DYING BILL CLEARED THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN THE SAME WEEK THE GOVERNMENT CONFIRMED ITS COMMITMENT TO SLASHING FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR DISABLED AND CHRONICALLY-ILL PEOPLE ~ punkacademic ~ The Labour government’s commitment to finish the job started by its Tory and Liberal Democrat predecessors has taken vivid form in the proposed cuts to the health component of Universal Credit and restrictions to claims for Personal Independence Payment. The proposed cuts—to welfare support already cut to the bone—are savage. But the language used to couch the proposals is that of empowerment, of getting people back into work, of restoring dignity. To paraphrase Proudhon on Malthus, this is ‘the theory of political murder; of murder from motive of philanthropy and for love of God’. When Rachel Reeves said—more than a decade ago—that Labour would be ‘tougher on welfare’ than the Tories, it would have been wise to believe her. Starmer’s Labour sees citizens simply as human resources. As the HR department for the capitalist state, extractivism is the order of the day. Disquiet with Labour’s merciless attacks on the disabled has stretched even to the columns of Guardian journalists who had lambasted Corbyn for his mild social democracy. The government whip Vicky Foxcroft resigned her post rather than support the cuts. Foxcroft’s resignation, and the publication of the formal legislative proposals on the cuts, came the day before the Third Reading of Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Commons, where it was approved with a majority of 23. Few anarchists would dispute someone’s right to end their lives on their own terms as they see fit. But equally, few anarchists would dispute the centrality of those most likely to be affected to any discussion of actions to be taken. As ever, means must prefigure ends and not be justified by them. Yet disabled voices were often marginalised in the ‘debate’ over the Assisted Dying Bill. Disability Rights UK and Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) both came out steadfastly against it. They argued that, given our societal context and the gross devaluing of disabled lives, the Bill as currently constructed would pressure disabled and chronically ill people to choose death for fear of being a burden on their relatives or wider society. It’s important to note that disabled and chronically ill people do not speak with one voice. The late Debbie Purdy, a music journalist with progressive multiple sclerosis, fought for her partner’s right to assist her death without fear of prosecution. In the run-up to the votes in Parliament, however, stories such as Purdy’s were privileged to the exclusion of others; the campaign Dignity in Dying had greater resources and reach than DPAC, and newspaper and media outlets were keen to frame the ‘debate’ as one between rational individuals who wanted a peaceful and dignified death and religiously-motivated figures who appealed for them to ‘have faith’. The real concerns of representative bodies were not addressed; nor were those of sections of the medical profession, who—alarmed at the removal of safeguards at committee stage—withdrew their support for the legislation. As someone living with progressive multiple sclerosis, I can attest to the endless the casual indignities of living with disability under capitalism. As an anarchist, I also believe firmly that people should have the right to end their lives and if necessary have support to do so. But that doesn’t translate into support for legislation promoted by a state hell-bent on the eradication of disabled people through the withdrawal of vital support. In her book The War Against Disabled People, published on the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ellen Clifford argues that since 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s austerity policies have led to casualties in the hundreds of thousands. As Clifford notes, in practical terms the most severe penalties for capitalism’s spectacular failures have been visited on those whom it deems less than human; disabled people. Clifford, who is herself disabled and active in DPAV, is unsparing in the horrors she chronicles. It is the story of a neoliberal politics of death, where disabled and chronically ill people become unwanted columns in a fiscal balance sheet that needs amending.  Through the introduction of a much harsher welfare regime, deaths mounted rapidly. The UN itself responded to a DPAC complaint in 2016 with the verdict that the UK government had engaged in “grave and systematic” violations of disabled people’s rights. One of the most powerful aspects of Clifford’s book is its clear elaboration of how these deaths were rendered invisible, how the disabled were compelled to die in the dark. When Jeremy Corbyn, as Labour Party leader, attempted to cite numbers of deaths due to the government’s austerity measures, he was roundly decried in the House and ridiculed by political correspondents who thought this a demonstration of his rhetorical incompetence. The COVID pandemic, which came after the publication of Clifford’s book, only made her points more strongly. Disabled and chronically ill people were disproportionately likely to die. The ominous use of the phrase ‘excluding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable’ in the context of death statistics rendered seemingly-neutral what was actually a eugenicist sleight of hand. Now, this Labour government seems committed to carry on with its Tory predecessors’ pathologisation and demonisation of disabled and chronically ill people, deeming ‘work’ as the only acceptable form of identity, and going so far as to deliberately mislead the public on the nature of their cuts—claiming that Personal Independence Payment is an out-of-work benefit (it isn’t) and talking about “pathways to work” for people who are often already in work but struggling to survive. Disabled people need to be enabled to live before they are assisted to die. Disability—rather than impairment—is caused by society, and specifically by capitalism, against which anarchism has waged war since its origins as a movement in the mid-nineteenth century. This is not just about benefit cuts or assisted dying; it is a foundational struggle over the definition of the true value of life, the possibility of cooperation over competition, and the role of mutual aid in constituting a society worth living in. The post Assisted Dying Bill: The neoliberal politics of death appeared first on Freedom News.

ASSISTED SUICIDE SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL – BUT THE LIVING AND DYING BOTH DESERVE A BETTER WORLD ~ Ryan Essex ~ The UK Parliament is tomorrow set to debate and vote on new legalisation on assisted dying, which would “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life”. This will be the most recent bill in a series of efforts to legalise assisted dying for close to two decades. If passed, it would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction, but it arguably doesn’t go far enough. To receive approval for any assistance, a judge and two doctors would have to approve the request and the person would need to be terminally ill with less than six moths left to live. Yet the government should not restrict people’s ability to make decisions about their own life, including the choice to end it. I can appreciate why assisted dying may not be the right decision for all, like abortion. However, this legislation still limits people’s right to choose. We should also be deeply suspicious of any process that requires the approval of two doctors and a judge. Science undoubtedly provides the best chance of understanding the world. In this respect, I hold a similar view to Bakunin who was happy to defer to the authority of the bootmaker when it comes to boots. At the same time, however, the question of assisted dying is not as much a scientific or medical question as a moral one. Then there is the argument that such restrictions are simply ineffective and result in more harm than good. Assisted dying has been accessible for a number of years abroad. It is estimated that at least one person a week travels to Switzerland from Britain to access assisted dying (at a cost of over £10,000 per person). There are also growing DIY efforts to provide people with the choice of how and when they die. In saying all of this, I still feel uneasy. We live in a deeply imperfect world, where people are oppressed and commodified. What we value and who is valued is perverted by the state, capital and other forms of domination, tied to one’s ability to be a ‘productive’ member of society. For many, this makes it very difficult to continue living. For this reason, from an anarchist standpoint, it is not enough to simply assert that agency or (individual) freedom should take precedence over all other concerns. At the same time, we need to build solidarity and support one another. Legalising assisted dying is one thing, but in the face of so many dehumanising forces, the much harder part is to build strong communities, and make the world better for both the living and the dying. Dr. Ryan Essex is a researcher at the University of Greenwich who is currently writing about the link between anarchism, health and bioethics. The post It’s my party and I’ll die if I want to appeared first on Freedom News.