332
"Don't do sick" until you're sick...
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
332 points (96.6% liked)
Chronic Illness
157 readers
4 users here now
A community/support group for chronically ill people. While anyone is welcome, our number one priority is keeping this a safe space for chronically ill people.
This is a support group, not a place for people to spout their opinions on disability.
Rules
-
Be excellent to each other
-
Absolutely no ableism. This includes harmful stereotypes: lazy/freeloaders etc
-
No quackery. Does an up-to date major review in a big journal or a major government guideline come to the conclusion you’re claiming is fact? No? Then don’t claim it’s fact. This applies to potential treatments and disease mechanisms.
-
No denialism or minimisation This applies challenges faced by chronically ill people.
-
No psychosomatising psychosomatisation is a tool used by insurance companies and governments to blame physical illnesses on mental problems, and thereby saving money by not paying benefits. There is no concrete proof psychosomatic or functional disease exists with the vast majority of historical diagnoses turning out to be biomedical illnesses medicine has not discovered yet. Psychosomatics is rooted in misogyny, and consisted up until very recently of blaming women’s health complaints on “hysteria”.
Did your post/comment get removed? Before arguing with moderators consider that the goal of this community is to provide a safe space for people suffering from chronic illness. Moderation may be heavy handed at times. If you don’t like that, find or create another community that prioritises something else.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
Also applies to "I'd rather die than be disabled" in its many forms.
And I just posted this in another comment, but I think it's relevant here too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy
What's wrong with "I'd rather die than be disabled"? To me it looks a legitimate personal moral stance.
Congratulations, you're an ableist.
Edit just to give anyone who might actually give a shit a clue: if you replace disabled with any other marginalised group and your point becomes glaringly bigoted, it's also bigoted when you aim it at disabled people. It's really not that fucking complicated.
Can you explain why? Why can't I choose not to live in case I'd get disabled (in some cases, I would say)?
As long as you are not advocating that disabled people should be killed, and you respect the personal nature of this position, what is the problem?
I just want to offer my two cents as someone who is disabled. I understand you viewpoint, and I don’t think it makes you ableist, but the sentiment definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
1.) You can have that opinion without being ableist, but it’s a pretty insensitive thing to express. I understand you’re probably not going around telling disabled people that, but it can come across as “a disabled life isn’t worth it”, whether you mean it or not.
2.) It’s a blanket sentiment that raises the bar of what you consider to be disabled. Would you really rather die than have autism or ADHD? Or maybe POTS? Or IBD? Disabled is a very broad term that encompasses far more than profound physical disabilities.
Between those two, as someone who is disabled, I’m left wondering whether someone is implying my life isn’t worth living, or that they don’t consider me disabled enough. Again, not trying to come at you or call you ableist, just trying to explain how it could possibly come across poorly.
I see and agree with both points. I definitely keep such choices to a very tight circle (like I gave instructions to my partner and family in what to do should I end up in certain situations - also called biological testament in Italian).
I also mentioned that indeed I would consider certain disabilities a deal breaker for me not to keep living, definitely not all disabilities. I would actually say that there are things that I want to do in life, and if I can't - for whatever reason - that would be a reason not to live for me. Whether it's a disability, a material condition, etc. It's not really relevant - a disability can simply be a proxy not to be able to do something.
For example, I fought tooth and nail to ensure that my grandma would receive the proper care when she had dementia (which is a disabling condition I would say?). I also took care of her directly, and I would do that again a thousand times. However, should I get a similar condition, I let my family know that I would like to be euthanized, I don't want to live like that.
Finally, this perspective is really really personal, it is bound to my experiences and my idea to the point that it can't simply apply to anybody else. I would definitely never go to anybody and say "if I were in your shoes I would rather die", but even if I thought that, this is a meaningless statement for another person. It's of course extremely rude to say this, so once again, I am saying it for the sake of a theoretical discussion.
Overall for me this is a matter of free will and agency over your own body, it's in anthithesis with the religious view that considers your body not yours and suffering a noble thing in itself.
I would say there is a HUGE difference between saying:
I‘d rather die than be disabled and I‘d rather die than have to live with some disabilities.
The former is really just saying: any disability makes life not worth living and the latter at least acknowledges that there are only a few disabilities you would deign to be „too much“ for you.
But the general problem with this „stance“ I would say is that we are talking about human lives. If we talk about what we would like to eat its kind of whatever. But in this case you are saying that people with (some) disabilities have lives that you say you don’t think are worth living. People with disabilities have gotten killed for this, because abled-bodied people just say what they think and their opinions are seen as more reliable, natural and important.
So yes, I would also say that the phrase is a clearly ableist position. You can argue that it is „just a personal position“ sure, it’s still ableist though and uses the same framework of eugenicists for example. And of course you can still hold that position. But maybe give it a thought on why that is your opinion.
Have you ever listened or talked to different disabled people on their experiences or is this more a gut feeling? Why are you drawing such a hard line? Is this more a perspective on assisted suicide?
Yeah, I completely disagree.
This for me is a position on my own right to determine my life, including ending it if certain conditions are not met. It is a position that affects and will affect a single person only, the one supporting it.
So in a sense it is something closer to assisted suicide and euthanasia in general. "Any disability would make my life not worth living" is different than saying "any disability makes life not worth living". It's a completely subjective issue, that can also change over time, and it's obvious that there are people who completely disagree and have wonderful meaningful lives worth living while being disabled.
Since this is not what I mean, nor advocate, this is in no way on me. The fact that other people with other perspectives act in a different way is not a reason me for to suppress my opinion. I mean no harm to anybody, I support welfare and public healthcare, I support also accessibility in all the different forms because I believe society should provide all tools and conditions possible to anybody to live their lives in the best possible way.
Also, I personally don't have such a hard-line, I think for my own personal perspective only certain disabilities would be reasons to determine my life is not worth living anymore, but I can accept that for other people the bar can be in a different place.
I mean okay if I read this in good faith I think you are kind of addressing this weirdly.
You can say something ableist without „meaning to do harm“. It really just is a phrase that has been used in really grotesque fashion in the past and we do live in a context. We might just have a fundamental disagreement on how we think about discourse.
As you have said you could make the same point without using this exact phrase so I firstly don’t believe that your opinion is suppressed on the topic. Secondly I think as able-bodied people sometimes it just is not our right or place to say that language that has hurt marginalised people can be used by us or redeemed for that matter because we just talk about ourselves.
Again yes I think you should be empowered to control your life and the end of it. And there are many ways to say this instead of: Id rather die than be (insert marginalised group).
Maybe as a different minority I can only offer that it just feels icky to me if another group wants to use words that have been used against me because that’s the way they want to express themselves. That’s why I engaged with your question in good faith
Look, if the problem is the expression, I don't care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.
All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.
So yeah, I won't stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.
Since you added an edit later on: no replacement makes that statement bigoted. If my own morale or ideas bring me to my own evaluation - that applies only to me - that life in a certain condition wouldn't be worth living, there is nothing bigoted (at least, inherently).
I wouldn't want to live so many lives that people live. Like an exploited worker in a poor country, a female in a very religious society etc. Ultimately this is a personal decision on your own life and body, nobody else should have a saying on what I want to do with my life at this fundamental level.
The problem (which becomes being ableist, or racist, or sexist) is when this perspectives becomes an ideology that affects society. You can easily support a society that - say - grants equal opportunities to men and women and at the same time think that you wouldn't want to live as a woman.
Disabled is a social status.
There are more disabilities than pretty much anyone can imagine. A disability can be anything from a foot defect, to partial blindness, to scoliosis.
A disabled life is not necessarily a life of suffering or an unhealthy life, you’re already stereotyping here. Ableism teaches people that disability is full of suffering and nothing else, and that therefore disabled lives are not worth living. This is the rationale the nazis used when genociding the disabled population.
Are you really saying you’d rather die then have a foot malformation, or rather die than being hard of hearing? Saying you’d rather die than being disabled talks more about the social status of a disabled person, than the disability itself, as there is so much diversity in disability.
It’s okay to think, “I’d rather die than having [x] disability”. Although you should never say that to someone with the disability because it amounts to saying “if I were like you I would kill myself”. But saying “I’d rather die than be disabled” is not okay, because you’re missing out on the nuance of disability and therefore commenting on the social status and not the disability itself.
I really disagree with your reasoning. I think that someone might simply consider any disability a reason not to live, and you are nobody to say that they missed the nuance of different disabilities, or that it's ridiculous to think you'd rather die than being hard of hearing (which is what I think you implied). I disagree with the blanket statement, but I think your arguments are invalid both from the theoretical standpoint than from the practical one (when x becomes a list of 100 items you might as well use a blanket statement).
You’re aware that disability can literally mean being slightly nearsighted right? Or losing your sense of smell? Or having ADHD? Disability can also be temporary, would you kill yourself because you broke your wrist?
Unless you are a radical eugenicist. It’s absurd to say you would kill yourself for all of these as a blanket statement. Especially considering the fact no one has the cerebral capacity to be aware of every single disability.
And anyways, it’s very questionable to come in here and say things like this. This community is a safe space and support group for chronically ill people, so coming here and saying “oh hi, if I was like you I’d kill myself” is just incredibly insensitive and inappropriate.
I am aware, and I am also aware that people are free to think what they want for themselves and I am nobody to judge them. You might think it's ridiculous, but theirs is the only life affected by this, so they are well within their rights to have all the opinions they have on their life.
Not being aware of any disability is true, but their statement is relative to what they are aware of, not a scientific statement (since it's a personal opinion), and as I said, you can also approximate to the blanket statement rather than mentioning 100 conditions.
I agree it might be insensitive to bring it up, but neither me nor the person you answered to brought it up, we merely answered to a comment that mentioned this expression.
Right-to-die is ableist?
I think we can keep that discussion out of this one. Supporting that argument would be strenuous and pyrrhic.