She apparently died suddenly yesterday. I first encountered Johnson, a very vocal disability rights activist, in the New York Times, confronting Peter Singer as to whether she should have been killed. I found her often politically desperately wrongheaded, but I greatly admired the courage and character it took to fight so passionately, and personally, for what she believed in.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Everyone dies suddenly.
Pete Singer would have to make any list of "ten most repulisive and dispicable people currently living on earth." He would be right up there with Mugabe and Castro, assuming he is still alive. I didn't always agree with this woman either. But anyone who has the courage to go after Singer will always have a soft spot in my heart. My she rest in peace.
What was there to disagree with politically about Harriet--civil rights for people with disabilities?
She wrote the most brilliant of essays in Salon on Schiavo, and *your publication* had the first shot at the 10,000 word piece the New York Times Magazine published on Singer and her visit...
You all rejected it. Hmmmm. The Times went on to publish Harriet many times from 03-08.
She was beloved by all of us in the disability rights movement, by her chosen town of Charelston, by her legal case clients, friends..family, and her reading audience.
Harriet would not say it took the 'heroic' qualities you assigned to her life to do her work. She was a highly skilled professional attorney who knew the law from an intimate point of view, yet also was a supremely gifted writer. She thought of law as her vocation.
Learn more about her real gifts at this site: www.cripcommentary/harriet
Aborted, not killed.
I recognize that many here may not perceive a difference, but for Singer, at least, there's a distinction between killing a human being who's experienced life and can fear their own death, and extinguishing a proto-life with no capacity to experience anything.
My problem with disability advocates is that they so often fail to distinguish between disabilities that harm the instrumentality of the body and disabilities - like Shiavo's - that destroy the very self. A body with no self in it is not a human life, it's a kind of sick joke.
At the most extreme, this myopia leads people to see no meaningful distinction between Stephen Hawking and Terri Schaivo, despite them inhabiting nearly opposite ends of a continuum.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Peter Singer supports "abortion" for a short period after normal delivery.
I'm also surprised you don't care for her politics. If I recall that NYT article correctly, her most distinctive position was that disabled people should get vouchers for their care instead of being pushed into institutions, because it is far better for the person who inserts your catheter be your employee instead of the state's. Given that you assume that disabled people are the state's problem (which is hardly a distinctive position), what could be more libertarian than that?
I'm also surprised you don't care for her politics. If I recall that NYT article correctly, her most distinctive position was that disabled people should get vouchers for their care instead of being pushed into institutions, because it is far better for the person who inserts your catheter be your employee instead of the state's. Given the assumption that disabled people are the state's problem (which is hardly a distinctive position), what could be more libertarian than that?
I believe the controversy centers on her opinions related to assisted suicide. Johnson claimed it should not be allowed because in the current environment, the disabled could not make the decision freely. They would be intrinsically encumbered by expectations that they should kill themselves. I believe she has a point, just not a strong enough point to carry her argument.
You are not wrong, Megan. Singer advocates infanticide for the first 30 days after the baby is born, and also euthanizing anyone who will not regain consciousness. He has stated these opinions in my presence.
Fausta:
"Singer advocates infanticide for the first 30 days after the baby is born, and also euthanizing anyone who will not regain consciousness. He has stated these opinions in my presence."
Well, I doubt he has stated either of those two positions, precisely; they are both vague approximations of what he actually believes.
First, he hardly "advocates" (i.e., encourages) either abortion or euthanasia. He believes both are acceptable choices under certain circumstances.
Regarding infanticide, he argues that it is acceptable under certain circumstances, in cases in which the parents feel the need to do it. He does not offer a blanket endorsement of infanticide, and he argues that there are limits on both for whom and under what circumstances it might be justified.
Regarding termination of treatment, he simply believes - as do a great many people who've considered the issue - that individuals who have irreversibly lost their mental functioning to a point below some minimal level of conscious awareness of their own lives are no longer persons in a moral sense. Whether to maintain the biological functioning of their former bodies is then largely a practical question, not one of their (then lost) moral interests. Note that the entire concept of "brain death", a well-accepted legal standard in most nations and most states in the US, is based on exactly the same notion (though the clinical standards for death vary from place to place). This is different in a technical, but important, sense from "euthanasia", which strictly applies only to living persons, not non-persons.
Singer is certainly controversial in many of his beliefs. His position on infanticide is one of them. Many of his beliefs are perfectly mainstream, however. His position on brain death is so, though he draws a line somewhat lower than most state legislatures have done. But all of them are based on incisive and rigorous reasoning, which explains the high regard he is held in even by many people who don't agree with him. He is constantly misrepresented, and constantly the subject of idiotic nonsense like "one of the ten most despicable people on earth" and Nazi imagery. The truth is far different from what many people have been led to believe - people who often can't even accurately state the positions they believe they are fighting against.
One rather disappointing aspect of Singer, however, is his willingness to make assumptions about other people's lives. In his (in)famous exchange with Johnson, he more than once said her life could not be as enjoyable as a non-disabled person's - even in the face of her personal insistence that it was! This is clearly a failure of empathy and imagination on his part, and it threatens to distort the calculus of goods and harms that his Utilitarian philosophy relies upon. I don't know if he has revised his position on that issue since; I would hope so. One of Johnson's great contributions was to articulate and broadcast the notion of disability as a normal stage of life, not an exception or a diminishment. Paradoxically, this idea is very much in keeping with the classical Utilitarian value of allowing individuals to define "the good" for themselves - a point it always surprised me Singer did not see. Johnson did much to help others see it, and deserves the admiration she received for that.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Peter Singer supports "abortion" for a short period after normal delivery.
Infanticide has been a feature of every civilized society. And, indeed, it certainly follows from the pro-life talking point that birth, in and of itself, is hardly anything so special as to merit the sudden proclamation of life where there was none before.
For my own part, I don't go so far, but I'm really not bothered by the death of organisms that lack the mental capacity to experience life. So I eat meat and I vote pro-choice, and were my wife to become pregnant at this juncture - against all our efforts to the contrary - I'd have no problem with her inevitable abortion. Just as I'd have no problem with her aborting a fetus that was disfigured, or severely handicapped, or even sex-selective abortion.
Honestly, the article you linked to was not a charitable picture of a long-time rights advocate, if her praises are to be believed. It's a surprising study in juxtaposition between Singer's relentless politeness and thoughtfulness, his reluctance to engage in the conversation on any but the most respectful terms; and Johnson's self-centeredness, rudeness to her personal assistant, and intellectual dishonesty and timidity.
I mean, she really comes out looking like an ass, and that's from the first person! She must have been a terror, indeed.
In his (in)famous exchange with Johnson, he more than once said her life could not be as enjoyable as a non-disabled person's - even in the face of her personal insistence that it was!
I'm inclined to assert false consciousness, here. She amply describes her morning routine, as well as the extra inconveniences of travel, and was not able to accomplish as single task without the help of an able-bodied assistant (which whom she was rather brusque, when she deigned to notice Carmen at all.)
Johnson may not have known any other life, but I know - for certain - that to be put in that condition would represent, in any objective sense, being "worse off" than I am now. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. And it really was amazing how Carmen suddenly faded to invisibility when Singer turned to the question of the disableds' burden on those around them. Gosh, maybe she might have had some insight into that?
I liked those two passages between Johnson and Singer the most:
I remember reading that article in high school. It's one of the few things I read then that really stuck with me.
I can't imagine Harriet resting in peace. I hope she is still stirring things up. Although Harriet was not religious, I personally hope that Harriet is communing with the Saints in an effort to help those of us left here on earth with our continued battles against an unjust system. I just cannot imagine Harriet not being able to talk her way through the pearly gates! Harriet, if you can hear me now, I was right.
I can't imagine Harriet resting in peace. I hope she is still stirring things up. Although Harriet was not religious, I personally hope that Harriet is communing with the Saints in an effort to help those of us left here on earth with our continued battles against an unjust system. I just cannot imagine Harriet not being able to talk her way through the pearly gates! Harriet, if you can hear me now, I was right.
I may be wrong, but I believe that Peter Singer supports "abortion" for a short period after normal delivery.
That's really a gross misrepresentation of his views. Singer argues that under certain limited conditions parents should have the right to kill their newborn baby if it is severely disabled. He describes his position on the matter in some detail in Chapter 7 of his book Practical Ethics, which I strongly recommend.
I too first encountered Johnson in that Times piece, and found her likable and admirable.
Fausta,
Singer advocates infanticide for the first 30 days after the baby is born, and also euthanizing anyone who will not regain consciousness. He has stated these opinions in my presence.
Considering that at least the first position you state strongly conflicts with Singer's published writings on the subject, I find your claim highly implausible.
"Johnson may not have known any other life, but I know - for certain - that to be put in that condition would represent, in any objective sense, being "worse off" than I am now. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. And it really was amazing how Carmen suddenly faded to invisibility when Singer turned to the question of the disableds' burden on those around them. Gosh, maybe she might have had some insight into that?"
Posted by Chet
While adding a disability to any life will make it worse off from a utilitarian aspect, you can not say that disability intrinsically makes life qualitatively worse.
A child born with palsey would almost certainly be better off without it, but you can't say that a child born with palsey will be worse off than some child with no discernable problems at birth. Everyone has problems. The detectability of those problems from birth does not necessarily make for less fulfillment in life.
Carmen is most definitely positively affected by her employer's disability. She is gainfully employed in a job oof her own choosing as a result of it. If she could do something else that would give her more utility, she would be doing it.
Mixner, you are free to believe or not anything you want, but I was at a conference at Princeton University where this was the subject.
Njorl,
While adding a disability to any life will make it worse off from a utilitarian aspect, you can not say that disability intrinsically makes life qualitatively worse.
I don't think murky phrases like "intrinsically makes life qualitatively worse" really help clarify the issue much. Presumably, you'd much rather have the ability to see than be blind, much rather have the ability to hear than be deaf, much rather have two legs than one, and so on. I think the vast, vast majority of people would share these preferences. Sure, maybe some people really don't care if they can see or not, hear or not, etc., but I think you'd agree that that's probably very unusual. So I don't think it really makes sense to deny that a significant disability makes life worse. Conceding that point doesn't imply any particular position regarding how we ought to treat disabled people, and doesn't mean that disabled people can't live happy, productive, fulfilling lives, but it does seem to me basic common sense.