The refusal of feminist bioethicists, (so-called) disability bioethicists, and feminist philosophers in general to address the expansion of MAiD (medically assisted suicide) and eugenics in Canada, albeit predictable, is nonetheless egregious, unethical, and goes against everything feminists should aim to cultivate. Indeed, this refusal should make disabled philosophers (and other disabled people) question the professed concern of these academics for, among other things, equity and diversity with respect to disabled people, our value as colleagues and as fellow inhabitants of the planet, and our positions as worthwhile friends, companions, and lovers.
For me, this refusal is yet another testament to the limits of feminist (philosophical) commitment to intersectionality with respect to disabled people and the unacknowledged determination of nondisabled feminist philosophers to circumscribe how, when, and why the apparatus of disability should be taken into account. For me, furthermore, this refusal is an implicit testament to the fundamental commitment of feminist and disability bioethicists to the core assumptions of neoliberalism and the further institutionalization of (neo)liberal ableism in philosophy and in the modern university more generally.
American disabled philosophers (and other American disabled people) and disabled philosophers (and other disabled people) elsewhere seem to be actively disregarding this grievous state of affairs in Canada. They should, you should, instead be gravely worried. What you do not seem to realize is that this situation is coming to your country soon. What is happening in Canada is setting legislative and juridical precedent for governments around the world to euthanize disabled people.
Indeed, it’s already starting. Consider the expansion of MAiD that recently took place in Oregon.
Our lives are increasingly threatened. If you don’t know what I’m arguing in this post, then it is time for you to change that. And then organize, talk back, fight back.