Over the years the disability rights movement has explored ways to increase incentives for people with disabilities to go to work.  The primary disincentive to going to work for many people with significant disabilities that require personal assistance services is that they will have to cover the cost of those services if they make too much money.

In our effort to be fair and equitable in developing proposals we simply can't land on a solution that meets the needs of all people with disabilities.

In this age of tax cuts over federal expenditures, I propose that the National Council on Disability encourage Congress to allow the IRS to establish tax cuts for people with disabilities who bear high costs in meeting disability related expenses that are not covered by insurance or any other program.

The program could be available to people with disabilities whose disability related expenses are as follows:

• $10,000 or more 5% taxable income rate
• $5,001-$10,000 7.5% taxable income rate
• $5,000 or less 10% taxable income rate

Reducing the tax burden for people with disabilities who go to work and earn enough money to move off of public assistance programs increases the money they have available to cover disability related expenses like personal assistance services, accessible home modifications, or assistive technology, etc.

The program could be run with little bureaucracy.  The qualifying disabilities could be the Social Security "Listing of Impairments."  Applicants for the program would bring the necessary documentation establishing a disability found in the "Listing of Impairments" to an Independent Living Center and the DIP Coordinator would send a DIP certification letter to the IRS.  Since all of the disabilities on the "Listing of Impairments" are expected to last throughout a person's life, the certification would only need to occur once.

Congress would need to add $10 million to existing funding for Independent Living Centers with the stipulation that each center have a DIP Coordinator on staff.

I know this strategy will not meet the needs of everyone with a disability but it provides one more way of increasing work incentives for people with disabilities.

When people tell you we don't have to worry about people with disabilities, and others without chronic illnesses, being targeted for assisted suicide; just say "Charles Cullen."

As many as 40 people have probably died because this dedicated medical professional believed the life of his patients had no value.  In his mind "they would be better off dead."

As a strapping middle-aged quadriplegic, I can't tell you how many times I have heard people,"with all the best intentions,"say "I would rather be dead than live the way you do."

Even though we know what has been learned about the experience in Holland since legalizing euthanasia, smart people still argue the same couldn't happen in America.  Let's take a quick look at some facts:

"A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia has come up with some disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175 patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent (1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED."

So when I hear smart people tell me how the ugly hand of assisted suicide will never wrap itself around people with disabilities; my response is... "Bullshit!"

Sam on “Disability Law " blog has a post up talking about an article written by Alicia Ouellette associate professor of lawyering skills at the Albany Law school that makes the argument:

 “To some degree, the success of the disability rights movement in spreading its message is attributable to an unspoken rule that the disability rights community is untouchable.”

Channeling the voices of oppression Ouellette falls to the tired refrain used when the disability rights movement wins a fight: "It's not nice to hit a cripple."  Of course, she then goes on to tell us what is best for us.

"In the Article, I question whether the crusade by disability rights activists against freedom in medical decisionmaking is in fact in the best interest of people living with physical and mental challenges, and I conclude that it is not."

As much as I would like to believe it is the disability rights movement's ability to organize that has aided victories in the "assisted death" debate, I know it's only a part of the equation.  The primary reason people with disabilities win these arguments is that people without disabilities think: "I don't know if I could live like that.  So, that's probably how a doctor would think and I guess that's what the disabled are saying."

Here is my longer response to Ms. Ouellette's article:

Charles Cullen is one of the many medical professionals seniors, people with disabilities, and the terminally ill are supposed to trust with our "end-of-life" decisions.

Alicia Ouellette and other followers of "Pollyanna Whittier” want people to believe that the path to the "end-of-life" is paved with pastels and a joyful noise as long as it's accompanied by a physician administered lethal dose of medication.

What Ouellette and her ilk hope people will fail to notice is that the most common form of "assisted death" is under fire for its cruelty. If lethal injection is cruel, just imagine how much worse the more prolonged process of an overdose must be.

If "assisted death" zealots are so committed to their cause of rallying around a person's "end-of-life" choice why didn't they support Kathleen Holey? Could the absence of Patrick and Jennifer having a disability or a terminal illness be a factor?

Kathy Cerminara, Ouellette, and others of their movement want to portray people with disabilities as overreacting in their fears about "assisted death."  When Ouellette make statements like "unless we die quickly, most of us will be disabled before we die” you have to wonder why disability engenders so much of her focus and attention.

If "assisted death" advocates in America aren't targeting the terminally ill and people with disabilities why don't they follow the lead of their fellow followers in the Netherlands?

“Democrats 66, the party of Health Minister Els Borst, who guided the bill through parliament, says the next government should consider the introduction of a suicide pill for patients who are healthy but simply tired of life.”

If the "assisted death" movement in America is really about quality-of-life then the "rights" they purport to endorse would be extended well beyond just the terminally ill and disabled. Especially since as the National Institute of Mental Health reports, very few people with terminal illnesses and disabilities are really interested in committing suicide.

“Surveys of terminally ill persons indicate that very few consider taking their own life, and when they do, it is in the context of depression.”

Ultimately though, where the "assisted death" movement becomes most dangerous is its dishonesty about the training, knowledge, and skills of physicians who would bear the responsibility of prescribing the lethal dose of medication.  As Dr. Susan Tolle’s study proves, physicians are ill-equipped to adequately address the complex issues surrounding a person's end-of-life choices.