HISTORY NOTE

Our search for topics for the History Note is often an entertaining trip back in time. It’s often cause to reflect on the longtime role of middle-class and wealthy women in helping the earliest disability service groups. Women who didn’t have to work outside of the home often joined clubs focused on civic betterment, benevolent efforts, philanthropy and education.

Our History Note has described how specific disability service organizations arose from the work of such clubs, or how early organizations were the beneficiaries of the clubs’ work. History seldom tells us why a particular group may have focused on a specific disability group as its cause. Did someone have a close friend with hearing disabilities? Did someone’s child use a wheelchair or crutches to get around? Those details have all too often been lost in the mists of time.

Women eagerly threw themselves into such fundraising and charity work. In describing their good deeds, we cringe today to read patronizing language and calls for pity for the poor souls being helped.

The need for fundraising for disability service organizations and groups hasn’t changed over the decades. What’s noteworthy is how fundraising itself has evolved. The newspaper women’s sections were often filled with vivid descriptions of charity luncheons and fashion shows, right down to the color and type of flowers in the centerpieces.

What may raise eyebrows for readers is this event in April 1933, when the Minneapolis Society for the Blind and Council of Jewish Women announced the opening of the “famous” Foshay Tower apartment suite for public tours. A Minneapolis Star picture showed organization representatives looking at the $15,000 master bathroom, with its marble walls and gold-plated faucets. The article headline boasted of the bathroom features. Costs for tours were 25 cents evenings, Saturdays and Sundays and 50 cents disabilities and related health conditions exacerbated due to inconsistent care or lack of care. What if someone with power of attorney over someone with a disability decided that the disabled person is too much of a bother?

Any measure enacted into law needs to protect us, especially those of us who cannot speak for ourselves. We already deal with the stereotype of being nuisances or drains on society and resources. How easy it would be if some of us were not here. Those of us who grew up labeled as problems or burdens are rightfully wary of this.

What does assisted suicide do in the context of our legal rights to selfdetermination and life choice for ourselves? That is a huge question that must be answered before any legislation is signed into law.

Legally, physician-assisted suicide differs from euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the act of assisting people with their death in order to end their suffering, but without the backing of a controlling legal authority. We worry that it’s all too easy to confuse the two.

Disability community members’ opposition to assisted suicide also stems in part from factors that surround the practice of assisted suicide. There’s way too much secrecy for our tastes, even in states where it is legal.

Assisted suicide, if it becomes legal in Minnesota, needs very strong oversight. We need to know who is using this option in the states where it is currently legal. We need to know the history of abuse and potential abuse, and how that can be avoided in Minnesota.

Frankly, some legal models may be better for us than others are. Is it better to allow assisted suicide by law, as it is in eight states and the District of Columbia? Or should we be looking at Montana and California, where the courts must make a ruling based on set terms to allow an assisted suicide to move ahead.

Everything needs to be explored carefully, especially with a health care system that is so profit-drive and so stressed in many ways. And we people with disabilities need extensive involvement before anything is signed into law in Minnesota.