DREDF responds to Peter Singer's NY Times article about rationing health care

From the Disability & Media Alliance Project blog:

On 7.15.09, the New York Times Magazine published Dr. Peter Singer’s article on rationing health care in the US. Unfortunately, Singer’s notion of rationing is based on the “worth” of individuals with disabilities when compared to those without disabilities. A NYT graphic accompanying the article was particularly worrying. Here’s the unpublished letter to the NYT’s editor from the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund:

Dear Editor,

Peter Singer’s essay “Why We Must Ration Health Care” (July 15) reproduces tired prejudices about people with disabilities.

Singer ducks issues that trouble the apparently simple “quality-adjusted life-year” (e.g., the “worth” of people who can’t or won’t decide it). And he dismisses disability concerns with a bizarre assertion—that disability advocates should choose between defending their lives and calling for health research.

As a graphic for the piece illustrates, Singer also ignores what his arguments fuel. He discusses the comparative value of people with and without quadriplegia. On Singer’s cue, the graphic’s designer blithely summarized that discussion: “___ YEARS OF A NONDISABLED LIFE IS WORTH ___ YEARS OF A DISABLED LIFE.”

This is one consequence of Singer’s price on life. In the lens of prejudice, life breaks down into “nondisabled” or “disabled,” worth it or not. In the debate about health care, Singer offers academic cover for deadly dualisms.

Susan Henderson, Executive Director
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund