#vulnerablegroups

I work with difference. Covid impacts differently, and there are disparities in the pandemic, which have now become more noticeable now that all precautionary measures are lifted in the UK.

I struggle to comprehend my life now, how we got to this place, how the UK have lifted all precautionary measures and how it is possible to co-exist in a country where the vulnerable and clinically vulnerable are in their homes.

I also can’t get my head around the fact, that in the pandemic and with the current vaccines you can still catch and spread Covid, it’s not being discussed, or talked about anymore. I still can’t see how in the longer-term this can be sustained, without there having to be a rethink on whether some physical measures are reintroduced.

Whilst it is important to get back into our lives, it should have been equally available to all. We’re talking about the pandemic, and societies in which people are vulnerable. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) There is no UK government plan for the vulnerable.

By the UK PM not continuing to implement the physical precautionary measures that can keep vulnerable groups safe in Covid, he has changed the course of history, which means the vulnerable are now locked in their homes. Ending the test and trace system has affected everyone, but it is putting the vulnerable, more in harm's way, if they catch Covid.

Requiring mask wearing in public places and public transport, can help everyone go about their lives safely without catching Covid. The reality is that the choice to lift all restrictions made by the PM of the UK has left society divided with some groups less equal than others. Being vulnerable there are times when I struggle with that concept, more than other times.

The night times are the worst and I try to reconcile again. I go to bed a little more settled, then it hits me, the house has become my institution, and I try to reconcile once more.

I need to start looking and thinking differently about this.

All of our blog's topic-based hashtags can be found hashtagged to this post. These explain what concepts are contained within a post.

The study described in Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in “vulnerable” groups examines the idea of “slippery-slope” by looking to see if “vulnerable groups” are in fact at a heightened risk of utilizing assisted suicide. The “vulnerable groups” that were analyzed in this study were:

people with low educational status,

the poor,

the physically disabled or chronically ill,

minors,

people with psychiatric illnesses including depression,

people with AIDS,

racial or ethnic minorities.

After their analysis, it was determined that the only group that was of heightened risk was "people with AIDS". It was determined that no other group demonstrated evidence of a heightened risk of assisted suicide.

When considering euthanasia and people with disabilities, it is very important to realize that legalizing euthanasia may lead physicians to prescribe lethal treatment to those who are vulnerable, unable to voice their own desires. According to an article published by S.K. Templeton, some might feel that euthanasia is their best option because they harbor feelings that their disability makes them a “burden” to others. Additionally, if a person with a disability is unable to fully communicate their desires regarding their treatment with their physicians, a conversation about euthanasia might yield a decision that is ultimately unwanted by the PwD. Because of their inability to fully communicate what they desire, a PwD might be unable to stop the physician from prescribing this for them. 

Euthanasia is considered a medical treatment, and, if legalized, will become a right for every patient to seek/be provided with this treatment. Prescribing euthanasia “becomes a proper duty towards anyone claiming or appearing to suffer unbearably, regardless of prognosis or capacity to consent.” In the Netherlands, where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, it has been “extended to children, people with psychiatric illness, and those who are mentally incapable.”

Works Cited:

The primary concern of legalized Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is its potential impact on certain vulnerable groups. Much of the discourse on the topic utilizes this specific language in reference to the following groups, among many:

Elderly

Socioeconomically disadvantaged

Individuals with Disabilities

Really the list goes on, but Individuals with Disabilities are arguably at the top of it. The legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide put these groups in danger, because of the potential coerciveness which may stem from social pressures. These individuals may not actually present "genuine consent". They may have been conditioned to devalue their own lives, for example, something prevalent in a moral or medical model framework of disability. Vulnerable populations may experience a "burning out", a psychological weariness of life that stems from hostile societal conditions.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is framed within the context of "choice", but ultimately, death is the ultimate denial of it.