This is why I shouldn't watch TV

[liv]

The gym has a whole bunch of TVs. I've not exactly been watching them, but occasionally glancing up at what's going on to take my mind off the boredom and discomfort of running on treadmills. Apart from renewing my appreciation of subtitles (because the gym is noisy, and in most cases there's no way at all to know what's going on unless decent subtitles are present), this is mostly reconfirming my decision not to bother getting a TV at home.

Anyway, one of the things that is occasionally on the screen at the time I'm working out is the soap Emmerdale. So there's a plot arc about a young guy, Jackson, who is paralysed as a result of a broken neck in a road accident. When I first saw him on the screen I was feeling cringey about all the sad sad music and the closeups of the tears rolling down his face whenever he appeared. (Also he isn't very convincing at acting a quadriplegic person, but hey, I'm not going to quibble. I'm ambivalent about the debate as to whether it's acceptable to use able-bodied actors to play disabled characters; after all, it is supposed to be acting, and there are many disabilities which genuinely do make it pretty difficult to establish a career as an actor, and if you want a plot about sudden disability as a result of an accident, you presumably need to establish the character with the audience before the injury occurs.)

Then things seemed to pick up; we saw Jackson moving back home and starting to pick up his life again, interacting with his boyfriend (yay same sex couple where teh gay isn't the main point of the plot, I suppose) and his general social circle. He finds things awkward, people stare at him, his mother (played by Pauline Quirke, whom I'm fond of as an actor) is a bit smothering and embarrasses him terribly by insisting on accompanying him on nights out, etc, so it's not all unicorns and puppies, but it's about him getting on with his life rather than being Tragic. So I started to relax and think, maybe, just maybe, they're not going to go there. A few weeks later I happen to catch Emmerdale again, and we're back in full on tragedy mode. He has another weeping fit because he'd rather die than go to a Christening party where his former friends are going to stare at him. Then I saw a link to this article and learned that, yup, they're going there. It's an assisted suicide plot.

No, of course I wasn't expecting nuanced social commentary from a soap opera! Melodrama is the order of the day. But I agree with Stanford that this portrayal is irresponsible. The whole set-up reminds me of the historical idea, still unfortunately somewhat current, that the only proper response to being raped is suicide. I totally accept that it's up to an individual to choose whether their life is worth living with whatever limitations, impairments and pain they may have. However, people who are already going through a pretty traumatic experience really don't need this constant stream of being told that everybody would really be much happier if they would conveniently remove themselves from society and stop reminding the rest of us of our mortality and vulnerability.

This whole attitude of regarding motor disability as the worst thing that could possibly happen ever is extremely unhelpful to people with congenital and degenerative disabilities as well as people who've recently suffered accidents, because it means that the people they encounter are more likely to see them as tragedies instead of people. It's also factually untrue; research indicates that two years after a paralysing accident, there's no difference in happiness and subjective quality of life between people with serious spinal injuries and fully able-bodied people. So it's pretty morally grim to tell people that it's better for them to be dead than to have just as good a life as anyone else.

Comments

[monanotlisa]

So it's pretty morally grim to tell people that it's better for them to be dead than to have just as good a life as anyone else.

This, right there. Man, I don't need to watch this to be angry. What a wretched decision by the writers.

[liv]

Yeah, I'm really enraged about this. And by casting Quirke as the mother, they immediately direct the viewer's sympathy to her, and how hard it is for her to help her beloved son die. She's very likeable, sort of jolly and bouncy and, well, motherly, so there's no room for the angle of seeing her as someone who murders her son because she can't face the responsibility of caring for him, something that happens a lot more in real life than we ever hear about in the media.

[monanotlisa]

Not familiar with the characters, or indeed character types, as you point out, but I see what you mean (and it's depressing indeed).

[sunflowerinrain]

Thank you for this well-thought-out rantlet.

I want to battle this insidious attitude, as well as the current disablist hate campaigns in the trash media; but having been disabled since babyhood, I first have to struggle against an apologetic diffidence concerning my own rights and indeed value. I try to get round the brainwashing with the mantra "It'll come to you too, if you live long enough". However, I don't have the guts to shout it out loud - the mantra or the internal rants - so the best I can do is point out good arguments like yours.

[liv]

I'm glad that the post is at least somewhat useful to you, as well as getting things off my chest. I definitely know what you mean about couching an argument for disability rights in terms of: anyone, including you, could become disabled. And disability rights are also rights for older people, rights for people who differ from the norm but are still higher in social status than the sort of people immediately associated with the word "disabled". The trouble is that this narrative is so prevalent that a lot of people will respond by saying, well, if it were me I would want to kill myself, I wouldn't care about adaptations, accessibility and acceptance.

The diffidence you describe is a very important thing to keep as part of the discussion. I think that part of the reason why spinal injury patients in particular tend to do relatively well is that they've usually had a couple of decades of being able-bodied men before their accidents, so they have high self-esteem compared to many disabled people, and are more willing to fight for their own rights.

[azurelunatic]

And if somebody is already depressed and trying not to be suicidal, constantly having people who don't have the same disabilities saying they'd probably kill themselves if they had that disability -- yeah, way to be helpful there.

[liv]

Agreed entirely. I spend a lot of time ranting about this issue of creating a social climate that pushes certain people towards suicide.

[(Anonymous)]

,i>there's no difference in happiness and subjective quality of life between people with serious spinal injuries and fully able-bodied people. So it's pretty morally grim to tell people that it's better for them to be dead than to have just as good a life as anyone else.

Isn't this rather begging the question of whether subjective quality of life is the same as as good a life as?

(Though I suspect I'm coming at this from the opposite point of view from you, as my point is that 'quality of life' is not about such subjective things as 'happiness').

S.

[liv]

I agree there's a philosophical discussion one can have about the relative importance of happiness. But if you're talking about driving someone to suicide, then the only possible way this can be a moral decision is if you believe you are sparing them from suffering. Otherwise it's no better than murdering a person because their existence is inconvenient to you.

[siderea]

Amen.