Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This week, Ian and Zoe are joined by Brian Brock to discuss autism and euthanasia. Brian discusses current conversations about the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide and the concerns surrounding this topic and autism. He also explores how churches should be places of belonging for people who are different.
The transcript of the episode is available here: https://share.transistor.fm/s/12617ba3/transcript.txt
Articles referenced in the episode:
Euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with an intellectual disability: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0257-6
Euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with an intellectual disability: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0257-6
Journal of Religion and Disability special issue on disability euthanasia, 22:3, 2018: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wrdh21/22/3?nav=tocList
Disability, Brian Brock: https://www.eden.co.uk/christian-books/the-church/pastoral/disability-pastoring-for-life-theological-wisdom-for-ministering-well/
Disability, Brian Brock: https://www.eden.co.uk/christian-books/the-church/pastoral/disability-pastoring-for-life-theological-wisdom-for-ministering-well/
If you have any questions, or just want to say hi, email us at cat@abdn.ac.uk or find us on twitter @autismtheology.
This podcast is brought to you by The University of Aberdeen's Centre for Autism and Theology.
The artwork for this podcast uses the Centre for Autism and Theology Logo, created by Holly Russel.
Creators & Guests
What is Autism and Theology Podcast?
The Autism and Theology Podcast is a space where we engage with the latest conversations in the field of autism and theology, share relevant resources, and promote ways in which both faith and non-faith communities can enable autistic people to flourish.
Our episodes are released on the first Wednesday of every month. We have a variety of guests who are related in some way to the field of autism and theology. Some are academics, others are people with life stories to share, and some are both!
We also release CATChat every third Wednesday of the month. These are shorter and more informal episodes where your hosts will share news and give you as listeners an opportunity to ask questions and share your stories.
Ian: Hello and welcome to this episode of the Autism in Theology podcast. I'm Ian and I'm excited you've joined us this week. This podcast is a space where we will be engaging with the latest conversations in the field of autism and theology, sharing relevant resources, and promoting ways that help faith and non faith communities to enable autistic people to flourish.
Our podcast episodes are released on the first Wednesday of every month, with cat chat episodes every third Wednesday, where your hosts share news and answer your questions. This podcast is run from the University of Aberdeen Center for Autism and Theology, which we've shortened to CAT. And zoe and I are joined this, uh, this episode by Brian Brock, uh, and just as a, uh, content warning for everyone, I want to let you know this episode is about autism and euthanasia specifically in response to, uh, or in reaction to Qualifications for euthanasia in, um, the Netherlands and in Canada that allow autistic people to opt into those programs.
So if that is a , sensitive subject for you, just be aware that that is what we are discussing today.
Zoe: Yeah, and we're so pleased to be joined by Brian today, um, Brian, would you like to share a little bit about yourself and your research in disability theology and theological ethics?
Brian: Uh, sure. Thanks guys for inviting me on. Um, I kind of come into theology through medical ethics. So I've been thinking about medical ethics for a while and I guess that's why I got tapped to talk about euthanasia. Um, And in euthanasia, sorry, in medical ethics, I became aware of the importance of disability in general as a, as a theme, uh, and how it challenges us to think better about what medicine is and what the good society is and what human flourishing is.
And, um, I didn't work too long in Uh, medical ethics before, uh, I, my eldest son, Adam was born who has down syndrome as was later, um, diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum. He's still nonverbal. Um, uh, he's sort of finished school now. So we've done 20 years of special school and all the, uh, special training that goes along with, um, autism and, uh, uh, different neurodivergence, um, um, um, I'm also currently the editor, managing editor of the Journal of Religion and Disability, and, um, I had the privilege of being part of a conference that turned into a special issue in that journal on disability and euthanasia.
Uh, so I guess today I want to share a little bit of what I've picked up in those conversations.
Ian: So, as I said, uh, a lot of the conversations that are going on at the moment are in response to or in reaction to the policies of the Netherlands, of Belgium, of Canada surrounding euthanasia and disability, and particularly euthanasia and autism. Um, can you share a little bit about the background as you know it, um, for, for euthanasia and, and how it affects, how it's affected by autism and, and in these programs and why it's, uh, important at the moment, particularly, I mean, starting with just what euthanasia is.
Brian: Um, well, euthanasia is a, is an ancient word. It just means in Greek, the good death. Uh, and, um, it actually was used in Christian theology, for instance, to talk about martyrdom. Right. So it just means good death and, but it's become a technical term in contemporary medicine for physician assisted suicide.
Um, so suicide meaning, uh, the, the decision to intentionally kill oneself. And so that's de criminalized plus. Physicians can actually deploy their medical knowledge to make it happen and not be prosecuted as well. So it's kind of a double movement. You have to, you have to allow it suicide and you have to allow doctors to cross the Rubicon from, uh, medicine being only to heal.
To also including killing as a treatment, um, and the Netherlands was the first place to do that in the, uh, uh, Western world and official way. And they did that in 2001 and they have a, a kind of list of criteria. Um, uh, uh, and one of them is unbearable suffering that needs to have a medical basis, either physical or psychiatric, uh, yeah.
So, uh, one reason autism comes into the frame is that you don't have to be within six months of a terminal illness, as in some places it's legalized to use. If you have suffering that's not going to go away and can't be treated, uh, you are eligible to legally have, uh, physician assisted suicide. And it's under that heading autism comes into the picture.
Ian: Now, um, there are several criteria that are laid out that sort of, that, that specify the specifics, um, I, I don't know if you knew this before, but, uh, the, the proposal on the table for Canada's program, which is known as MADE, um, is to allow autistic people to opt in to, to euthanasia, to physician assisted suicide, um, as of next month, in, in the month of March.
Um, um, And, and as you said, uh, before we started recording the, the idea that suffering is a qualifier means that even for the, the Netherlands, that autism itself is potentially sufficient. Um, would you say that's true?
Brian: Uh, yes, um, uh, the, uh, basically the conditions in the Netherlands are, um, you need to make a voluntary and well considered request, including the details of a capacity assessment.
Um, you need to be suffering, you need to say that you're suffering unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement. You, uh, need to have a medical documentation by a physician that you actually have explored and exhausted all treatment options. Um, And, uh, that physician needs to say that there's no reasonable alternative that can relieve the suffering.
Uh, and then, uh, finally there needs to be an independent physician that's consulted. And you can see that in each of those stages, questions could arise, um, for people with, for neurodivergent people. Um, uh, uh, I'm talking about, uh, uh, I'm going to be drawing on a 2018 article, which is the first assessment of the title of the articles called euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with intellectual disability and or autism spectrum disorder and examination of 9 relevant euthanasia cases in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2016.
So, it's not, uh, it's not bang up to date, but it's very indicative because, um, uh, the, the number of people being euthanized for psychiatric suffering is going up. Um, uh, in, there were two reported cases in 2010, 42 in 2013 and 60 in 2016. And 2016 was a good while ago, so the curve is going up pretty steeply for people who are saying we have mental ill health or suffering, and we can extrapolate that, uh, if we're allowing, um, autism to be counted as itself suffering or.
And, uh, or, uh, as producing special kinds of suffering, then the effect is going to be more people being euthanized, uh, in the Netherlands. And that's basically what the data is already showing up to, um, 2016.
Zoe: Thanks for sharing all of that, Brian. Um, and this ability theology, which is your context of research, while it doesn't generally deny the challenges that come with disability and neurodivergence, it generally does see neurodivergence and disability and difference as a positive thing. Now with euthanasia and assisted suicide, it generally seems to be framed that those in support of it, that it respects the wishes of autistic people or others who want to end their lives.
And I'm wondering if you can share about how we can respect views of those who are impacted while also advocating that disability and difference and neurodivergence isn't a problem to be removed from the world?
Brian: Yeah, I think that's a great and really important question. And we're in a very, uh, kind of complex and unstable period.
Um, because the way we tend to talk about medical ethics in the last, uh, 30 years has been organized by four kind of moral concepts, um, respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, meaning doing good, but non malefics, meaning not doing anything bad and justice. Um, uh, it's as it's those 4 principles were developed to be a kind of umbrella decision making, um, framework for, for, for contested medical cases.
Um, and. As it, as time has unfolded, it's become clear that it's very difficult to, um, uh, resolve disputes between the different principles. Um, so for instance, in the case of this debate, uh, some. Argue that, uh, uh, when a society starts to endorse the right of some people to have physician assisted suicide that stigmatizes their lives and potentially discriminates against them.
Right? So that's a kind of justice argument. It's unjust to single out some people as all time available for, uh, for being euthanized. Um, proponents on the other side, often side of human rights argument, uh, is really based on autonomy. That we're, we're always talking about, um, giving people with all sorts of disabilities more self determination.
And this comes up obviously in all kinds of ways in the context of autism. So why are we going to deny them self determination on, on this decision, no matter how sweeping it is. So that, and I think that on its own terms and the terms in which it's publicly debated, that's pretty much an unresolvable debate, um, which is why this has been such a fraught discussion. I think really that the, um, uh, the more important issues relate to, um, how people describe their suffering and, um, uh, the study that I'm talking about suggests that, uh, people with autism aren't really complaining of suffering physically Or even a fear of pain there.
They're talking about functional limitations and dependence on others that they find intolerable. So in a society where living with autism produces predictable tensions and difficulties and isolation, if we're going to go ahead and. Um, say that now constitutes a condition to allow a doctor to end your life, we may be overlooking these other, these other sort of, uh, presenting issues, right, which aren't necessarily going to be fixed by medicine, but, uh, um, have real sort of psychological impact.
Ian: And I think that, that bit of information, particularly about the idea that the suffering is not necessarily inherent, but has to do with the, the reliance upon independence upon others, um, speaks to the, the tension that also exists in the, in the disability community between the medical model of disability and the social model of disability, in that, um, If, if the problem as presented, if the suffering that exists that is, that is insurmountable for autistic people or people with intellectual disabilities is that they have to rely on others to get by, and we have set up a society that says, That's insufficient.
That's unacceptable. You need to be an island. You need to be self sufficient. Um, then, then really we're relying on essentially a medical model of saying this, this takes away your ability to function as intended, um, rather than looking at the social causes and saying, is it possible to create a society that doesn't, that doesn't stigmatize that so thoroughly that it is itself intolerable.
Brian: I, I mean, they give, uh, uh, six cases in, in more detail in the, in the article. And I think one of them really speaks to the questions you're raising. Um, uh, uh, these are kind of anonymized and, uh, including age ranges. So this is a, a, a male. Between 30 and 40 years old, diagnosed with, uh, ASD, they have Asperger's, I guess this was a couple of years ago, um, who was diagnosed, diagnosed, uh, has been diagnosed for 20 years ago or so, um, was abused in childhood, so some complex background, and, um, uh, The under the heading of does this patient have unbearable suffering without a prospect of improvement that the report the this is the official report after he was euthanized says the patient suffering consisted of always being busy in his head with thoughts on multiple and different levels and not being able to exclude himself from stimuli or thought process he found that exhausting he really wanted to turn off his thoughts and find rest the patient suffered from the fact that he had a great need for closeness with others While he couldn't maintain long, long lasting social contacts.
This was because he misjudged interactions and was inclined to behavior that crossed boundaries. He could react to things in a spontaneous, intense, sometimes extreme manner. And this often led to problems. However, the patient couldn't learn from these experiences. He was frustrated by his forbidden feelings, such as longings for sexual intimacy.
He suffered. From his continuous yearning for meaningful relationships and this repeated frustrations in this area because of his inadequate ability to deal with closeness and social contact, his damaged development and subsequent poor frustration tolerance and lack of basic feelings of safety contributed to his reduced capacity to learn to deal with the limitations of his illness.
And that description was judged after a process of talking to several psychologists, um, psychiatrists, at the end, sufficient, they, they judged that sufficient treatment and support options had, had been tried, and the patient really hadn't experienced any improvement, um, uh, and, uh, uh, therefore, his euthanasia wish should be granted, and he, he was, in the, in the end, euthanized.
So, I mean, that. It puts a little more flesh on what we're talking about here. Um, I'm guessing that people who listen to this podcast will recognize some aspects of his complaint as familiar. Um, uh, uh, I mean, who of us doesn't have, uh, always having thoughts that we wish we didn't have? Um, social isolation is a real cause of suffering. I mean, we're all agreeing about that as well. And the real kind of pointed question is, can someone in that position make an informed decision, right? If, if you're really that kind of depressed and damaged. How, how clearly can you see the decision you're making? And, um, uh, uh, what kind of medicine do we enter into when, um, a doctor is here to provide a range of attempts to make your life better. And when there's no more than. That'll end your life.
Ian: It seems clear that the issues that we're raising that are categorized under suffering, social isolation, need for connection that's denied, um, the, um, dependence and, and, uh, need for others, reliance upon others. Those are quite frankly, not medically treatable, right? Um, is there a way for those to be addressed?
Is there a way for the church to do anything about any of that?
Brian: Yeah, that's it. That's a much, uh, bigger and more important question. Um, and I think it's probably safe to say that in a society where there's not a tangible experience of hope for redemption, uh, uh, another, another term that comes up in the, in the Dutch context is, um, just tiredness of living. Um, totally understandable.
And in a world where Christians Maybe becoming a minority or the Christianity as in the Netherlands, maybe turning into a kind of secular faith in, um, the progressive relief of suffering we may have a, I mean, I think it's a, it's a potent place for the witness of the Christian church to say, yeah, these some people are awkward and they are angular and they have been hurt a lot of times by a lot of people and we still want them here with us.
And I do think that, um, the social. Embrace is, is really the nub of the suffering of the autistic cases discussed in, uh, in this particular article for sure. But I mean, it may be that even in, uh, cases of physical, um, illness, pain is not what causes the suffering. It's the, uh, estrangement. From relationship and the loss of ability to be to do the things that you love that that cause the suffering, right?
We in all of these discussions, it's important to distinguish between suffering and pain in a physical sense. Which is why autism is a is an important thing to talk about in this context because it's not really a pain. But it could be a suffering. And could, uh, could the church be a place where being autistic doesn't cause suffering?
Absolutely. Is it? Uh, unfortunately, not often enough, I'd say.
Zoe: Thanks so much for sharing that, Brian. And the obvious question, I guess, is how can the church be a place that is like that even when at the moment it isn't always the case that a church is somewhere that embraces and doesn't contribute to isolation?
Brian: Uh, well, I think, um, it's easy to overlook the very basic truths that people can tell if you want them there or not and it's easy to get hung up. In these kind of discussions on getting training and expertise in churches, which very often amounts to a deferment tactic, uh, understandably, you know, it's not, it's not, um, uh, culpable to say, I really don't think I know enough to, to do anything here.
Um, but nobody in the church is exempt from welcoming people that make them uncomfortable. And that is a theme that is already popping up all over the New Testament that, uh, People from different social strata and different roles are brought together in the church and they have to discover what the ways in which their siblings in Christ and that that siblings sibling hood, uh, is part of their redemption and that they're.
Practice of living as if there's a bunch of people I don't have to interact with is ultimately impoverishing. So, yeah, this, uh, when you bring people together from different social domains, whose lives have been made easier by not having to face difference, there's going to be frictions. And often the people, um, uh, are outsiders in other places are going to be the ones who are 1st made outsiders in the church, and I think if the church can confront that reality that goes a long way To making the church a place where those who feel othered in other in other social domains like a restaurant Let's say can come into church and say no I they they know that I do what I do But they still want to have me here and not just for a tokenist tokenistic Uh, gesture.
Ian: Yeah, it's, it's hard to get away from the fact that that ideal of what the church is meant to be and that we see glimpses of even in scripture and and the idea that it is meant to be this Um, this radical community where everyone truly is welcome and not just welcome, but a necessary part of being there, um, that everyone is a member of the body of Christ could be, if we allow it to be, if we really internalize that message could be the antidote to some of the suffering that we do see that comes from isolation, um, because you're right.
I think that, that, um, You know, one of the things that I do as a pastor is counsel people and plan funerals in the wake of losing a loved one. And in the wake of death, there's always, one of the things that I always say, that I learned in seminary and has been demonstrated over and over again, is that there's, there's two prongs to grief of losing a loved one.
There's the loss of the loved one and then there's the loss of community because no one knows what to do with that grief. And so we, we turn away and we distance ourselves and we, we make ourselves feel better by saying, Oh, they just need their space. They've got a lot going on. I think the same happens with disabled people and with families with disabled people in them is that It's very easy for us as the church to say well, they just they've got a lot going on They need their space or I don't really know how to relate to them So I'm just not gonna try and then it becomes not just the disability, but it becomes the disability plus isolation, which is how you get to suffering, as you said.
Brian: Absolutely. I think that's, that's spot on. Um, in my little book with Baker Academic Press called, uh, Disability, um, that's the main title. Um, I talk about the hesitation blues. Um, uh, I think that if we can just. Notice that we have a lot of routines that allow us a free pass to say, I'm going to give that person some space, uh, then that produces a kind of isolation bubble.
Um, people who've been suspected of a moral failing, uh, have long had that experience in church, uh, right? If a homeless person comes in to church, uh, or if you know, uh, somebody comes in who looks like they're involved in the sex trade. Uh, right. So there's, there's groups of people who get a kind of zone of Christians, keeping their distance around them and disability, uh, in a way, ironically, given Jesus's interest in outcasts, uh, is, is still do that.
Um, and so for me, disability is really, uh, can one of the simplest cases. Of forcing the church to think about what it means to be church. I say the simplest because if somebody comes in and they're homeless and a drug addict, it's very easy to say, well, they kind of did it to themself. It was their moral choice.
If somebody is born with autism, let's say, you can't say they've done it to themself. Right? So like whatever reaction you're having that makes you think, I can't get too close to this person, or this person is gonna be a burden rather than a con contributor to, to the life of the church. That reaction is a pretty classic sin reaction. Um, I, I have tended to use the example of the, of Adam and Eve with the fall. All right. In the 1st meeting of Adam and Eve, uh, Adam has very joyful receipt, right? He, he recognizes even like him, but different. And that difference is what makes him praise God for bringing someone who's like, but different.
Um, but then when they fall, they. Become ashamed of their difference, uh, and they make one another ashamed of their difference. So the fallen condition is when we experience subjectively other people's difference as somehow threatening or unsettling, and as a result, we treat them in ways that that shame them to go to jump to the New Testament.
Uh, I think that's why Paul picks up that image of, um, uh, He picks up that image of, of shame from Genesis when he's talking about life in the body of Christ, uh, and, uh, when in first Corinthians 12, he said that, uh, uh, those who are most exposed, we should, uh, value most highly, right? So the, the one in the ones in our society who.
People are ashamed and people are ashamed of are the invitation for the church to kind of re engage with a God who reveals that their difference isn't a threat to us, but somehow draws us into the form of life that we were created for.
Zoe: Yeah, absolutely. And that's such a helpful way to think of it in terms of like Genesis and that like not shaming each other. Such like a powerful illustration of that. And I'm just thinking with all you're saying. It would be, it strikes me that it would be so easy for the church as well in the UK just to say, well, this isn't happening in our country.
This isn't our problem. And I guess how, yeah, how do the church kind of practically engage with these conversations as well as welcoming people and including people? Yeah. How does, how can the church and the UK or places where this isn't, where euthanasia isn't legalized, engage in these conversations?
Brian: Well, I think, uh, at the, at the kind of public level of what the church stands for, I think it's important for the church to say, we think making neurodiversity a, uh, a qualifying condition that equals suffering or equals a green light to commit suicide officially. That that does, in fact, weaken the position of those who are who have that condition.
Uh, I mean, the only argument you can make that it improves their life is that it removes some people who don't want to be here. And therefore the treatment that's available goes further. Um, and immediately the alternative argument crops up, which is, well, if there's less people to treat, then we need less.
Fewer, you know, we need fewer, less capacity to treat, um, and that's obviously happening, uh, in relation to prenatal testing where certain conditions are essentially being. Being wiped out so you don't really need as much provision for people with certain conditions and on the in the when the idea that we're to love every person as Christ loved them is replaced by it's our responsibility as a society improve society progressively and that means getting rid of suffering we have a relatively pure conflict at the level of how we how we treat issues like this because Uh, If we react to cases like the one that I told you, like, well, we can't do anything more for you, but we can relieve your suffering.
So, yes, we can kill you. Um, uh, that's a very different response to we know that you're suffering is, as you've said, your social isolation. Uh, and we know that that is tied up with what you've been subjected to socially and also that you make it difficult for other people, but we recognize that and own that and want to be the solution to that if you know that that I think is how the church can gain credibility.
I think if we're just standing up and saying, here's the public, here's the policies that we're against. People don't experience the church as life giving. Then our policy pronouncements are really, uh, uh, empty sound, um, uh, so it really has to be tied with concrete experiences of, okay, this church has people in it that we know would get, uh, thrown out of Walmart if they stayed there for two hours.
Ian: I think that does highlight, um, the fact that there are, that there are sort of two different spheres that I think both need attention from a, from the church's point of view, right? So one is the, the the actual dealing with the suffering of autistic individuals and individuals with disabilities, right?
That we, as the church, can't just advocate for policy positions because those are empty words if we're not actually creating connection and, and, and creating support structures that are not viewed as burdensome, that are viewed as, as welcome, right? That are, that are Um, saying this is not a hardship to support you and to love you and to accept you.
Um, so we need that on an individual level or it's all hollow words. But the, the, what, what really, what it seems like is driving the, the spread and, and I think Zoe, to your point, it's easy at this point to view it as isolated instances. It's in a few different countries that are allowing this, but it's a, it's a, it's the intersection of a couple of factors that.
make me pretty certain that this is going to spread. It's the medical model of disability that says, this is inherently suffering because we can't treat it, we can't do anything about it. And, it's view, it's, it's, it's, sort of capitalism at work, in a sense. It's the idea that you are what you can produce.
And if certain individuals are drains on resources, are financial negatives, so to speak, then it's, it's not worth it from a societal perspective. And those two factors are, at least in the West, the prevailing understandings of the world. Right. And so unless we have some counter narrative to say more broadly, not just for autistic individuals, not just for people with disabilities, but for everyone to have some sort of narrative to buy into that says, this isn't the only way of looking at this problem that I've, it seems pretty certain that this is going to spread that more, more countries and more financial systems are likely to say, you know what, this is a way to save money in the end.
Brian: And I think, uh, Grant McCaskill in his book, Autism in the Church, um, has a great kind of snapshot of how we can push back against what you're calling the kind of capitalist framework, which also ties in with the four principles, like autonomy being the main medicine, especially in places like America basically is what you want it to be.
Um, uh, that's less true in Britain. Um, uh, but weirdly, approach from slightly different angles, euthanasia, I think you're right, is, is spreading. Um, as a, as something that people, I mean, we can control everything else. Why can't we control the end of our life? It's, you know, it's ultimately. My body, my choice spun out at another point of the life course.
Um, uh, and grant, I think, very nicely, um, concretizes the issues at stake by saying, actually, one of the key ways that the church become what the church is really supposed to be is for pastors to examine their own reactions when they see people coming through the doors of the church and that, um, if somebody's, you know, Coming up in tailored suits and, you know, uh, classic 2 parents and 3 kids and seem pretty wealthy.
The experience of the pastor internally is going to be that person is going to sort of contribute, uh, in other words, it's going to raise the, um, resources available. By their various types of, uh, social and financial capital being dispersed among us. But if somebody comes in with a special needs kid, for instance.
That the calculus runs the other way with this first impression and it is, oh, this person is going to require some special ministry and it's going to cost us and I think that's the, that's the ecclesial version of this kind of capitalist, uh, sensibility that. We're, we're trying to build something here, and if you're not building something, you're dragging us down.
And that's one of the motors of the hesitation blues. Like, okay, yeah, we're glad you're here, and Jesus died for you, but, um, Gosh, you're gonna make our life difficult, aren't you? And I think that, you know, why would you want to be there? If that's, if that's how people react to you.
Zoe: Yeah, absolutely. And yeah, just thinking about it, like with disability theology and autism and theology, the hope is that these changes, if they can happen in the church, then trickle into society. And yeah, that's why these conversations are so important.
Brian: I mean, I, I, I think I'd put it even more strongly. I think you're right, but I'd put it more strongly. If there's no place where you can experience the distinction that I've just described, then of course, nothing is going to change. Right. So that it's, it's not so much. Well, you can think about, it's really easy to do in a, in a really pretty secular society. Like the ones Zoe and I live in. There are a lot of things that people don't do together that used to happen in church, like sing together, right?
Like the kids that go to the school two doors down, they, they don't sing together, right? You can go to the, you can get in the choir if you want to. You never have that experience. They don't go to a funeral. Um, they don't, uh, have an experience of there being anything more than what's on their phone feed.
Um, uh, so where do they, where do they meet an old person and where do they have the experience of somebody that they're not related to taking an interest in them? Right? So there's, I think the church, it, it, you could say, okay. trickle down, but you could also say the church, just by being the church, allows the kind of, uh, the universal picture of the world that is our time to be exploded by showing that there, there could be something else.
Zoe: Yeah, absolutely. That's so helpful to think about Brian. And I'm wondering if people are interested to hear more about the medical ethics side of things and have more questions about this topic that we've discussed, because obviously it's such a huge discussion and so much nuance to it. Do you have anywhere that you would recommend that people look at?
Brian: Sure. Um, well, I've, I've mentioned the, the article from Irene Tuffwine and a handful of other authors. Um, I, I think you'll have that in the box below or someplace along the link. Um, I'd also recommend the, the special issue of the Journal of Disability and Religion. It's 22 3, um, from 2018. And there's some great articles in there, including One that I find really moving, uh, by Patrick McCurney, who's a, um, he's a social scientist who studied L'Arche and he, uh, in his article, The Weight of Living, Autonomy, Care, and the Responsibility for the Self, he, he caches out these questions by saying, what does it mean to help someone who doesn't want to take their medicine, they're going to die if they don't take their medicine, take their medicine without forcing them against their will, right?
Like that, that's the concrete question that, uh, these sort of higher level questions about what's the law going to be really boils down to how do we attentively appreciate the difference that's among us recognizing that, um, uh, often with neurodivergence and special needs some support needs to be given.
And that means helping people to understand what's going on and make good choices that are good for them. And yet not impose on them. Uh, uh, how does, um, guardianship, for instance, work, um, this all that there's tons of super interesting and important questions here. And, um, I think in that special issue, especially, uh, you'll get a really good insight into. Um, what those questions are.
Zoe: Great. Thank you so much, Brian. And all of those will be linked in the show notes. Um, I think you mentioned that some of the articles, the special edition isn't behind a paywall, so everyone should be able to access that one. Um, but yeah, thank you so much for joining us, Brian.
It's been such a helpful conversation. And thank you to everyone who's listened to this episode. We really appreciate you tuning in and, yeah, engaging with autism and theology. If you have any questions for us or just want to say hi, you can find us on social media or email us cat@abdn. ac. uk. We'll be back in two weeks time with our next Cat Chat episode.