Human rights on a case-by-case basis

 

People really, really need to stop discussing autonomy (especially for young people, poor people, or disabled people) with concepts like "it depends on the individuals" or "on a case-by-case basis."

"It depends on the individuals" or "on a case-by-case basis" are valid concepts for assessing whether an individual choice is a good idea, or the right choice for the circumstances. Whether something is a good idea is almost always context-dependent. Sure.

But when the question is whether someone should have the right to make a choice, or when the question is whose choice it should be, the context doesn't matter. The individual doesn't matter. The circumstances don't matter. Autonomy is a human right. Cognitive liberty is a human right. Our rights should not be determined on a case-by-case basis. Our rights should be universal and absolute.

This comes up a lot in medical contexts, especially as mad pride and anti-psychiatry spaces place more emphasis on "medication is bad" than on "coercion is bad," and the vague rebuttal is that medication can be good or bad "depending on the individual" " on a case-by-case basis." This still bypasses the central issue of autonomy and coercion.

Is taking prescribed medication a good idea? Maybe. It depends on the individual. Decide on a case-by-case basis.

Should an individual have the right to choose whether to take prescribed medication? Yes. Unequivocally. In every case. In every circumstance. It does not depend on the individual, because every individually is equally deserving of human rights. In this context, pro-coercion people are hiding behind the ambiguity of "it depends on the individual" to convey that some individuals should not have the basic human right to control their own bodies.

I've gotten into a lot of arguments recently about the brain maturity myth and young adults as "still children," specifically about young adults' freedom to enter romantic relationships of their choice, or have children if they choose to. But the strongest defense I regularly see of youth rights in these contexts is "it depends on the individuals."

Whether or not a given romantic relationship or family situation is a good idea, whether a relationship will lead to a mutually satisfying lasting partnership, whether it will lead to long-term happiness -- these things depend on the individuals. They are context-dependent, and different for everyone. The correct answer to "Should an 18 year old get married or have children?" is "It depends on the individual."

But the correct answer to "Should xe have the right to choose to get married or have children?" is always yes. It does not depend on the individual. It does not depend on whether this choice is a good idea or likely to lead to long-term success. Relationship autonomy and reproductive rights do not depend on whether something is a "good idea." They are simply human rights.

Arguments about institutionalization and adult guardianship also always devolve into "You don't know the individual" or "You don't know the whole situation" -- as though the right to control of one's own body and mind is situational. We don't have to know every individual or every situation, because the situation doesn't matter. The individual characteristics of the person being subjected to a human rights abuse aren't relevant.

In general, anything that shifts conversation to the specifics of a decision someone wants to make, when the issue at hand is their right to make the decision in the first place, is a harmful derailing. It's fine to be judgmental of someone else's life choice, or to think they're making a mistake, but that's not what's relevant. Your support for people's right to freedom of speech shouldn't depend on your agreement with what they're saying, and your support for bodily and cognitive autonomy shouldn't depend on whether you think someone is making "good choices."

In fact, consider taking the Signal Boost Someone Fighting For The Right To Do Something You Disagree With, WITHOUT Mentioning That You Disagree With It Challenge. Really. Try it. Denounce that group home not letting its inmates drink soda WITHOUT adding your opinion that soda is bad. Support that religious freedom case WITHOUT tacking on that you think the person's religion is wrong. Argue for that disabled young adult's right to move in with a partner against xyr parents' wishes WITHOUT weighing in on xyr partner or their relationship. Defend that pregnant person's right to give birth as xe chooses WITHOUT adding that xe's making the wrong choice. You might find that your opinion of other people's autonomy is less important than you think it is!