I had a vague background in many of the topics at IASSIDD, due to the previous DDHS classes and my experience working with children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For example, much of our DDHS classes have focused on the quality of life for the individual and for their family. This provided a nice wealth of knowledge, so that this week when we were hearing about the quality of life for people living in other countries, such as Zimbabwe, Switzerland, and the UK, we were able to make those comparisons in our minds, while absorbing and taking in new perspectives from around the globe.
One topic that I didn’t have any prior knowledge about, however, was the role of euthanasia in the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Most of the conversations were led by professors from the Netherlands, whom I believe are the world-wide leading pioneers in this medical procedure. I appreciated the lengthy explanation, provisions, and case studies that were thoroughly presented to introduce this controversial and fascinating topic. The first discussion I saw in which euthanasia was briefly mentioned was on the first day, during a talk about quality of life. The speaker’s time had abruptly timed out after the inflammatory suggestion, which left the audience uneasy. Fast forward to the second discussion I saw, a day or so later, that had been dedicated to the topic of euthanasia specifically. Except this time, abortion was included and used as a comparison point of how far legal freedoms extend for certain groups and exclude others. This made me really stop in my tracks — a topic so polarized and controversial, yet one that I was adamantly sure I had made my mind up about. The topic of euthanasia was turning my world upside down. I let myself process this new information, and I still am very unsure how I feel about it now.
Fast forward to a heated round table on the last day of IASSIDD where someone brought up the interesting point of the language that was being used to describe this incredibly complicated process. Although this had been an on-going topic over the last few days (and for the last few centuries), with the same jargon being used, it was on the last day that someone aired their concerns. And immediately after the comment, people were very receptive and some even agreed with her. Although it seemed miniscule in the moment, that is exactly how change happens. And from now on, everyone in that room, whether they agreed with her or not, will think about the words they use to describe euthanasia, and some may even change the way they talk about it. **plug the person-first language movement**
It was an especially powerful moment for me and it made me feel even more grateful to have been a part of the progressive conversation and congress as a whole.

Last comment:
During the euthanasia discussion, someone said “legislators shouldn’t shop in the bedrooms of the public”, referring to how private affairs and things that will affect peoples’ personal lives should stay private. I thought it was very powerful (and TRUE) and could be used in many contexts. I just wanted to share it with y’all.