3. Contested Borders: Neurodivergent Lives, Legal Epistemologies, Cooperative Working and Structural Violence
Hybrid
Meeting ID: 997 9453 0311
Passcode: 258068
Panellists: Eilís Ní Chaoimh, Kalyani Mehta, Steve Graby
Chair: Rebecca Jiggens
Eilís Ní Chaoimh | The Challenge of Neurodiversity for Criminal Responsibility
Abstract: It is often noted that there is an over-representation of neurodivergent people within prison populations. This paper will explore areas where the structure of criminal law regarding criminal responsibility may disadvantage neurodivergent defendants while also considering the challenge of accommodating neurodiversity within doctrines of criminal responsibility. One of the central tenets of criminal law is that for a crime to have occurred, there must be a criminal act (known as actus reus) combined with the requisite frame of mind (mens rea) and the absence of an appropriate defence. Yet the notion that a court or jury can ascertain whether an individual has the requisite mens rea to have committed a crime amounts to a legal fiction, as it is not possible to know the mind of another. While it is often stated that mens rea is constructed subjectively (i.e. concerned with what was in the mind of the accused at the time of the alleged crime), the norm, at present, is for behaviour to be interpreted post facto by an external observer: judge, jury or even a nominated expert such as a psychiatrist. Alternatively, neurodivergent defendants may avail of capacity-based defences, such as the insanity defence. However, such capacity-based defences may be contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and certainly do not fit within a neurodiversity framework that rejects the pathologisation of neurodivergence.
-
Kalyani Mehta (Online) | Cognitive Euthanasia and Neurodivergence: Navigating the Ethical Boundaries of Autonomy and Protection
Abstract: Cognitive euthanasia, defined as the practice of assisted dying for individuals with neurodevelopmental or cognitive conditions, presents one of the most complex ethical dilemmas in contemporary bioethics and medical jurisprudence. While euthanasia has traditionally been reserved for terminal illnesses with intractable physical suffering, recent legal expansions in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada have extended eligibility to individuals experiencing severe psychological distress. As these jurisdictions expand euthanasia eligibility to include non-terminal psychological suffering, the question arises whether neurodivergent individuals, including those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, intellectual disabilities, and severe psychiatric conditions, can exercise true autonomy in end-of-life decisions. While autonomy is a core principle in medical ethics, neurodivergent individuals may face cognitive, communicative, and systemic barriers that complicate informed consent. Similarly, from neuroscientific and psychological perspective, the assessment of decision-making capacity in neurodivergent individuals requires a nuanced approach. Traditional competency evaluations, based on neurotypical cognitive frameworks, may fail to account for alternative modes of processing, reasoning, and emotional regulation among neurodivergent individuals. The presence of co-occurring psychiatric conditions, such as depression, and anxiety, further complicates the evaluation process, raising concerns about whether euthanasia requests stem from stable, persistent suffering or treatable psychological distress. Furthermore, the intersection of neurodivergence with socioeconomic factors, such as limited access to adequate mental healthcare, unemployment, and social isolation, raises ethical concerns about euthanasia as a response to structural inequalities rather than intrinsic suffering. Legally, the expansion of euthanasia for psychiatric suffering in certain jurisdictions has led to cases where autistic individuals and those with ADHD have successfully applied for assisted dying, citing chronic existential distress and social alienation as their primary justifications prompting urgent questions regarding the risk of implicit ableism in medical assessments, where neurodivergent lives may be undervalued.
This paper explores whether neurodivergent individuals seeking euthanasia do so from a position of genuine self-determination or whether their choices are unduly shaped by social, economic, and medical inadequacies. The neuroethical debate centers on whether cognitive euthanasia safeguards or undermines the rights of neurodivergent individuals, especially given historical patterns of medical discrimination and the pervasive underestimation of neurodivergent competence. This study also proposes a multi-tiered ethical framework that includes enhanced neuropsychological assessments, extended waiting periods, independent ethics reviews with neurodiversity representation, and the prioritization of systemic interventions before euthanasia approval. Cognitive euthanasia, if permitted, must not become a mechanism through which society abdicates its responsibility to support neurodivergent individuals, but rather a carefully regulated option ensuring that euthanasia is pursued only when suffering is truly irremediable, irreversible, and not a consequence of preventable social or medical failures.
-
Steve Graby | A Crooked Tree Won't Fit Into the Mill Machine: turning a neurodivergent lens on work, impairment and disablement
Abstract: Disability theorists and activists since the 1970s have identified the source of disabled people's oppression in industrial capitalism and its need for interchangeable workers with 'standard' capacities (UPIAS 1976; Oliver 1990; Abberley 2002). While this analysis, associated with the social model of disability and its distinction between impairment and disablement, originated from the experiences of (non-)workers with physical impairments, the 'post-Fordist' shift towards cognitive and psycho-emotional, rather than physical, criteria for 'employability' (Chapman 2023) has arguably resulted in the increasingly acute disablement of neurodivergent people.
In recent research, I explored the potential of workers' co-operatives for enabling financially viable work for disabled people, and for ameliorating disablement more broadly. One finding of this was that neurodivergent people in particular may be strongly drawn to non-hierarchical, self-determined collective ways of working. This could be explained by a 'pervasive desire for autonomy' specific to particular forms of neurodivergence, but could alternately be interpreted as informed by experiences of social and economic exclusion (i.e. disablement rather than impairment) and the desire to resist and counter this.
Drawing on neurodivergent and disabled workers' experiences of co-operative working and on Chapman's work on neurodivergence and capitalism, I argue that re-examining the relations between impairment, disablement, work and employment from a perspective focusing on neurodivergence (without neglecting other impairment groups) can clarify and strengthen the often over-simplified 'social model' distinction between impairment and disability, and can help to provide strategies for neurodiverse resistance to capitalism and disablement.
***
Speaker Bios:
Eilís Ní Chaoimh: Eilís Ní Chaoimh (they/them) is in the final year of their PhD in Disability Law and Policy at the University of Galway (Ireland). Their thesis title is “Divergent Minds: Accommodating Neurodiversity in the Mens Rea of Intention”. Their research is at the intersection of disability law and criminal law. It seeks to interrogate established assumptions regarding decision-making and analyse the degree to which such assumptions may disadvantage neurodivergent individuals accused of criminal behaviour. They are a neurodivergent, queer and disabled academic who will likely be spotted crocheting at the conference (as that is their preferred stim for public events!)
-
Kalyani Mehta: Kalyani is a PhD scholar in the Department of English at Patna University, specializing in the exploration of euthanasia through literature. Their research focuses on ethical considerations, psychological impact, aestheticism, and the narrative role of literature. Other areas of her interest are Dalit studies, posthuman studies and others. Kalyani has qualified UGC-NET thrice and GATE twice. She has published research papers in RJOE and IJOES journals. Her publications also include 3 book chapters and a poem in fiction section. Apart from this, she is also working on 2 books which comprises of an anthology and a book of poems. Currently, she serves as a teaching assistant at Magadh Mahila College, Patna, Bihar, and has previously worked as an assistant professor at S.P. Jain College, Sasaram, VKSU, Bihar.
-
Steve Graby: Neurodivergent disability activist and sometimes scholar, living on the fringes of academia and refusing to privilege the formally published over the anecdotal and community-recognised. Involved in co-operatives, disabled people's organisations, and left-libertarian politics. Queer in all senses of the word. Pervasively desiring relational autonomy for all oppressed by Capital and Empire.
***
Zoom Meeting ID: XXX
Online passcode: XXX
Telephone passcode: XXX