Summer 2021 Publication

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
AND THE DISABILITY
PARADOX
KATHERINE YAN
A
ccording to the Office of National
Statistics, as reported by the BBC (2021),
six in ten people who died from COVID-
19 in the UK last year had disabilities.
At first glance, this statistic might be
distressing, but not especially surprising
— after all, it makes sense that
disabilities mean poorer health, and
lower chances of survival. It makes sense
that there’s a disproportionate amount of
people with disabilities getting infected
in the first place, as many of them either
live in group homes or are low-paid
essential workers, reliant on public
transportation (a problem unto itself).
The presence of Intellectual and
Developmental Disorders (IDDs) is the
highest predictor of coronavirus fatality,
outside of age,¹ which might make an
awful sort of sense… until you realize
that IDDs beat out heart failure, chronic
kidney diseases, and cancers —
including lung cancer, the only of the 15
conditions analysed in a study that
rivalled IDDs’ threefold increase in death
rates — as a risk factor.²
Of course, most IDDs come with many
underlying health conditions that play a
major role in death rates, but what is also
notable is that while patients with IDDs
have a higher rate of hospital admittance
and a higher rate of coronavirus mortality
following that admittance, there is no
corresponding increase in admission rates
into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).¹
What does this all mean?
Patients with disabilities are dying, and
they aren’t receiving the higher levels of
care they need.
Michael Hickson, a quadriplegic, was
admitted into Austin Hospital in June
last year.³ ⁴ He was put on a ventilator
when his condition became serious, but,
when it further worsened, his wife,
Melissa Hickson, was told that he would
be moved out of the ICU and into hospice
care. He would not be intubated. He
would not be receiving hydration,
nutrition, or resuscitation. Essentially, he
was left in a comfortable place to die.
When Melissa called the hospital to ask
why her husband wouldn’t be receiving
(Image Credit: Pixabay)
further treatment, she wasn’t told any of
the more valid reasons that treatment
would be futile — his sepsis, pneumonia,
multiple organ failure, low chances of
survival. Instead, the attending physician,
in the recorded call, informed her that
they would not aggressively pursue
treatment because of “his quality of life
— he doesn’t have much of one.”
“What do you mean? Because he’s
paralyzed with a brain injury, he doesn’t
have quality of life?” she had asked.
“Correct.”
Nobody made decisions based on what
Michael Hickson, or his wife, or his five
children, thought of his “quality of life”
— that right was taken away. Michael
Hickson died on June 11.
The hospital denied that this decision
was based on his disability, but, given
what the doctor had said on the phone,
could that really have played no role?
This isn’t an isolated incident. Research
shows that doctors tend to rate the
10| SUMMER 2021