Assisted suicide is the topic du jour in the British press. After I posted about Noel Martin’s story on Sunday, I learned about Dan James. James was a 23-year-old rugby player who became a quadriplegic after a training injury in 2007. Earlier this fall, he traveled to Switzerland with his parents for an assisted suicide.

In related news that was drowned out by the presidential election results, Washington state passed a ballot measure that legalizes physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill individuals. It becomes the second state after Oregon to have such a law on the books. The Swiss law is much more permissive; it does not require the involvement of a physician nor does it require that the person have a terminal illness. It’s difficult to conceive of any jurisdiction here in the U.S. enacting anything similar. I’ll be curious to see how other European countries–especially Britain–strengthen or weaken their own laws on assisted suicide in response.

I was listening to the BBC late last night when I heard this interview between Liz Carr, a woman with a disability and freelance reporter, and Noel Martin, who was paralyzed in a neo-Nazi attack twelve years ago and is now seeking assistance to die from a Swiss-based euthanasia group. The conversation between Liz and Martin raises many of the questions familiar to those of us who who have been tracking the ongoing debate on disability and assisted suicide. What constitutes an acceptable quality of life? Does the right to privacy include the right to terminate one’s own life? How do society’s views on disability influence the decision to end one’s life?

After listening to the full interview, I’m struck by a couple things. First, Martin seems incredibly despondent about his situation. The BBC provides some videos of Martin’s daily life and he has been confined to bed for several months, which would depress anyone. Second, Carr can’t seem to grasp the scope of Martin’s enduring grief for the life he had before his injury. The two are talking past each other, neither one really able to understand the other’s perspective. Martin can’t imagine realizing any sense of independence in his current state and Carr can’t imagine his isolation. I have a difficult time imagining it myself.

I don’t expect Martin to change his mind about ending his life and, judging from the reactions of the callers to the live portion of the broadcast, he has plenty of support. But it seems too easy to say that his decision is a mistake or rooted in chronic depression. Life with a significant disability is a struggle and to suggest otherwise would be an act of denial. And if I suddenly experienced a dramatic change, like loss of sensation or the ability to speak, I can’t be sure how I would cope.

I’ve wanted to share this news for a while, but I had to wait until everything was made official. I recently accepted a promotion to the Health Care Eligibility and Access Division within the Department of Human Services. After seven years in Disability Services, I’ll be moving into a more advanced position with both policy and legislative responsibilities. My focus will primarily be on health care programs for kids and families, including Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare.

Of course, I’m thrilled to get this opportunity, although it probably won’t seem completely real until my start date (December 1). The upcoming legislative session promises to be challenging and I’m looking forward to getting a closer look at the process. The next few months are going to be crazy busy as I settle into my new role and familiarize myself with a complex and evolving set of policies. And any health care reforms that materialize at the federal level are likely to directly affect my work. I’ll get to play a small but meaningful role in ensuring hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans have access to affordable, quality health care.

I’m incredibly fortunate to live in a time and place that has given me the means to put my talents to use and achieve some measure of success. I’ll try to keep that thought close in the weeks and months ahead.

I’m duty-bound to point out that the new trailer for next summer’s Star Trek film is now available. We’re presented with a quick succession of scenes in which a young, brooding Kirk glowers, a young Spock looks pensive, a space monster roars, Kirk glowers some more, things in space blow up, Spock looks slightly less pensive, a female crewmember removes her top, and then we get a final dose of glowering from some Romulan-looking baddie.

It might not be Wrath of Khan, but it looks a damn sight better than the steaming pile that was Nemesis. And I like how the trailer ends with a fade-in of the film’s title done up in the the old-school font of the original series.

Am I the only one who kind of liked the title of this latest chapter in the Bond franchise? It’s not nearly as cryptic as other reviewers have made it out to be. The film picks up immediately after the events in Casino Royale; a distraught Bond is determined to exact vengeance on the mysterious organization responsible for his girlfriend’s death. His vendetta eventually leads him to a generically European CEO of a multinational that ostensibly promotes environmental stewardship. This being a Bond film, we soon discover that the CEO is not a nice man and our hero sets about getting his revenge while serving queen and country.

And that means lots of gunplay, car chases, and fistfights. The tone of this film is much more frenetic than Casino, which had a more deliberate pace. Casino could have been based on a Le Carré novel, while Quantum adheres to the more traditional Fleming formula. There’s nothing wrong with that formula, of course. The film is entertaining, but it doesn’t feel as grounded in reality. However, it’s interesting to note that Daniel Craig’s Bond is not nearly the misogynistic dick that his predecessors were; Bond has one brief dalliance with a minor character and even that felt forced,  like the writers shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, he has to shag someone.”