A common worry raised by opponents of the right-to-die
is that disadvantaged groups will be coerced into 'choosing' death
before it really would be wise for them.
The experience of Oregon in the USA shows no such pattern.
But if the patient and/or the proxies are worried
about the right-to-die becoming the duty-to-die for disadvantaged groups,
they can choose to have their life-ending decisions
reviewed by individuals or groups especially sensitive to their situations.

    This safeguard should be completely at the option
of the patient and/or the proxies,
since most people will not be worried about being 'railroaded' into death
because they belong to a disfavored group in society.

    The patient's advance directive for medical care
might be a good place to make a special request
for such a review of any life-ending decisions in the future.
The maker of the advance directive could take that opportunity
to suggest exactly what individual or group might be most appropriate
to review any life-ending decisions that might be made
after the patient is no longer able to make medical decisions.

    If any member of a disadvantaged group
believes that the right-to-die could never be applied rationally to his or her group,
then he or she should rule out any and all life-ending decisions
in his or her advance directive for medical care.

    A comprehensive Advance Directive for Medical Care
should address precisely this question.
Here is one formulation of the question about the right-to-die:
Question 16:  Do you endorse more active means
of ending your life?  Do you believe you have a right-to-die?
Voluntary death?  Merciful death?
The person who fears being forced to die because of group-identity
would say "no" to this Question:
For myself, I reject any so-called 'right-to-die'.

    The most radical members of disability groups
do in fact take this position.
They might say something like the following in their advance directives:
"The question of the right-to-die should never be considered for me
because of the overwhelming danger
of others choosing premature death for me because of my disability."
And such persons will choose proxies, consultants, & advocates
who will always say no to any suggestion of a chosen death.

    However, some members of disadvantaged groups
can see beyond the issue of possible discrimination
and do want to keep all of their options open,
including the option of choosing a wise voluntary death or merciful death.

    In specifying any such special advocate,
the patient will select some individual or group
that is in sympathy with their own settled values about life and death.
For example, a member of a minority group
might select a leader of that minority community
to review any life-ending decisions.
And if the patient wants to affirm the right-to-die,
this special advocate must be open to that option.
It would make no sense for the special consultant always to say "no"
just because of the generalized worry that members
of that minority group might be discriminated against.
Members of all identifiable groups
should have the same rights as everyone else.

    For patients who fear discrimination because of their mental limitations,
special consultants who are aware of bias against the mentally-challenged
could be appointed to review any life-ending decisions for such patients.

    Physically disabled patients can appoint consultants
to protect them against discrimination on the basis of disability.