The Royal Society of Canada (RSC) recently recommended that the Criminal Code of Canada be amended so that people in poor health (usually a terminal illness) would have the right to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. And just like that, Canadians have, once again, found themselves immersed in another heated debate on the issue. Cue the predictable fear mongering.
Few issues elicit the kind of passionate and polarizing resistance that euthanasia does. The most common argument used is that it’s a “slippery slope” from legalizing it to allowing and even aggressively promoting the death of those who become a burden to society. Opponents are fond of associating it with eugenics; casually reminding us of the Nazis’ murder of the disabled and other “undesirables”, as if it were one and the same thing. It’s a prediction I find is often made by those with no valid arguments.
Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands openly and legally authorize assisted suicides. The state of Oregon has had a physician-assisted suicide law since 1997. Since the “Death with Dignity Act” was enacted there, there’s been no evidence that the elderly or the disabled have suffered from abuse or exploitation. There are simply too many safeguards in place.
According to a recent article by The Ottawa Citizen’s Dan Gardner, a 2009 summary of research by Dutch scientists concluded that “there’s no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial and ethnic minorities, compared with background population.”
So where’s the proof that legalizing assisted suicide opens the door to the elderly and the frail being hastened to death without their full consent? There simply isn’t any.
The Criminal Code of Canada outlaws suicide assistance, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison, even though many polls have indicated that a large majority of Canadians support the right to die for people enduring a terminal illness. I suspect the penalties are based on what is considered “morally” acceptable; driven by pro-life supporters, who champion the sanctity of life as a gift and as something that should not be deliberately thrown away.
Opponents of euthanasia are fond of associating it with eugenics; casually reminding us of the Nazis’ murder of the disabled and other “undesirables”, as if it were one and the same thing. -
Euthanasia literally means “good death”. Just like it is our soul’s obligation to seek happiness and fulfillment in life, it is perfectly reasonable to want a dignified death. We can philosophize all we want about the sanctity of life, but at the end of the day, if you were facing certain death from an incurable illness, while suffering intolerable pain, would you not want the option of ending it all, while you still had the capacity to? And wouldn’t you see that as the ultimate act of compassion; not as a crime? I know I would.
National Post columnist, Barbary Kay, claims the recent euthanasia reports are reassuring, but misleading, and questions why more people aren’t discussing improvements to end-of-life care, as if it were an “either/or” proposition.
Journal de Montréal journalist, Richard Martineau, whom I rarely agree with, made a valid point during his TV show a few weeks ago.
“Of course seniors get tired of living! They’re all alone! They die in their apartment and someone finds them two months later.”
There’s no question drastic improvements need to be made to how the physically frail, the financially unstable, and those with no social support system are treated in this disconnected society of ours.
That, however, doesn’t negate putting in place a system that allows for a dignified death.
When those against mercy killings talk about "the sanctity of life" are they willing to take into consideration its quality? A good death should be just as seminal as a good life and it's about time we had legislation that was honest enough, brave enough and –most importantly- compassionate enough to reflect a value that paradoxically at its core is much more life-affirming than what is currently in place.
