 |
Scheduled departures: Euthanasia debate is about choice
by Donald Babey
As a society, we believe in and value freedom of choice. It is part of the Canadian culture and it is one of the tenets that make us proud. Whether it is the freedom to participate in democratic elections, the freedom to choose how to practise or celebrate our spiritual beliefs, or the freedom to speak our minds without fear of reprisal, enjoying these choices in life is our protected right.
Our freedoms end, however, when it comes to determining when and how we die. As the law in Canada stands, we have the right to refuse medical treatment, a right confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1993; we have the right to end our own life, an act decriminalized by the federal government in 1974, but we don’t have the right to have a physician-assisted death. In a June 2007 Ipsos Reid poll, 76% of Canadians said this must change — a level of support that has remained the same for well over a decade.
Canadians have clearly made up their minds on this issue. For over 25 years, Dying With Dignity Canada has been working to expand end-of-life options for all Canadians. Advocating for the legal recognition and use of advance care directives, supporting access to hospice and palliative care, and supporting individuals as they struggle with their own end-of-life issues have been at the core of our work.
Often this work has included providing legal options to a violent death, but as the recent shocking deaths of two elderly couples in Toronto confirm, there is much more work to be done.
We need not look too far for evidence that there are better ways to approach end-of-life. The citizens of Oregon in the United States have had legally available physician-assisted dying for a decade. In that time citizens have seen increased hospice and palliative care support, reduced anxiety and fear of future pain and suffering, while at the same time protecting the rights of vulnerable people.
In fact, in the first nine years that the Death With Dignity Act has been in place, less than 300 people (out of 270,000 deaths) have used the law and had an assisted death.
A ground-breaking study recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics came to the conclusion that where physician-assisted dying is legally available, there is no evidence that patients in vulnerable groups received assistance in dying in greater numbers than the general population — additional proof there is no slippery slope.
It is time that Canada joins the other progressive jurisdictions around the world where a dignified death of one’s own choosing is a legal and protected right. We have proof from the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Oregon that human dignity, indeed the human right of personal autonomy and informed choice can extend to how we die while preserving respect for life.
There has been much misinformation and fear introduced into the discussion of how we should and should not die. It is time this discussion take place in a thoughtful, respectful and fact-based arena that leads to a change in the law that the vast majority of Canadians want. It is about choice, and it’s about time.
Donald Babey is Executive Director Dying With Dignity Canada
Assisted suicide would lead to convenient disposal of people
by Alex Schadenberg
When people consider legalizing assisted suicide they usually think about those suffering from conditions so great that to cause their death seems compassionate. I, too, am moved by such stories, but we are capable of providing proper care in even the most difficult circumstances.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia threaten the lives of vulnerable people by their very nature. Both acts require another person, usually a physician, to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person.
In the case of assisted suicide, a person provides the drugs or other means, knowing the intention is to cause one’s death. In the case of euthanasia, the person physically acts by injecting or causing the death of another person.
Some people confuse euthanasia or assisted suicide with the refusal or withdrawal of medical treatment or the possible overdose with pain killing analgesics, such as morphine. To refuse or withdraw medical treatment is not a form of euthanasia or assisted suicide, but rather the acceptance that death is near. In the case of an overdose with pain killing analgesics, the act is morally suspect only when it is intentionally done to cause death, rather than kill the pain.
To legalize either practice would mean a change in both the law and medical ethics by giving one person the right to be directly and intentionally involved in taking the life of another person.
We uphold the ethic of caring for people, not killing them. Recently, a University of Utah study claimed legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia would not threaten the lives of vulnerable people. This study was completed by Margaret Battin, a leading advocate of legalized assisted suicide.
Battin came to her conclusion by analyzing government reports from the Netherlands (where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2002 and tolerated since the 1970s) and the state of Oregon in the United States, where assisted suicide became legal in 1998.
Battin’s conclusions were false on two counts. First, government reports from Oregon do not contain the type of information to determine whether or not vulnerable people are truly at risk in Oregon. These government reports are compiled from the reports submitted by the doctors who assist the suicide of their patients. The information from these reports is not complete and is not followed up by third party research to determine accuracy.
Battin simply stated the government reports from the Netherlands did not show a significant threat to vulnerable people, even though the last report from the Netherlands indicated that 550 people were euthanized without request.
Second, to state there is not a slippery slope concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands is false.
In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide began as a means of ending the lives of terminally ill people who were physically suffering.
People in the Netherlands now qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide if they are physically and/or mentally suffering (chronic depression included). There is no limit based on terminal conditions. Infants born with congenital disabilities are euthanized if the parents request it. The practice of euthanasia without request continues.
To legalize assisted suicide in Canada would result in a watering down of medical ethics and would be a direct threat to the lives of the most vulnerable in our society.
Alex Schadenberg is
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition