A Tough Question: No Easy Answers
Lynne Bell
In February of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canadians have a right to doctor-assisted suicide. The unanimous ruling by nine judges puts Canada in the company of a few countries and states in the U.S. (Oregon and Washington) that will allow physician-assisted death.
In the opening paragraph of its ruling, the court explained that it has established a new constitutional right for Canadian citizens: the right-for some citizens who meet certain stringent requirements-to choose to end their lives if living becomes “a life of severe and intolerable suffering.”
At this point, I must state that when Kelly and I discussed the assigned stands we were to take on this highly emotional and controversial topic for the purpose of our respective columns, that you, dear reader, will never know where I really stand, simply because like most people, I can think of scenarios that suit arguments for both the “for” and “against” sides. I don't sit firmly on one side or the other. Rather, I just hope and pray it's a choice I never have to make. This topic is too painful, too personal, and something many of us don't want to spend our own precious hours thinking about. That is, until some of us have to.
Many of us have seen a loved one pass away in a state of seemingly unremitting agony, and we must stand by, unable to ease their pain. Or we care deeply about someone who loves life, but has to leave it behind, all too soon. Others might fail to appreciate their time on earth, by engaging in self-destruction-either of the fast or slow variety- or simply by leading lives that are punctuated by negativity and a lack of gratitude for the amazing gift-of life itself-they've been given.
I knew a young man who was born with serious physical challenges, and who recently passed away, age 15, from an infection. Because Adam was born with severe cerebral palsy, he was confined to a wheelchair, was blind, and hospitals were his second home. The practical support of his devoted parents and supportive extended family allowed him to become an award-winning poet in the UK and an outspoken advocate for people with disabilities, all with the aid of technology.
I also know of people who are-like Adam was-courageously fighting to live life on their own terms, even though their situations may look very different from his. They may be people who have been previously blessed with good health and are unwilling to surrender their autonomy in the face of a devastating diagnosis, or after fighting hard, finding themselves unable to suffer physical pain any longer. They believe that the use of the technology that enriched Adam's short life should not be used to prolong their lives, but instead, modern medicine should be utilized to end their suffering.
I believe the answer to this very difficult question is the same for both sides of the argument: respect for life. Adam's family did everything they could to give him a meaningful life, and a person seeking to end theirs-legally and with the aid of a physician-is probably aiming to achieve the same thing.
How this actual legislation will be carried out is far from settled. We can only hope that wisdom, humanity, and respect for life-all life-will prevail as we and our fellow citizens grapple with this tough question.
Arguing against Dr. assisted suicide
By Kelly Running
I’m not sure if you remember, but I wrote a column on physician-assisted suicide awhile ago, I was in agreement with it as long as the legislation surrounding it is clear. In this week’s discussion, however, I’ve been given the stance of anti-physician assisted suicide.
Through my research I discovered there are really four types of physician assisted death. The first two instances most people seem to be accepting of or are less judgemental of: a patient can request a life-saving treatment be discontinued and they can decline life-saving treatment, such as the do not resuscitate legal order.
The other two instances, however, are where issues often arise. If an individual requests a lethal drug they can take themselves or if a doctor is requested to perform the action of injecting someone with a lethal drug because the individual is unable to do it themselves.
The arguments against the latter two in fact include one which affects the view of the first two in a different way; this is the religious argument. Oftentimes people who have a strong religious belief will decline life-saving treatments feeling that God has said their time is up and prolonging their life would be against His wishes.
In turn this is also why requesting a lethal drug is frowned upon. God will put people through challenges and people must live their lives until God’s plan has been completed.
Another argument could be that legalizing euthanasia will create a snowball effect where extremely ill people will feel pressured to end their lives due to them feeling as though they are a burden to their family. And what happens when a doctor is mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and an individual chooses to be euthanized even though they had wrongly been told that they were going to die of a terminal illness?
Additionally, the moral dilemma for a doctor is striking, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially has the doctor swearing they will do what they can to ensure a patient survives. In fact, they may be uncomfortable performing the act of euthanasia and can’t be forced to do it simply because legislation allows for it.
If it becomes more commonplace and doctors become accepting of it, there is also the chance that people may begin fearing the doctor: if they have complex needs or are dealing with severe disabilities then a lack of empathy may develop leaving people worried about the doctor’s suggestions.
One of the other arguments I came across was focused on the idea that with our ever-improving palliative care and treatments that whether someone is suffering a physical or mental ailment that with proper care they would be pain-free and have a good quality of life until the end.
Other moral dilemmas that present themselves when the subject turns to children with illnesses and the decisions surrounding a parent/guardians decisions, thus there are numerous moral qualms when addressing the matter of euthanasia.
