More debate on the doctor-assisted suicide

Phil Horgan, Catholic Civil Rights League:


Sun News panel, Jerry Agar ++:


Sun News panel, Faith Goldy, JJ McCullough ++:

Why does Steven Fletcher champion assisted suicide?

I've always been a little puzzled by Steven Fletcher's championing of doctor-assisted suicide.  He would actually make an excellent poster-boy for the other side of the argument.  Despite what must have been huge challenges after becoming quadriplegic early in life, he forged an exceptionally successful political career and a productive life.  However, had assisted suicide been available at the time of his accident it is highly likely that, in the depths of suffering and depression, he'd have requested it.  And he'd have missed the experience of overcoming his challenges and achieving the success that followed.

So, why does he favour doctor-assisted suicide?  Does he regret having lived his life?  It's hard to imagine, but maybe we'll see a year from now whether or not he exercises his new right.  Another, more likely possibility is that he's contemplating that eventually, perhaps many years from now, he'll want to exercise his right.  But, has he considered whether it's worth it given that from now on it is far less likely that there will be any more Steven Fletchers?  Not to mention all the other down-side risks:

Barbara Kay: Euthanasia so accepted, doctors must now justify prolonging a life
Barbara Kay: Suffering people just want an end to their pain
Father Raymond de Souza: Our euthanasia point of no return
Andrew Coyne: Crossing the Rubicon, Supreme Court seems eerily complacent

Ezra Levant:

Doctor-assited death - the SSC greases the slope

Today the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its judgement to allow physician-assisted suicide in limited circumstances.  Some selected paragraphs:

Section 241 (b) and s. 14  of the Criminal Code  unjustifiably infringe s. 7  of the Charter  and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. ... The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months.

... The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The object of the prohibition is not, broadly, to preserve life whatever the circumstances, but more specifically to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. Since a total ban on assisted suicide clearly helps achieve this object, individuals’ rights are not deprived arbitrarily. However, the prohibition catches people outside the class of protected persons. It follows that the limitation on their rights is in at least some cases not connected to the objective and that the prohibition is thus overbroad.

... The appropriate remedy is not to grant a free-standing constitutional exemption, but rather to issue a declaration of invalidity and to suspend it for 12 months. Nothing in this declaration would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying. 

The Feasibility of Safeguards and the Possibility of a “Slippery Slope”
 ... At trial Canada went into some detail about the risks associated with the legalization of physician-assisted dying.  In its view, there are many possible sources of error and many factors that can render a patient “decisionally vulnerable” and thereby give rise to the risk that persons without a rational and considered desire for death will in fact end up dead.  It points to cognitive impairment, depression or other mental illness, coercion, undue influence, psychological or emotional manipulation, systemic prejudice (against the elderly or people with disabilities), and the possibility of ambivalence or misdiagnosis as factors that may escape detection or give rise to errors in capacity assessment.  Essentially, Canada argues that, given the breadth of this list, there is no reliable way to identify those who are vulnerable and those who are not.  As a result, it says, a blanket prohibition is necessary.

The trial judge, on the basis of her consideration of various regimes and how they operate, found that it is possible to establish a regime that addresses the risks associated with physician-assisted death.  We agree with the trial judge that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.

Now it's for the government to re-write the law, clearly defining the fuzzy terminology, setting limits and the necessary safeguards.

The slippery slope has just been greased.  We'll have to live (or die) with it.  However, the pro-death activists won't rest until they've got what they're really after - euthanasia.

Notes:
1. Today's decision was unanimous 9-0 with these judges in attendance: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

2. The previous assisted suicide judgement of 1993 dismissing the Sue Rodriguez appeal was decided 5-4 with McLachlin and three others dissenting.  McLachlin was the only judge to hear both cases.

Doctor assisted suicide.

Barbara Kay's column gets it mostly right - Suicide is none of Medicare’s business.  Doctor assisted suicide in the land of state monopoly medicine would present a huge ethical, moral and physical hazard.

I believe it would be an enormous conflict of interest for doctors and the medical system as a whole. I do not want our medical system looking to killing patients as an easier alternative to seeking a cure or easing their suffering. The American Medical Association gets it right. It’s position is (in part):

“... It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress--such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness--may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. ...”

The Canadian Medical Association, recently came up with the following weasel words (more or less): “it’s fine with us as long as doctors follow the law”. The CMA would seem to be playing down the ethical and moral hazards of doctor-assisted suicide as well as the deficiencies in our medical system.

Looking to death as a solution to medical problems is fraught with significant danger to the public, especially those already vulnerable (eg. the elderly). For example:

Treatable depression is already under-diagnosed and under-treated, especially in the elderly. With suicide as an option this situation will not improve. On the contrary, it will be exacerbated.

Palliative care experts report that the vast majority of terminally ill patients facing or fearing great pain withdraw their requests for assisted suicide once treated for depression and/or provided with proper palliative care. The problem here is that our health care system is already deficient in both depression diagnosis/treatment and palliative care. The availability of assisted suicide would lead to even lower availability of both. Clearly this would be hazardous to people who are ill and vulnerable (especially those already in, say, poverty and/or advanced age).

Many patients requesting doctor assisted-suicide are coerced by family members. There have been documented accounts of people committing suicide under pressure or duress from family members, friends or others present during their suicides. In 2010 it was reported that more than one quarter of assisted suicides in Oregon and Washington did so because they didn’t want to be a “burden” to their family. Does anyone suppose that none of those "burdens" were nudged towards suicide?

Elder abuse is widely recognized as a serious problem. Legalizing doctor-assisted suicide would make available the ultimate manifestation of that abuse.

Then there are the disabled.

Then there’s the slippery slope towards euthanasia, an even greater hazard. Many advocates for assisted suicide are really aiming for legalization of euthanasia.

Assisted suicicide front and centre in BC news

Two days running now there have been front page stories in the Vancouver Sun (here and here) about Gillian Ryan's suicide.  That's suicide, not "assisted" suicide. She planned her own death and carried it out without involving anyone else.  Good for her, except that apparently she wanted to use the occasion to grandstand in support of doctor assisted suicide.  Naturally, the Van Sun and others obliged.

So, now's a good time to revisit Margaret Somerville's 2012 interview on the subject:

A modern-day death cult

I always assumed that assisted suicide would be included in any down-hill slide towards euthanasia (and beyond).  But leave it to the "progressive" Quebecois to skip that step, making Quebec a North American "leader".  Several US states have legalized assisted suicide but none have, so far, managed to legalize euthanasia. 

 Progressivism, a modern-day death cult - pro-abortion, pro-Hamas, pro-suicide, pro-euthanasia.

Steven Fletcher wishes he were dead?

Being among the most vulnerable to its potential abuse, the handicapped are at the forefront of the battle against legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia.  So Steven Fletcher is going against the grain when he comes out in support of legalizing assisted suicide:

... Mr. Fletcher’s experience has prompted him to support those who argue in favour of legally assisted suicide for people with terminal illnesses. “I think those people should have the opportunity to ask for help to close life’s circle,” he said, a position that puts him at odds with his party. ...

So, Mr. Fletcher holds up his own situation following his terrible accident as justification for legalizing assisted suicide. Does this mean he wished he'd killed himself to avoid the temporary pain of his injuries and/or the quadriplegic state he now endures? It seems so, which would imply he wishes he were now dead. If so, he should go ahead and fulfill that wish. He has my blessing. But he shouldn't be seeking to involve the rest of us in killing him. Suicide should be strictly DIY.

And, let's be frank, legalized assisted suicide would soon morph into legalized euthanasia. That's what these death cultists really have their black, cowardly hearts set on. Legalizing assisted suicide is just a foot in the door.

License to kill

JME editors defend publication of "After-birth abortion" paper

Further to my previous post, in a blog post yesterday, the editors of JME defended the publication of the paper following a "storm of opposition" (referring mainly to comments on The Blaze blog post), closing with:

...What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

So, killing babies is a liberal value? As for "opposition to ... reasoned engagement", they got lots of reasoned response (eg. the National Catholic Register). They just cherry picked the angriest comments to justify their "defence". And there's a virtual tsunami of 'reasoned engagement' in the comment thread to the JME's own blog post - eg. this short one:

Savulescu is correct, our society gets overly hysterical and can't handle intellectual discussion on moral ethics. I long for a society where you could freely and calmly discuss genocide. Like, say, Germany 1933.

"After-birth abortion"

Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:  "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ...

CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

National Catholic Register:

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.
... It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

Medical "ethics"? That's a long way down that slippery slope!

[Via]

Update:  See next post.

Ugly headlines

Above the fold on the front page of today's Vancouver Sun:

Mobile euthanasia - Six units will travel around the country to help the Dutch die at home.

Six "mobile euthanasia units" will become available in the Netherlands starting Thursday, to zip around this tiny and remarkably liberal country to help Dutch citizens facing an "unbearable" and "hopeless" medical situation die in their homes.

A group of prominent citizens, meanwhile, has been lobbying since 2009 for a major expansion in the scope of Dutch assisted-death laws, allowing older people who are "tired of living" but have no serious medical problem to end it all without the involvement of a physician. ...

Learning classroom politics - BCTF president Susan Lambert discusses her union on the verge of a strike, and a scolding that changed her life. 

The BCTF is arguably one of the most militant, radical unions in the country.  Susan Lambert's benign granny looks belie her militantly radical leftist stance and leadership of the BCTF.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia - the slippery slope

What always begins as a campaign for legalization of physician-assisted suicide in strictly defined circumstances quickly morphs into easily acquired suicide and euthanasia. There were a couple of examples in today’s Vancouver Sun.

From Oregon, a letter from a doctor:

... my 76-year-old patient had a sore on his arm which turned out to be cancer. I referred him to a cancer specialist for evaluation and therapy.

... he became ... depressed, which was documented in his chart.

... He expressed a wish for assisted suicide to the cancer specialist, but rather than taking the time and effort to address his depression, ... she asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide.

I told her that I did not concur ... two weeks later he was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor.

In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him. Don't make Oregon's mistake.

In Holland, mobile clinics for euthanasia home-delivery:

Mobile medical teams able to euthanize people in their own homes are being considered by the Dutch government. The teams of doctors and nurses would be sent out from a clinic following a referral from the patient's doctor.

... Dutch medics have been accused of practising euthanasia on demand.

... Twenty-one people diagnosed with early-stage dementia died with the help of their doctors last year, according to a 2010 report on euthanasia.

The figures showed another year-on-year rise in cases with about 2,700 people choosing death by injection compared to 2,636 the previous year. ..

Euthanasia by stealth

Brian Lilley's excellent piece on the latest attempt to push euthanasia via assisted suicide:

... A Kelowna woman suffering from ALS or Lou Gherig’s disease has joined a lawsuit seek to overturn Canada’s ban on helping people kill themselves.

Gloria Taylor told a news conference that she’s never agreed with this ban “It is my life, my body and it should be my choice” she said at a news conference on Tuesday.

This may seem harsh but Ms. Taylor already has the ability to take her own life using any number of common household items ...

... What Ms. Taylor and the lawyers from the BC Civil Liberties Association are calling for is for the government to bless the idea that doctors or some other authority figure be allowed to kill them and not be charged....

Video here.

Bill Gates wants death panels

Bill Gates advocates what his fellow travelling "liberals" have denied - "death panels".



Video here.

Well, at least best he's honest.

Euthanasia - promoting a culture of death

The denial of parole this week for Robert Latimer sparked a lot of debate about legalizing euthanasia (it seemed mostly pro Latimer and pro euthanasia).

This letter clearly illustrates where I think legalized euthanasia leads:

[At a symposium] ...discussing the Oregon situation -- where physician assisted suicide is legal about 75% of patients who died with assisted suicide did so for depression or fear rather than terminal disease or pain.

A speaker from Holland, whose grandfather was euthanized against his will, reminded us that the most recent Dutch government report recorded 550 cases where patients were euthanized without their consent in 2005...

... the Gronigen University hospital [in Holland] is euthanizing newborns with disabilities based on the parent's request.

As in Oregon, most patients request euthanasia or assisted suicide because of depression or "a feeling of being a burden on others," which includes adolescents, even those 12-16 with parents' consent.

... with legalized euthanasia, the fragile seniors and people with disabilities will feel unwanted and request euthanasia, making the right to die become the duty to die.

... counselling, treatment for depression or palliative/hospice care....should be supported, rather than promoting a culture of death.

As with many ideas, good and bad, people (especially ‘authorities’) tend to go too far. Legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea that, in spite of good intentions, leads inevitably to horrendous abuses (the road to Hell ...).

Legalized euthanasia is a slippery slope with a very steep path to legalized murder.