Should we stay or go?
Occasionally, personal soul-searching and individual conscience must take precedence. Such is the case when federal bill C-384 was introduced last October by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde. It is still before Parliament and it’s literally a matter of life and death.
Bill C-384 is an amendment to the Criminal Code which would allow a medical practitioner, subject to certain conditions, to aid a person who is experiencing severe physical or mental pain – without any prospect of relief – or is suffering from a terminal illness, to die with dignity once the person has expressed a free and informed consent to die.
Yes, we can take the shallow, cynical route and say this is a politically astute Bloc MP highlighting a potentially divisive issue because her basic separatist agenda is to pull the nation apart. This is obviously not the case. Ms. Lalonde risks alienating her own constituency by presenting this private member’s bill. Colleagues in the Bloc caucus have also spoken out against it.
Judging by Hansard, Bill C-384 is unpopular with MPs of all stripes. Liberal MP Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) has served on hospital ethics committees and has stated on record: “The bill does not define terminal illness. It does not define lucidity. It does not define a whole bunch of things. In fact, it requires the patient to be free from duress or coercion, but it does not give any indication of how that might be addressed.”
Conservative MP Mark Warawa, (Langley, B.C.), adds: “Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide an exemption not only for the offence of assisted suicide but also for the offence of murder. These amendments would represent a substantial change in the current state of law on a matter that touches life and death.”
An alarmist, religious-right response, you say? No. The man has a valid point when he asks if a physician, who assists in the taking of a life, is an accomplice in a homicide. The Criminal Code is what it is.
Yet Ms. Lalonde should be respected for bringing this important issue to the forefront.
Her bill is undoubtedly flawed. What bill, when first introduced, is not? That’s why we have multiple readings in the House of Commons and a Senate to present a third-party opinion afterwards.
I have known several people in the throes of terminal illness and I have never spoken about euthanasia with any of them. I couldn’t summon the nerve to bring it up. Therefore, I can only address this by presenting hypothetical situations.
A man is faced with an incurable disease and says “I choose to live.” He will inevitably pass away, but will linger as long as is technically possible from a medical standpoint.
Should the same man say “I choose to die,” he can legally do so by refusing medical treatments that will sustain his life. But there is a distinct possibility he will spend the final days of his shortened lifespan in excruciating pain.
From the vagrant to the very rich, we share the common denominator that we will all eventually die. For some of us, it will be as a result of prolonged illness. If so, will the above “choice” really be ours to make, considering the legal circumstances?
By bringing forth an amendment, such as Bill C-384, we are reinforcing western democratic society’s foundation – the rights of the individual.
Ms. Lalonde points to a paper presented by the Federation of General Practitioners of Quebec. It points out that, due to improvements in health care, people now live longer and it is possible to delay death, sometimes significantly.
The federation adds, however, that the ability to live longer has a downside because an increasing number of people suffer from degenerative or incurable illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s or cancer, which considerably decrease their quality of life. As a result of the evolution in medical technologies and a better understanding of them, people wish to control endof life decisions in order to die with dignity.
This evolution in medicine, the federation concludes, inevitably leads to the debate on end-of-life care and euthanasia.
On the other hand, if such legislation comes to pass in today’s over-heated health care system, what’s to stop a vulnerable patient getting bums-rushed into a death request by a smooth-talking physician who needs the bed?
Medical practitioners are, far more often than not, dedicated to preserving and restoring the well-being of the population. With the frenetic pace of their profession, however, some might end up doling out de facto death sentences as casually as they do pain killers.
The Catholic Civil Rights League believes that any legalization of what it calls “mercy killing” will lead to the devaluation of the lives of the seriously ill and disabled, and there will be pressures on them and their families to hasten their demise. The league maintains that a strong commitment to palliative care, including effective pain relief, will help alleviate the concerns Canadians have about end-of-life care.
I cannot arrive upon a conclusion as to who is right and who is wrong. I can only assume that there will never be a conventional wisdom that dictates how we morally regulate mortality.
And, in the case of Bill C-384, I have one thing to say to our elected federal representatives: No matter how much you’re getting paid, this is one time I won’t begrudge you a nickel.
Post new comment