We are all going to die sometime. How we die or where or when we may die, as a rule, we generally do not know. Whether we choose to pass away in a natural way after living a normal life or end it at will with assistance is now, or soon will be an option that Canadians will have by law. Public opinion has shifted away from dying in a natural way and is now accepting assisted suicide as an alternative to prolonged suffering from terminal illness or injury.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled 9-0 that the old law against assisted suicide is now unconstitutional. With this ruling, the Court gave Parliament one year with orders to draft new legislation to allow for medically assisted suicide. It always seemed to me that members of parliament, were elected by the people to govern the country and to make the laws. The Courts purpose was to analyze and evaluate legislation towards determining their constitutionality and hence their legality. It appears now that the Supreme Court, comprised of appointed unelected judges is continually giving Parliament orders. It seems that it would be more appropriate for the Court to ask the government to act upon their decision with this issue. Should Parliament not act on the Supreme Court’s ruling to pass assisted suicide legislation within twelve months, then the overall prohibition on physician assisted suicide will be lifted, which means that this way of dying will fall into a type of no-man`s land where it will be neither legal nor illegal. That would make for a nonsensical and unnecessary political situation. Despite stating a number of general conditions under which assisted suicide may be administered, it would appear that the Court has essentially opened the gates for it to be used at will, and as a default treatment for any [medical] condition that does not respond to conventional treatment.
It should be understood that society has a different view now on assisted suicide than it had some years ago. This situation now puts physicians in a much different and far more difficult position than that dictated by their Hippocratic Oath. Doctors will have to make decisions based on their own feelings towards supported self-destruction along with their individual, philosophical and in many cases, religious beliefs.
Some advocate that citizens have the right to determine the time and manner in which they wish to leave this Earth. With the Supreme Court’s recent decision to legalize assisted suicide, will it add peace of mind to some people who are suffering from a terminally ill condition? It may in fact cause great anxiety to those suffering the same terminally ill condition, who fear what their doctor and some family members might think is best for them.
All this being so, it may come back to make things uncomfortable if very stringent laws governing the applicability and administration of assisted suicide are not enforced. Do we want circumstances as have been reported from Holland, Belgium and Switzerland, where people have been euthanized in spite of the failure of their caregivers to follow proper assisted suicide protocols, which incidentally are far more explicitly stated in their respective legal code than our Court’s recently issued guidance. These people may be mentally handicapped, psychologically unbalanced, or suffering from deteriorative mental disease such as Alzheimer’s disease or dementia and possibly other more physically debilitating infirmities over which they have no control, such as multiple sclerosis.
Persons such as these may have had no desire to end their lives but because of a family member’s wish and/or a physician’s [medical] opinion, their lives are ended regardless. The new ruling by the Supreme Court makes one wonder if the taking of one’s life by assisted suicide has been converted from a crime to a service.
In the United States, Oregon has had a law in effect for some 16 years now, which allow doctors to help the terminally ill end their lives, should they wish to do so. Apparently, their legislation governing assisted suicide addresses everything from what defines a ``terminal illness``, to who can witness and sign off on a patient’s assisted suicide request, as well as how the actual termination procedure may take place. Here in Canada, when new legislation allowing assisted suicide is forwarded, then only one set of laws governing the assisted suicide activity should be passed for the entirety of the country, not allowing a `hodgepodge` of laws from each of the provinces including and especially Quebec.
Moreover, when assisted suicide appears either necessary or at least preferable, then the patient in question should be deemed competent, and capable of understanding their medical condition, what assisted suicide involves, and all its consequences, and for everyone involved. The process should involve open, honest and intelligent dialogue, initiated by the patient, with their close family members, and their physicians. There should be very valid reasons why the patient should wish to end their life.
Before the many discussions and debates which have recently taken place, and much writing done on ending of life by assisted suicide in whatever form it is administered, my answer to the query; ``what exactly is dying with dignity?``, would have been passing away after having lived a normal or natural lifetime however long that may last. And, were it meant to be, this would include dying from an incurable disease, or condition, or a mortally wounding injury. I would offer that, ending one`s life prematurely and intentionally, by whatever means, amounts to committing suicide, and is just wrong regardless of the [criminal] legality of the matter. While there may be some or many who seek accommodated suicide to end life, that as the answer after long or short suffering, the way will probably be legally available to them in the near future.
Life is precious and should never be taken lightly, and to end life by assisted suicide, one must give this long and careful thought.
