
I have previously argued that the Canadian abortion fiasco is the result of faulty reasoning by the judiciary, based on their assessment of how our Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be interpreted. In this post I am going to discuss euthanasia or medical assistance in dying (MAID).
In February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada miraculously upended the Section 7 Charter rights that state, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." The right to life overnight became the right to die, although it would never, of course, be stated as such in the Charter. I'm not a lawyer, but if my simplistic understanding is correct, they used their assessment of section 14 and paragraph 241(b) of the Criminal Code to justify the change.
Basically, these sections of the Criminal Code had previously made it illegal to commit suicide or to help someone commit suicide. "The Court found that the prohibition on assisted suicide is intended to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to die by suicide at a time of weakness. As a result, the Court found that the total ban on assisted dying was overbroad because it also applied to non-vulnerable people and prevented them from receiving the assistance of a willing physician."[i] Ironically, the original protection from dying by one's own hand or from another's in sympathy, did exactly what "security of the person" was intended to do in the Charter rights. A simple explanation–for me at least–is that the Court decided that personal autonomy (i.e., the right to make one's own decisions), was more important than their right to life. This became the top of the slippery slope that opponents were upset about. The Court then threw their decision back to Parliament to craft a law. However, the Court originally intended that there should be many safeguards attached to such a law.
It took a year to do so. There were safeguards at first, and then as we all know, they began to slip away (yes, you guessed it, the slippery slope). The first was to remove any requirement that there be a terminal illness. That came in 2021. As anyone with half a brain could deduce, this opened the door to disenfranchised people who were driven to the edge because of lack of food or lodging, poverty, coercion, or simply disabled, to seek euthanasia or to become vulnerable to the suggestion of euthanasia as a panacea for their woes.[ii] Since then, Canada has become one of the world leaders in euthanasia deaths; indeed, in 2021, we surpassed all other jurisdictions.[iii] As of 2022, we had allowed 44,958 deaths by euthanasia since 2016. What a great statistic for which our nation can be very proud!
In 2024, "the government is expected to further expand eligibility for MAID to include people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness."[iv] As experts know, drug abuse and mental illness often go hand-in-hand. Although Health Canada again insists there will be safeguards, should we believe them? Should a drug user believe them? I think not, based on the nation's previous experience.[v] A drug user who has overdosed but recovered may, instead of trying again, simply seek euthanasia because he/she is depressed. In fact, anyone will be able to seek it because of depression. Who needs to be terminally ill anymore? Maybe you're just having a bad day and want to "off yourself." God knows, there's lots of that going around.
Sure, some people may think that's a good idea. It saves money. Experts acquainted with the struggle against euthanasia have started to realize what a huge saving it can produce for strained health care budgets. I am one of those who firmly believes that this is part of the federal government's socialist agenda. They would rather not spend money on improving palliative care, mental health care, and harm reduction, but rather, save money by encouraging euthanasia, or more to the point, making access as easy as possible. A 2017 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggested euthanasia could save the country between $34.7 million and $138.8 million annually.[vi] Furthermore, as the more widely read will know, in certain circles it has been suggested that decreasing the world's population is one way to combat climate change.[vii] The ethical questions surrounding this ludicrous concept are mind-boggling.
As a result of these changes in the law, there are some very troubling questions and errors in logic that need to be explained and debated amongst the judiciary, parliamentary lawmakers, and the general public, and they are these:
Euthanasia is not necessarily the painless, peaceful death we are led to believe.
Who is euthanasia really for, the dying patient or those who remain?
The misguided and terribly confusing logic of suicide needs to considered more deeply by us as a nation.
Let's look at these. First, reports have started to surface of botched procedures that may have caused considerable pain and suffering for the patient.[viii] This is due primarily to the protocol used in Canada to administer MAID. It is done in three steps using three drugs and it is this: sedate. anesthetize, paralyze/kill. One study has found that the time to die averages nine minutes but can last to over an hour (in a rare few cases, even days).[ix] It has also been found that the anesthetic, typically propofol, is administered at very high dosage, which can painfully burn its way through one's lungs, causing a similar death to drowning or waterboarding.[x] The reason that the patient may appear peaceful, though, is because the paralytic that is intended to eventually stop the heart, also paralyzes all the body's muscles that would show pain.[xi] Thus, while the patient may appear peaceful, he/she might very well be in agony. There is also an argument being made that nothing is known of what is happening to the patient other than what is being visually observed, and that brain waves should be monitored during the entire procedure to ensure that there is no suffering.[xii]
This brings us to questioning who euthanasia is really for, the patient or the living who are left behind. The word "beautiful" often accompanies discussions of dying on one's own terms or "with dignity." Through carefully worded statements by proponent organizations such as Dying With Dignity Canada, people are led to believe that anyone choosing euthanasia will quietly and peacefully slip away. This should not be believed, as pointed out above. For those remaining, yes they may believe that their loved one will be the better for it, but may there not be a tinge of, "Well now good old Charlie will no longer need to be cared for and we can get on with our lives" in their subconscious? Their feelings of Charlie doing the right thing have been mollified by this peaceful procedure. Suppose for a moment, though, that there were more efficient and more peaceful ways to euthansize a patient/person. There are. Gunshot to the head. A firing squad is even more efficient. Very fast. Generally painless. Very messy. Not attractive for those left behind. But really, what is a doctor who administers euthanasia but a hired gun? Drug overdose. Heroin is supposed to be especially euphoric and it's easily self-adminstered. Same with helium inhalation. Then there is my personal favourite, the guillotine. Very fast, Very effective. Messy and disconcerting for those left behind. The end result of all these is the same, though – the patient dies painlessly. He/she is gone and doesn't care. The people and loved ones remaining are distraught and likely incredibly grossed out. Is that why nobody has yet suggested we plant small guillotines in every hospital? There are many more ways. I ask again, "Who is euthanasia really for?"
What about the logic of suicide and suicide prevention? Now it is possible to attempt suicide by any means if one is mentally distressed, only to be thwarted by well-meaning, compassionate, bleeding hearts because, well, we can't encourage someone to die. No, our society is too advanced. There's nothing wrong with that except now the suicidal person can stand in line for euthanasia because he/she can be considered mentally ill, and all that suicide prevention money has been wasted. As a society, we cannot have it both ways. We either have to accept suicide in all its forms or reject it in all its forms. There can be no half measures because that leads to confusing public policy. If we are going to go the route of euthanasia, then why even bother with sucidal ideation as it is called? Why even attempt to reduce drug overdoses? Would it not be simpler and more consistent with public policy to just provide more body bags?
Public policy expert Michael Bonner has explained our wrongheadedness when it comes to another disturbing tendency for people, especially the elderly, to think that they have an obligation to be euthanized. "The notion that we have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to die when we become a financial or other 'burden' to others is profoundly wrong. It is founded upon hyper-individualism and a misunderstanding of family and community. A person can be considered a burden only if society ceases to believe in mutual commitment and communal support. Canada’s MAID regime is the inevitable consequence of the emergence of such an asocial non-society."[xiii]
Let me sum it up. We have no moral gold standard anymore. It's every person for themself. Occasionally we need to assuage our guilt for having failed in this regard and atrocious, inconsistent public policy is the result. We are either a culture of life or we are a culture of death. Unfortunately, we are now the latter. The repugnant, reprehensible practice of euthanasia/MAID must end so we can go back to being a morally just society that can hold our heads high.
References
[i] Supreme Court of Canada. (2021, July 7). Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Government of Canada. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html.
[ii] Zivo, A. (2023, October 26). Adam Zivo: So now we're going to euthanize drug addicts? National Post. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/so-now-were-going-to-euthanize-drug-addicts.
[iii] Coelho, R., Maher, J., Gaind, K., & Lemmens, T. (2023). The realities of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada. Palliative and Supportive Care, 21(5), 871-878. doi:10.1017/S1478951523001025.
[iv] Zivo, A. (2023, October 26). Adam Zivo: So now we're going to euthanize drug addicts? National Post. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/so-now-were-going-to-euthanize-drug-addicts.
[v] Maher, J. (2017, May 25). What Troubles me as a Psychiatrist about the Physician Assisted Suicide Debate in Canada. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 10(5).
[vi] Trachtenberg, A.J. and Manns, B. (2017, January 23). Cost analysis of medical assistance in dying in Canada. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 189(3), E101–E105. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.160650.
[vii] Feldstein, S. (2023, May 4). Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better. Scientific American. Retrieved December 16, 2023, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-decline-will-change-the-world-for-the-better/.
[viii] Schadenberg, A. (2023). Various Articles. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Retrieved December 18, 2023, from https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?q=painful+death&max-results=20&by-date=truehttps://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?q=painful+death&max-results=20&by-date=truehttps://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?q=painful+death&max-results=20&by-date=truehttps://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?q=painful+death&max-results=20&by-date=true.
[ix] Stukalin, I., Olaiya, O.R., Naik, V., Wiebe, E., Kekewich, M., Kelly, M., Wilding, L., Halko, R., and Oczkowski, S. (2022, January 18). Medications and dosages used in medical assistance in dying: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ: Canadian Medicial Associaiton Journal, 10(1), E19-E26; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200268.
[x] Schadenberg, A. (2021, February 16). Assisted Death may be a Cruel Death. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Retrieved December 18, 2023, from https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search?q=painful+death&max-results=20&by-date=false.
[xi] Worthington, A., Finlay, I., & Regnard, C. (2022). Efficacy and safety of drugs used for 'assisted dying'. British medical bulletin, 142(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldac009.
[xii] Research Outreach. (2020, June 1). Euthanasia: A neuropsychiatric researcher raises concerns. Research Outreach. Retrieved December 18, 2023, from https://researchoutreach.org/articles/euthanasia-neuropsychiatric-researcher-raises-concerns/.
[xiii] Bonner, M. (2023, October 21). Canadian Death Cult: America’s northern neighbor has euthanized tens of thousands of its citizens. City Journal. Retrieved December 18, 2023, from https://www.city-journal.org/article/canadian-death-cult.
Yorumlar