It would almost seem as if physician-assisted dying has
gone too far in Canada. The recent
Supreme Court ruling expects Parliament to put in writing what doctors have
been doing all along, quietly in the most hopeless cases, where the patient’s
condition is terminal and when suffering is great. Our doctors are already known to “pull the
plug” and stop the IV, with family consultation; and they abide by “living
wills”. Now they are legally obliged to break with their ethics as found in the
Hippocratic Oath: if said Doctor Y is disinclined to issue the fatal dose, now
decriminalized, he must recommend Doctor Death, the one who will. If a Catholic Hospital (such as St. Paul’s in
Vancouver) has a suffering patient who wishes to die by assisted death, he or
she will likely have to be transferred to a hospital that “specializes” in such
forms of dying. Where’s the dignity in
that?
Do all hospitals, by virtue of the fact that they are
publicly funded, at least in part, have to comply with assisted death?[1] Is this not public intolerance of private
morality and conscience? Just because it’s 2016 does it mean that individual
choice should trump medical ethics? Can you imagine the toll over time placed
on the doctors who dispense with death? If one is already a number in the medical
system what will it be when your number’s up? One also wonders what ethical
grounding our young students entering medical school will now get. Does one take a course on physician-assisted
dying? Will it prevent people from becoming doctors? Will it prevent doctors
from remaining in the medical profession? And as if that is not enough, now
broader access to dying is being put forth.
A joint Commons-Senate committee has reported that people
with mental illnesses or psychiatric conditions should have the right to Doctor-Assisted
Death. Dying with dignity is considered so
important now that it trumps efforts toward life with dignity. Is it not possible that the mentally ill would
be less depressed if they were not reduced to poverty, that they would feel
better about themselves if they could find regular employment, or if they had meaningful
relationships. Mental illness is not
just about the right pill for the brain (which could come presumably at any
time); treatment is also psycho-social, meaning there is a right to a life,
too. For the mentally ill the escape
clause has always been suicide – now it’s becoming legal?
The same Parliamentary committee also urges that “mature
minors” be allowed access to physician-assisted dying. It’s the first time I have heard the term
“mature minor”, and it sounds to me like a typical political oxymoron pushing
the boundaries of common sense. Maybe there are not enough parents with teenage
offspring on the committee? Not old enough to drink, drive, or get married
minors who face terminal illness are now considered “mature” enough to decide
on the means of their own demise. The
Committee has opened up this possibility for “mature minors” because it thinks the Supreme Court would legislate
in favour of this anyway, following the Canadian Charter of Right and
Freedoms. I say: let the Supreme Court
decide this – not Parliament without any meaningful test case, if one ever
arises. Instead of enhancing an individual’s right to
choose I wonder if we are not now over-legislating death, which, as we all
know, is a part of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment