Kill this bill, not the dying

'Right to die with dignity bill' legalizes assisted suicide

A Shepherd Speaks

By BISHOP FRED HENRY
Calgary

On June 15, 2005 MP Francine Lalonde of the Bloc Quebecois filed in the House of Commons Bill C-407 that aims to modify the Criminal Code to give Canadians the "right to die with dignity." This is, in fact, a new attempt to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

One misguided reason for the current attractiveness of this kind of legislation is the exaggerated role that personal autonomy has come to play in human consciousness today.

Derived from the Enlightenment movement of the 18th century, personal autonomy has erroneously developed into a concept that stresses so-called rights but forgets about responsibilities. While the notion of patient autonomy has become an appropriate corrective on physician paternalism, which too long dominated the physician-patient relationship, it has nevertheless been carried to improper extremes by some thinkers today.

Not a solitary soul

The dying patient, like all human beings, is a person in relationship. The patient has responsibilities to others and to society.

In our society, we have much to learn about our interdependence, about duties to family and the human community from Oriental, aboriginal and some European cultures.

It is characteristic of these cultures that important decisions in life are never made by the individual alone, but in the context of family and generally with special regard for the wisdom of the elders in the community.

The issue is one of pressing interest and concern but also widespread confusion.

A major cause of the confusion is what George Orwell in his essay, Politics and the English Language, calls the language of "euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

Some of the language being used in the euthanasia debate appears "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder acceptable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

The rhetoric of "choice," "aid-in-dying," "compassion," "a new medical treatment," "self-determination," "autonomy" and "death with dignity" tend to cover up the reality that euthanasia means a human life is deliberately destroyed at the hands of another, in many cases at the hands of a loved one or a supposed professional healer.

This proposed legislation would reverse the reigning medical ethic which for more than two millennia has insisted that doctors must heal and never kill.

Legalizing physician assisted-suicide would irreparably damage the doctor-patient relationship. The patient's trust in the doctor's whole-hearted devotion to the patient's best interests will be hard to sustain once doctors are licensed to kill.

Furthermore, such legislation would put undue stress on the conscience of the physician pressured by patients and others to take part in killing.

The unmistakable issue is the intentional killing of a human being. It has nothing to do with natural death or dignity, and everything to do with killing. We are not discussing letting someone die. A number of distinctions are necessary.

Euthanasia is not respecting a patient's refusal of treatment at anytime in the course of treatment. Medical tradition and practice clearly distinguish between refusal of medical intervention and intentionally causing death by euthanasia.

Euthanasia is not discontinuing treatment when it serves no therapeutic purpose or the patient requests treatment to cease; nor is it abstaining from medically futile treatment.

Worth of a life

All treatments that impose undue burdens on the patient without overriding benefits or that simply provide no benefits may justifiably be withheld or withdrawn. In making such decisions, the judgment is about the worth of treatment, not about the worth of lives.

The provision of adequate medicines to control pain is not euthanasia. The administration of high doses of pain-killers and sedatives to terminally ill patients may lead to a shortening of their lives.

It is, however, morally acceptable to administer such drugs in doses which are linked to their painkilling or sedative effects, and not to the termination of life. It is not correct to call this "euthanasia" because there is not intention to shorten the patient's life.

Those favouring assisted-suicide have not given adequate attention to palliative care.

The goal of palliative care is to give comfort and thereby enable the dying to live while dying. Letting life ebb away can in no way be equated with active euthanasia.

Allowing to die is a world removed from giving a lethal injection.

Welcome palliative care

Palliative care also aims at assuaging the suffering of terminal patients. Often they feel helpless, lonely, in the way, and a burden to others. With empathy, comfort care, and affirmation, palliative caregivers accompany patients in their suffering and by their kindness and compassion help the patient maintain a sense of worth and a feeling of belonging, and move from depression to hope.

The legislation of aid-in-dying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests.

This kind of legislation says to them: "You're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others."

Canadian citizens should be assured that government recognizes their dignity as important at every stage of life. Government must reassure them that their needs will be met humanely. They must be shown true compassion in the care they receive from society, not through death-dealing, but by being looked after in a life-giving way.

As Canadians, we all have a duty to speak up for the rights and dignity of every citizen.

In short, it is Bill C-407 that must die!

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter