Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide

[August1991]

At present, Section 14 of Canada's Criminal Code states:

No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

Section 241 states:

Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or ( aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Francine Lalonde, Bloc MP, has presented a private member's bill (C-562) that amend the Criminal Code and make assisted suicide legal. The House will likely debate this bill during the fall session.

The following CBC article provides a general overview of the issue. (We paid for it; we might as well use it even though it presents the usual CBC tripe and bias.)

In 1992, Sue Rodriguez forced the right-to-die debate into the spotlight in Canada.

In a video statement played to members of Parliament, the Victoria woman, diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991, asked legislators to change the law banning assisted suicide.

"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said.

CBC

From what I can gather, in the US, only Orgeon, Montana, Washington permit assisted suicide/euthanasia. In Europe, the Netherlands has liberal laws including the right of parents to end the life of their child under certain circumstances.

-----

I am always curious how public policy changes incentives.

We are soon reaching the time when many baby boomers will become aged and incapacitated. A large percentage of health costs occur in the final few weeks of life. When the general public assumes these costs, legal euthanasia is an obvious solution. I beleive that in Oregon, the cost of assisted suicide is covered by State medical insurance but certain costs to prolong life are not.

Moreover, many boomers did not have children and so they will not have someone to argue on their behalf. Moreover, they may have distant family members entitled to an inheritance and hence with a vested interest in fulfilling a living will. Is it possible to design practical safeguards?

Finally, what does it mean when a society condones death - even if the death is a choice of the individual?

[Riverwind]

Finally, what does it mean when a society condones death - even if the death is a choice of the individual?

We have already started to ration medical services. If resources are limited it makes no sense to spend huge sums keeping people alive who have no chance of survival. This would be true for private insurance too since the cost of needless end of life medical care increases the cost of premiums. If we had no medical insurance many people would choose to die even if they had a chance of survival because they would want their surviving family members to have access to money instead of wasting it attempting to prolong their life. This is a manifestation of the altruism trait that motivates people to put their lives at risk to save others.

[jdobbin]

Finally, what does it mean when a society condones death - even if the death is a choice of the individual?

It isn't condoning death. It is condoning dignity in life.

Choices are made like this every day in hospitals. Every day.

[August1991]

We have already started to ration medical services.

Society has always rationed medical services, as well as food and everything else. Life itself rations things: some of us are beautiful and some of us are not.

It is the way in which we ration that matters.

Should the State (or a bureaucratic committee mandated by the State) make decisions of life/death? In Canada, we have abolished capital punishment. We leave the decision of abortion to the potential mother.

I suspect that we will eventually permit assisted suicide in Canada if the dying person has decided clearly that this is what they want. (Rhetorical question: Does this mean that a confused 18 year old has the right to request a lethal injection?) I am not so certain that Canadians will accept euthanasia, or the State's power to kill certain people. We might give this right to specific family members, under supervision, as we do now more or less in the case of abortion.

-----

Often in these kinds of discussions, I try to imagine what someone like Galileo or Newton or Voltaire, if brought to the present, would think about modern technology: birth control pills, penicillin, vaccines, abortion, IVF.

We are in a similar position when imagining future technology. Conventional morality is sometimes but not always helpful in deciding what is best. BTW, I am not a Christian - except by culture.

It isn't condoning death. It is condoning dignity in life.

Dobbin, that sadly sounds like an ad campaign. Edited August 13, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Should the State (or a bureaucratic committee mandated by the State) make decisions of life/death? In Canada, we have abolished capital punishment. We leave the decision of abortion to the potential mother.

The state should not be involved in such decisions. No one cares that a mother may be pressured into having an abortion by a family member/father than fears the financial concequences. There should be no need for bureaucratic panels to review assisted suicide requests. The only requirement should be that person dying must be the one who makes the final choice to swallow the pills or to press the button trigging the injection - that is only safeguard necessary to ensure it does not become a cover for murder.

[Topaz]

After watching my mother die at home from cancer, I definitely wished her life could have end sooner than the 6 months it took her to die. I watched a healthy woman go from 135 lbs to a bag of bones, a skeleton with skin. Why? Why do the survivors have to watch their loved one die that way. Everyday she had a nurse come in, and because my dad who had worked for a union in a company had a $10,000. health coverage for home care. Every time I think of my mom, that picture of her in that hospital bed with her eyes shut, her mouth open to breath, brings tears to my eyes and I will take that vision to my grave. We should have a choice when and how we leave this world and it should be like my mom.

[kimmy]

After watching my mother die at home from cancer, I definitely wished her life could have end sooner than the 6 months it took her to die. I watched a healthy woman go from 135 lbs to a bag of bones, a skeleton with skin. Why? Why do the survivors have to watch their loved one die that way.

I hesitate to make this post because it could wind up sounding like an attack or an accusation, and that is certainly not my intent.

With that said, I think the way you've written this portion of your post is a perfect example of why many people are worried about what could happen if assisted suicide is allowed: the way you've written this makes it seem like it is for the benefit of the family, not for the patient.

Personally, I would have no qualms about assisted suicide if I could be certain that this is what the patient wants. However, the possibility that it could wind up being done to save discomfort to the family rather than out of respect for the patient's wishes is what I find unsettling.

Again, I'm sure that's not what you were trying to express, Topaz, and I only quoted your post because the way you phrased that sort of sums up my concern that it might be done for the family rather than the patient herself.

-k

[August1991]

The only requirement should be that person dying must be the one who makes the final choice to swallow the pills or to press the button trigging the injection - that is only safeguard necessary to ensure it does not become a cover for murder.

Should an 18 year old boy, confused about life and love, have this right - against the wishes of his parents? (ie. Should the State forbid his parents' right to intervene?)

Or, if you at 58 years sign a consent that if you no longer ask for cognac, chocolate or sex, then you wish to be considered incompetent. At 71, you are confused but alive. Your nephew invokes your signed consent. Who should decide?

-----

Underneath all of this, I fear that this euthanasia debate is a further indication that we in the West are embarking on the concerns of death and dying. I am reminded of driving through small towns in Poland and Russia. I saw mostly old women, waiting at bus stops if I saw them at all. The young people in Moscow usually have small town accents.

It is hard to describe a society of old people. It is quiet.

Edited August 13, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, that sadly sounds like an ad campaign.

You don't think all attempts to keep someone alive affects their dignity? The recent case in Winnipeg had doctors quitting to stop being party of what they thought was contributing to the suffering of a patient.

[Shady]

It isn't condoning death. It is condoning dignity in life.

One can provide dignity of life without resorting to assisted suicide. The alterative you suggest is in direct violation of the hippocratic oath. And gives Government the potential of much too much power over people's lives.

[Shady]

You don't think all attempts to keep someone alive affects their dignity?

Living will's are the remedy in such situations. They're the answer. Not assisted suicide.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Shady

[jdobbin]

One can provide dignity of life without resorting to assisted suicide. The alterative you suggest is in direct violation of the hippocratic oath. And gives Government the potential of much too much power over people's lives.

Governments have very little do with what happens in hospitals now. People dying of cancer usually don't die from it. They die from a morphine overdose.

[jdobbin]

Living will's are the remedy in such situations. They're the answer. Not assisted suicide.

How is that not assisted suicide?

[Shady]

How is that not assisted suicide?

It's kind of sad that I need to explain it to you.

[jdobbin]

It's kind of sad that I need to explain it to you.

It's kind of sad that you don't know that many social conservatives are against a living will because they believe it leads to assisted suicide. Priests for Life recommends against it and there are many other groups as well.

[punked]

It's kind of sad that you don't know that many social conservatives are against a living will because they believe it leads to assisted suicide. Priests for Life recommends against it and there are many other groups as well.

I think in the US many conservatives are referring to the idea someone can get help with their living will in the new Health Care Bill as a "death panel" All the evidence I need to say you are right Dobbin.

[Riverwind]

Should an 18 year old boy, confused about life and love, have this right - against the wishes of his parents? (ie. Should the State forbid his parents' right to intervene?)

A 18 year old girl has the right to get an abortion no matter what her parents think. An 18 year old boy in that situation would not need assisted suicide - he could just jump off a bridge (many do).

Or, if you at 58 years sign a consent that if you no longer ask for cognac, chocolate or sex, then you wish to be considered incompetent. At 71, you are confused but alive. Your nephew invokes your signed consent. Who should decide?

I said the person dying must make the final choice. A doctor can set up a lethal injection but cannot administer it. If the dying person cannot perform that task then there is not much we can do. Bureaucratic committees to decide life and death are not the answer. Edited August 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[August1991]

A 18 year old girl has the right to get an abortion no matter what her parents think. An 18 year old boy in that situation would not need assisted suicide - he could just jump off a bridge (many do).

That's a very good point, Riverwind.

If legislation on assisted suicide/euthanasia changes nothing, who cares?

In effect, we are talking about people who are physically incapable of killing themselves. Then again, if the State condones such mercy killings, how can parents/teachers argue against young people who want to commit suicide? (Jump off a bridge, as you characterize it Riverwind.)

Why should the State require notices on cigarette packages that smoking causes death, or even forbid cigarette advertising, when the State also allows people to kill themselves, if they want?

Should the State medical system advertise its procedures, publish brochures explaining (advertising) self-assisted suicide - while the State simultaneously forbids private tobacco corporations from advertising (explaining) cigarettes?

Irony and satire abound.

Edited August 13, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

In effect, we are talking about people who are physically incapable of killing themselves.

What people like Sue Rodriguez want is the ability to ask doctors for the medication that allow them to kill themselves and a way to ensure that any loved ones that attend their last moments will be free of any suspicion of murder. The problem I see here is the state interference that forces someone who wants to die to commit suicide alone using a method that might not work.

Should the State medical system advertise its procedures, publish brochures explaining (advertising) self-assisted suicide - while the State simultaneously forbids private tobacco corporations from advertising (explaining) cigarettes?

The tobacco companies have long argued that smokers cost the system less because they die early. They are probably right.

[Shady]

It's kind of sad that you don't know that many social conservatives are against a living will because they believe it leads to assisted suicide.

Many more social conservatives believe in living will's. And living will's already exists, as oppose to Government assisted suicide. If anyone wants to go through the legal process of setting up a living will, there's nobody standing in the way to stop them.

Priests for Life recommends against it and there are many other groups as well.

I have no idea what or who "priests for life" is, or any other groups you're referring to. But again, there's nothing standing in the way of somebody going through the process to obtain a living will.

[Riverwind]

Many more social conservatives believe in living will's. And living will's already exists, as oppose to Government assisted suicide.

No one is asking for 'government assisted suicide'. What people want the government to do is butt out and allow people to make their own arrangments for how they die even if that requires the assistance of another private individual.

[jbg]

It isn't condoning death. It is condoning dignity in life.

Choices are made like this every day in hospitals. Every day.

No one is asking for 'government assisted suicide'. What people want the government to do is butt out and allow people to make their own arrangments for how they die even if that requires the assistance of another private individual.

I'll admit I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, if someone has a hope for a real recovery, the fact that their reasoning may be clouded by drugs, fever, pain or poisoning from the effects of the disease should not overrule the objective likelihood of recovery.

There is another hand, and I'll be a bit personal. On December 30, 1972 I returned from a ski trip to see my terminally ill father (metastatic rectal cancer) in the hospital. His legs were waving patternlessly in the air and the nurse had disconnected the feeding tubes. Before he died, his meddling brother and sister got the tubes hooked up. He lingered to the early morning hours of January 5, 1973. To what end?

This is one issue with no good answer.

Edited August 16, 2009 by jbg

[jdobbin]

I have no idea what or who "priests for life" is, or any other groups you're referring to. But again, there's nothing standing in the way of somebody going through the process to obtain a living will.

Priests for Life is one of the most prominent pro-life groups around and you don't know them?

[Shady]

Priests for Life is one of the most prominent pro-life groups around and you don't know them?

Nope. They're irrelevant to my point anyways. Living wills are legal, and anyone who wants to go through the process to obtain one, can, regardless of what 'priests for life' or any other group has to say.

[Shady]

No one is asking for 'government assisted suicide'. What people want the government to do is butt out and allow people to make their own arrangments for how they die

That's what living wills provide for.

even if that requires the assistance of another private individual.

That is a very dangerous proposition. and unnecessary, since living wills can provide for pain free deaths following a natural course.