In July 2017, we published a Viewpoint entitled Assisted Death: Emancipation or Subjugation. It
was meant to address the very public debate of the day on the issue of Medical Assistance in Dying
(MAID), pending the approval of the legislation before the Parliament of Canada on that subject.
At the time, our video addressed concerns being voiced in the public forum about
the legalization of medically-assisted suicide. Of course we recognized that
some people in society were suffering terribly from the effects of disease,
but there were broader concerns about where liberalization of the law could lead.
Already by 2017, there were news reports in Belgium and the Netherlands of assisted
killing that went well beyond the boundaries established by the respective legislations.
Parts of Europe and even a couple of U.S. states saw terms like involuntary
or non-voluntary euthanasia being used. As we pointed out, this raised legitimate
concerns on the part organizations such as those defending the rights of the disabled.
However in the Canadian legislation, safeguards were put in place to ensure
there was no “definition creep” allowing the practice to be used for purposes well beyond
its original intention. These included: - Written consent must be given,
involving consultations with two physicians. - The requesting individual must be deemed
fully mentally competent. - The requester must take a
minimum two-week reflection period. - Physicians cannot be required to
perform this service. - The patient must be
in a grievous state, with no possibility of recovery and death immediately foreseeable.
- Two witnesses to the request are required, neither of whom can be a beneficiary.
These restrictions were designed to address some demands by activists,
but at the same time to act as an insurance that
we would not see abuses perpetrated as have been noted in other jurisdictions.
The assurances of the government of 2017 that the aforementioned safeguards would
prevent radical expansion of availability of MAID, and any unintended access to it,
were reflected in the words of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Smith:
“the risks inherent in permitting physician-assisted death can be
identified and very substantially minimized through a carefully-designed
system imposing stringent limits that are scrupulously monitored and enforced.”
Now fast forward to 2023. The Parliament of Canada debated and approved what it has assured Canadians
would never happen six years prior. At present, beginning in March 2024, the law will permit a
significant broadening of the use of MAID. This will include assisted death being provided for
people suffering from severe mental illnesses. Already in numerous hospitals across Canada,
patients with serious illness are informed that assisted killing is a “medical option.”
The New York Post on October 28, 2022, quoted Creighton School of Medicine professor Dr.
Charles Camosy as saying that: “…the bill would allow “mature
minors” to be euthanized by state doctors without the consent of their parents.”
Consider a CBC report from Dec 1, 2022.
Here a Paralympian, Christine Gauthier, was offered MAID as an option, during
her five-year battle with Veterans Affairs to acquire a wheelchair ramp for her home.
“I have a letter saying that if you're so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAID, medical
assistance in dying,” said Gauthier who first injured her back in a training accident in 1989.
The Toronto Star elaborated on the problem: Those concerns have crystallized in recent
weeks after reports that several former service members who reached out to Veterans Affairs
Canada for assistance over the past three years were counselled on assisted dying.
Among the most concerned about the direction of government legislation are many psychiatrists
and clinical psychologists who fear for the survival of patients due to the easy
option of assisted death for the mentally ill, as allowed in amended legislation.
Dr. Mark Sinyor, a psychiatrist and suicide prevention researcher at
Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, wrote to the Globe and Mail:
If our government endorses death as a means of coping with mental illness,
this could have a tragic impact on many areas of mental-health care, including suicide prevention.
In a vacuum of scientific evidence, we are in extreme danger of breaching one
of the foundational ethical dictums of medicine: “First, do no harm.”
He goes on to add: It is unethical to create a process that will
populate cemeteries with such patients under the guise of respect for patient autonomy because we
failed to conduct the research necessary for truly informed decisions. It would be unconscionable to
withhold potential evidence that our patients’ seemingly hopeless suffering can be alleviated.
If such ways of dealing with grave depression and other illnesses were available in years gone by,
some who so suffered severely, men like Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln,
Winston Churchill or Ludwig Von Beethoven, would never have had the opportunity to
realize their full potential and in the process benefit not only themselves but the world.
Legalized assisted death diminishes the value of life, but even more so, devalues those with
serious illness, or suffering from mental turmoil, or those who are weak due to age. The downgrading
of the value of a human life eventually enables the rationalization of terminating those who
may be a burden, including those who are deemed undesirable or unproductive or chronically ill.