Wow. Talk about controversial. I'm wondering how much of this 'right to
die' is in the same realm as a 'do not resuscitate' order.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Meir Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Reasonable+accommodation+right/5781
> 421/story.html
>
> Reasonable accommodation for the right to die
> .
> Matt Gurney, National Post . Nov. 29, 2011 | Last Updated: Nov. 29, 2011
> 3:17 AM ET
>
>
>
> In Monday's National Post, Derek Miedema movingly wrote of his twin ("My
> right to life trumps your right to die"). Due to complications during
> childbirth, his brother was left permanently disabled. Today, at 39 years
> of
> age, he is not able to talk, is confined to diapers and a wheelchair he
> cannot control himself. Miedema still is grateful for his brother's life,
> and writes that "he has taught me more about what it means to be human than
> anyone else I know."
>
> Powerful stuff. But Miedema then goes on to write about the moral and
> ethical pitfalls of euthanasia, stating that were it to be legalized,
> people
> like his brother - "those with no voice" - would be "endangered." He also
> presents some troubling statistics concerning involuntary euthanasia in
> jurisdictions where it's already legal, and suggests that legalized
> euthanasia here would deny those with critical illnesses choice concerning
> their right to live. Therefore, Miedema concludes, Canada's current laws
> against euthanasia and assisted suicide should be preserved.
>
> Yet none of the arguments he makes or points he raises leads to that
> conclusion. Miedema has made an argument for a better-written euthanasia
> law
> than Oregon or the Netherlands. We can accomplish that while still
> honouring
> the wishes of citizens who freely choose to avoid needless suffering in
> their final days. Despite how Miedema presents the issue, our only options
> are not a hellish dystopia where the sick are swiftly executed or Canada's
> current unacceptable status quo. Despite Miedema's breezy dismissal of
> "choice and personal autonomy" as being inconsequential compared with
> protecting those who have no voice, choice and personal autonomy are at the
> very heart of the euthanasia debate. There is no moral argument that has
> yet
> been made that should compel Canadians to live when their medical
> circumstances give them just cause to prefer death. The many valid concerns
> raised by euthanasia foes can be accommodated - reasonably, as is the
> Canadian way - without trampling on the right of others to choose a quick,
> painless end to what could otherwise be a long, agonizing struggle.
>
> Take the objections raised by Miedema: Doctors euthanizing patients without
> their explicit consent, patients opting for euthanasia when their
> psychological fitness was in question, the sick being pressured to choose
> death, people in Oregon getting their legally mandated second opinion from
> a
> pro-euthanasia advocate with a medical licence. If Canadians accept that
> these are troubling issues - I bet most would - then the challenge becomes
> finding a way to address these issues while still respecting the wishes of
> women like Gloria Taylor, who suffers from ALS and is asking the Supreme
> Court to overturn Canada's ban on assisted suicide (Miedema notes that due
> to family history, he himself has a 50% chance of contracting ALS).
>
> Perhaps the worst of Miedema's argu-ments was when he wrote, "If Gloria
> Taylor gets the choice to die when, how and where she wants with help, then
> I and many others get pressure to die before we want to. Her choice takes
> away ours." But added pressure does not mean a choice has been taken from
> anyone, like the choice to die has been taken from Taylor. Added pressure
> means exactly that - added pressure to make a choice. Miedema seems blind
> to
> the fact that he is asserting that his right to an easier choice comes at
> the cost of denying another citizen any choice at all.
>
> There is no reason Canada cannot have effective euthanasia regulations. A
> system that makes euthanasia illegal unless explicitly requested, in
> writing
> or verbally, before witnesses, would avoid concerns about euthanasia
> without
> consent. Second opinions could be provided by a pool of screened doctors,
> vetted by their peers and considered to be of sound judgment and absent any
> political motivation. Doctors could be forbidden from proposing euthanasia,
> but authorized to discuss it, if asked. Those who are squeamish about
> making
> doctors the purveyors of death instead of healing could be accommodated by
> separating the delivery of euthanasia from the delivery of treatment.
>
> Those in favour of Canada's current anti-euthanasia status quo clearly
> understand that they can't summon any arguments strong enough to convince
> society that those in chronic pain should be forced to suffer, or submit to
> virtual drug induced comas. So instead, they pretend that only by
> maintaining the status quo can the helpless be protected. Nonsense.
> Drafting
> a euthanasia law that takes all this into account would certainly be
> complex, but not so complex as to be impossible, or unworthy of the effort.
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy