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