Monday > February 6 > 2006 
  
Society should no longer tolerate assisted suicide
Law lets people off lightly. If allowing this practice is such a good idea, why
not open it to everybody?
  
AMY HASBROUCK 
Freelance 


Monday, February 06, 2006


On Jan. 27, Marielle Houle was given three years' probation for assisting the
2004 suicide of her son, Charles Fariala. The maximum sentence for aiding or
counselling suicide is 14 years. Media reports during and after the sentencing
emphasized the emotional trauma Houle displayed at the sentencing hearing, and
expressed satisfaction with the sentence "in light of the circumstances."

According to news reports, when Fariala asked his mother to help him kill
himself in September 2004, he'd been under a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis for
about a year and a half. His mobility was reduced and he had developed chronic
pain, but he had refused offers of help and mobility aid. Fariala also had
worked in a chronic-care hospital, where disabled people without other options
are warehoused. He had probably developed his ideas about what life with a
disability has to offer based on the this experience.

Had Fariala known people with MS living in accessible homes in the community,
with assistance services to enable them to maintain a regular daily schedule of
work or school and social activities, with plenty of accessible public transit,
he might have felt different. If he'd had hassle-free access to a full range of
pain management strategies for the nerve pain that comes and goes with MS, he
might have felt different. If he'd known people with disabilities who see
disability not as a tragedy or curse, but as a powerful representation of the
gorgeous diversity of the human species, he might have felt differently.

A barrier-free environment with perfect in-home supports is not a reality for
Quebecers with disabilities. A workable solution for independence can only be
achieved by people with the strongest will and greatest persistence. As it is,
public policy and the criminal-justice system continue to tolerate, even
encourage people without disabilities to kill those with disabilities.

This was demonstrated in 1997 in a study that found that of 35 homicides of
disabled children by parents or guardians in North America, 43 per cent of those
parents received no prison time. Another 23 per cent received five years or
less. This was compared to an average sentence for child murder of 30 years.

While this trend stands in exception to the case of Robert Latimer, where the
Saskatchewan farmer got a life sentence for killing his 12-year-old daughter,
the public outcry against Latimer's sentence included the same arguments used to
justify assisted suicide as applied against people with disabilities.

The rationale falls into the categories of "mercy killing" and "caregiver
burden." The mercy killing argument stated by parents and courts is that life
with a disability is worse than death. The caregiver-burden argument states that
whoever is tasked to help someone with a disability, be that the state or the
family, bears too great a burden.

The arguments for assisted suicide are generally made by people who, like
Charles Fariala and Marielle Houle, have little experience of disabled people
outside a hospital setting. Such beliefs are generally shaped and distorted by
the effects of inadequate medical or other support services. Both of these
arguments rest on the (usually unspoken) belief that people with disabilities
have less to offer, and use more resources.

In an interdependent society, we all rely on the efficient operation of the
infrastructure to get through the day. City dwellers depend on farmers,
processors, truckers and retailers to provide food. A breakdown in this system
would mean no one could function. Similarly, where the environment prevents
people with disabilities from functioning, such as a workplace with stairs, or
lack of home-care services, they are barred from making their contribution and
demonstrating their value.

One question leaps to mind: Would the sentence have been different had Charles
Fariala been an able-bodied person?

For a long time, the disabled were silenced or sidelined in the assisted-suicide
debate. At first, the justification was that "this didn't concern 'the
disabled,' just people with terminal illness." However, persistent public
education by disability groups such as Not Dead Yet and the Council of Canadians
with Disabilities have shown that most assisted-suicide cases involve people
with long-term, chronic disabilities like MS.

Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde has promised to reintroduce her bill to
legalize assisted suicide. Her bill, which died with the last Parliament, would
have permitted assisted-suicide for anyone with "severe physical or mental
pain," even if that person refused treatment. I hope the long-awaited discussion
called for by the party leaders will include the people most affected by such
legislation.

The first question in that discussion should be: If assisted suicide is such a
good idea, shouldn't we make it available to all Canadians, not just people with
disabilities or terminal illness?

Amy Hasbrouck is a Montreal disability rights activist and board member of Not
Dead Yet, a Chicago-based group that opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide.

C The Gazette (Montreal) 2006
 
http://tinyurl.com/e3yps



 
 
 
Copyright C 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.