Think Before We Dive: A Reflection on Doctor-Assisted Suicide
by Brian C. Stiller
The waves of sympathy and respect for Sue Rodriguez are camouflaging the real issue at stake in this debate: should a person be allowed to help another kill themselves.
We respect the courage and dignity Ms Rodriguez displayed in advocating her point of view. Her claim for autonomy resonates with the commonly held assumption that our bodies are our own and we should be able to do with them as we want. Giving increased acceptance of this assumption was the tragedy of her affliction and the way in which she won the hearts of many Canadians.
At the heart of this debate, however, is an understanding of what we have commonly understood to be the meaning of murder. While "murder" is a word most wish to avoid, we really are talking about taking a person's life. To avoid using the word is to pretend the debate is not about that. If we wish to redefine the word and move the boundaries of what our law defines as murder, then we must as a society understand that that is what we are doing.
The Constitution and Criminal Code both act as mirrors, reflecting what we as Canadians believe. In our history, the protection of life has been considered central to our societal values. We have laws to protect life and laws that punish those who injure or end life. To change that and now say, "We'll allow you, on the basis of someone's request, to end a life" is a departure from what we as a society have held. If we give courts the latitude to confer on people the right to authorize someone else to assist them in taking their own lives, it means that as a society our views of life have radically changed.
The assumption that our lives are just our own--meaning it's not the business of anyone else what we do with them--is a classic post-Enlightenment view. It focuses on the autonomous, unhindered will of the individual. But this belief runs smack into the wall of a growing realization that individualism as a ruling ideology is counter-productive and in the end has a disintegrating affect on society.
Liberal individualism, though promoting self-asserted action, cannot obscure the fact that we are not islands, living without regard for other. What one person does affects others. Our laws, health care system and educational institutions are run on the assumption that we are not John Waynes, striding off into the horizon, accountable only to self. As humans we are incredibly interrelated and interdependent.
This tension between individual rights and societal living will be evident as this debate moves into the national political forum. We will want to hear all sides and views. And it will be important that Canadians express their views after careful consideration of what is at stake.
One vital consideration is the responsibility we place on doctors. To expect medical professionals to be responsible for deciding how to respond to a patient's request for help in suicide is to distort the very nature of their calling. What does this do to their vows of preserving life? Do we make them into state-supported life terminators? Not a simple or easy question.
In the face of dominant secularism, Canadians are showing a remarkable resilience in spirit-centred concerns. Issues of meaning, ultimacy and transcendence are on the lips of many, even if the producers of media programs and journalistic pieces are unwilling to see or admit it. The Supreme Court alluded to this in its ruling on this issue last autumn. In speaking of the liberty and security of the person the majority said, "A consideration of these interests cannot be divorced from the sanctity of life." The argument focused "on the generally held and deeply rooted belief in our society that human life is sacred...." The Court maintained that autonomy must be balanced by the principle of the sanctity of life.
The Court's ruling made it clear that no longer will an individualistic view be the only one countenanced by the court. This will certainly be rubished by those who assert that matters of faith and belief are only for personal or congregational privacy, but many are recognizing that issues of life and death cannot exclude the larger debate of purpose and essence. No one person's freedom is absolute. Taking the life or participating in taking the life of another is not one person's prerogative, be they friend, foe or physician.
Usually ignored in this debate is what a reversion of our views will do to our treatment of those who are extremely disabled. A possible consequence of allowing doctor-assisted suicide is this view: since we now have a legal provision that allows very sick people to take their life, and given the high cost of palliative care and the need for more available beds, those in such debilitating conditions have a responsibility to society to end their life. Along with this possible outcome is the overarching concern that as a people we will lose our sense of obligation to pay the costs of those in need.
The community I represent has a deep commitment to the issue of life, be it with respect to abortion, euthanasia or assisted suicide. Yes, this issue is one which calls for a national debate. But let us not be driven by the emotion we all feel in particular circumstances. The physical distress of an individual or the tear of a politician is not a sound basis for an enormous shift in the way we view death and therefore life.
We respect the courage and dignity Ms Rodriguez displayed in advocating her point of view. Her claim for autonomy resonates with the commonly held assumption that our bodies are our own and we should be able to do with them as we want. Giving increased acceptance of this assumption was the tragedy of her affliction and the way in which she won the hearts of many Canadians.
At the heart of this debate, however, is an understanding of what we have commonly understood to be the meaning of murder. While "murder" is a word most wish to avoid, we really are talking about taking a person's life. To avoid using the word is to pretend the debate is not about that. If we wish to redefine the word and move the boundaries of what our law defines as murder, then we must as a society understand that that is what we are doing.
The Constitution and Criminal Code both act as mirrors, reflecting what we as Canadians believe. In our history, the protection of life has been considered central to our societal values. We have laws to protect life and laws that punish those who injure or end life. To change that and now say, "We'll allow you, on the basis of someone's request, to end a life" is a departure from what we as a society have held. If we give courts the latitude to confer on people the right to authorize someone else to assist them in taking their own lives, it means that as a society our views of life have radically changed.
The assumption that our lives are just our own--meaning it's not the business of anyone else what we do with them--is a classic post-Enlightenment view. It focuses on the autonomous, unhindered will of the individual. But this belief runs smack into the wall of a growing realization that individualism as a ruling ideology is counter-productive and in the end has a disintegrating affect on society.
Liberal individualism, though promoting self-asserted action, cannot obscure the fact that we are not islands, living without regard for other. What one person does affects others. Our laws, health care system and educational institutions are run on the assumption that we are not John Waynes, striding off into the horizon, accountable only to self. As humans we are incredibly interrelated and interdependent.
This tension between individual rights and societal living will be evident as this debate moves into the national political forum. We will want to hear all sides and views. And it will be important that Canadians express their views after careful consideration of what is at stake.
One vital consideration is the responsibility we place on doctors. To expect medical professionals to be responsible for deciding how to respond to a patient's request for help in suicide is to distort the very nature of their calling. What does this do to their vows of preserving life? Do we make them into state-supported life terminators? Not a simple or easy question.
In the face of dominant secularism, Canadians are showing a remarkable resilience in spirit-centred concerns. Issues of meaning, ultimacy and transcendence are on the lips of many, even if the producers of media programs and journalistic pieces are unwilling to see or admit it. The Supreme Court alluded to this in its ruling on this issue last autumn. In speaking of the liberty and security of the person the majority said, "A consideration of these interests cannot be divorced from the sanctity of life." The argument focused "on the generally held and deeply rooted belief in our society that human life is sacred...." The Court maintained that autonomy must be balanced by the principle of the sanctity of life.
The Court's ruling made it clear that no longer will an individualistic view be the only one countenanced by the court. This will certainly be rubished by those who assert that matters of faith and belief are only for personal or congregational privacy, but many are recognizing that issues of life and death cannot exclude the larger debate of purpose and essence. No one person's freedom is absolute. Taking the life or participating in taking the life of another is not one person's prerogative, be they friend, foe or physician.
Usually ignored in this debate is what a reversion of our views will do to our treatment of those who are extremely disabled. A possible consequence of allowing doctor-assisted suicide is this view: since we now have a legal provision that allows very sick people to take their life, and given the high cost of palliative care and the need for more available beds, those in such debilitating conditions have a responsibility to society to end their life. Along with this possible outcome is the overarching concern that as a people we will lose our sense of obligation to pay the costs of those in need.
The community I represent has a deep commitment to the issue of life, be it with respect to abortion, euthanasia or assisted suicide. Yes, this issue is one which calls for a national debate. But let us not be driven by the emotion we all feel in particular circumstances. The physical distress of an individual or the tear of a politician is not a sound basis for an enormous shift in the way we view death and therefore life.
