What a relief! I have been rather concerned that under the almost newly elected Liberal government in Ottawa that we might see a change in attitude during question period. This is the one time when all our MPs gather to speak publicly about matters of national importance. Question period can be an opportunity for the rest of us to hear intelligent men and women put the prime minister and his cabinet under scrutiny in explaining the national policies and practices that govern our daily lives and our relationships with the rest of the world.
I had concerns that question period might become educational and informative –something that our schools might wish to highlight in teaching social studies and Canadian history. We might become interested enough to forego episodes of Chopped Canada or even Murdoch Mysteries to watch Parliament in action. We could have Super Bowl type commercials and CBC could eliminate its deficit.
Thankfully that is not going to be the case. Instead, Ottawa is consumed with the moving expenses of the prime minister’s office staff. Of course we have yet to hear how much it cost us to dump Harper’s gang, but that will undoubtedly occur in one of the next silly episodes.
So let’s get used to key issues never being debated in Parliament. For instance, what is it going to cost us politically and monetarily to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council – and is it worth it? And what about policies concerning Canadian children, other than tax rebates?
I attended this year’s annual general meeting of the Canadian Paediatric Society and have written about it in this column (If Children Could Vote? Gazette June 25, 2016).
It pointed out, for instance, that child safety legislation in Alberta was inadequate. Alberta pediatricians are lobbying on that issue presently.
One of the more intense matters discussed at the meeting was the legislation surrounding physician assisted death for adults and whether or not it should be extended to children – particularly those in the newborn period.
The issue is not a unique one to Canada. In 2004, the Dutch government approved what is known as the Groningen Protocol. It allows for euthanasia in severely ill newborns with incurable conditions and poor quality of life to spare them unbearable suffering. Under the protocol, four requirements have to be met: the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering, consent of the parents, medical consultation and careful end-of-life procedures. All such deaths are reported to and reviewed by the legal system.
The reaction of Canadian pediatricians at the meeting was, quite understandably, based on our personal and often agonizing experiences. The main reaction in North America has focused on ethical and moral concerns. The predominant view is that the physician is a healer and the ends of medicine should be health, cure and care. It recognizes that an adult with a terminal illness with a poor quality of life has the right to ask for assisted death. However a child, particularly a newborn, does not have that capacity. So while it is reasonable to limit the level of care to severely disabled and suffering infants, the direct taking of that child’s life crosses a moral boundary.
And so, in Canada, when we discuss ‘physician-assisted dying’ in adults, do not be surprised to hear the term ‘physician-hastened death’ when the matter is focused on children.
Alan Murdock is a local pediatrician.
