I had not had the pleasure of reading the caricature in the Gazette initially, but a friend of mine pointed it out to me and wondered if I would comment on it, being a family physician opposed to what has been clipped in mainstream media as “death with dignity.” With the recent People’s article illustrating the tragic story of the young woman with terminal cancer as well as the recent appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, this topic has been thrust into mainstream media. For this I am grateful, but fearful people are being misled. This topic can be discussed on multiple levels and the answer continues to scream out to err on the side of life. This does not say that I am uncomfortable with helping someone kill himself or herself, I am vehemently opposed to what this says about life itself, including their own.
I understand in a culture where we are coming to think of ourselves as creators it is not difficult then to also think of ourselves as being in the right to decide when life should end. I have heard the argument that it is their body, it is their choice, and it is their suffering. It is a great sign of humanity to empathize with their pain. In their suffering, we as a society suffer with them, we empathize, and we reach outside of ourselves and are compassionate.
As the great Dalai Lama has said, “We must recognize that the suffering of one person or one nation is the suffering of humanity.” Without suffering, we lose compassion. Many may argue that by allowing them to kill themselves, we are being compassionate. This cannot be further from the truth. In supporting someone to kill themselves, we are silently supporting their life no longer has value. You may shake your head but too many times I have come across witnesses of those who have had loved ones pass away from a terminal illness, myself included, and in those hours of suffering humanity is glorified.
This is true if we also look at the opposite, for which we have the Dutch to thank. They have had assisted suicide since 2001, and the statistics are educating. For further information, please read ethicist Theo Boer’s article on this. Where we sit today with the failsafes and stops to ensure autonomy is not where we will sit in five years, or 10 years, or 20 years. This is the slippery slope, which is now allowing 12-year-olds to make autonomous decisions to kill themselves. I cannot imagine any 12-year-old making a decision outside of the influence of their parents and loved ones, immune to feeling guilty for the impact their suffering has on those they love.
To further argue this point, this decision does not only impact them, it affects all of us, just as their suffering affects us all. To walk the path with them in their suffering is most uncomfortable. I am suggesting that we need to suffer alongside those with terminal illnesses and pain. It is more comfortable for the community to rid society of them. We can move on and get back to “our life.” We can return to being rapid, productive members of society. It requires one to slow down and put on hold plans they may have had till the end.
We are attracted to happy, dynamic people; we are pushed away from those who suffer. It is not comfortable to listen and help carry the burden of their suffering, which is what occurs when those surrounding the sufferer experience providing psychological support, becoming the hands and feet of those who can no longer walk and move, becoming the eyes and ears to those who can no longer see and hear, holding their hand as they laboriously breathe. This is what my opposition to euthanasia cries out. To be compassionate, fill the world with hope, value the life of the sufferer to the end of time, of which we should never dictate.
It is more comfortable to banish these sufferers into the outskirts of loneliness and hopelessness. Suicide can be nothing more than despairing and hopeless. We know this, which is why Canada has developed a suicide prevention program released in 2012. How can the same people that want to save those who feel despair also support killing others? To suggest that this will only be limited to terminal illnesses is closing us to the truth. Once that line is crossed, there will be no other.
Nathalie Sleno, St. Albert
