A dignified death

The case for euthanasia

Sarah Jones, Volunteer Staff
Illustration by Sarah Jones

The private members’ bill to legalize assisted suicide (C-407) hasn’t raised a lot of media attention apart from within some religious groups. Unfortunately, the bill was shelved when the government fell, but regardless, these issues are worth examining as they will continue to surface. The potential legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is contentious, much like the recent legalization of gay marriage, because it forces us to re-evaluate our values.

Peter Golding, the MP for Edmonton East, spoke out against the bill, saying that it would undermine “fundamental Canadian values.” However, the majority of Canadians are affronted by infringements on human rights and freedoms and are generally inclined to help out people who are suffering or in pain. In fact, I would say these are some defining values for Canadians, and if so, then euthanasia does not contradict our fundamental values.

Also among the values glorified by Canadians is equality. Sue Rodriguez campaigned for the right to euthanasia on grounds that she was being discriminated against because of her disease. She had Lou Gehrig’s disease, the poster-disease for euthanasia. It leaves the mind intact while eliminating the ability to move, and there is no cure.

While suicide is legal in Canada, counselling and assisting suicide are not. So, because Ms. Rodriguez wanted to live until the moment when she no longer had the physical power to take her own life, she was unable to exercise the right that is available for able-bodied Canadians. Thus, the continued criminalization of assisted suicide encourages patients to kill themselves while they still desire to live and discriminates against physically disabled people.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Sue Rodriguez, citing “concerns about abuse and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards.” The potential for abuse exists for various Canadian rights (to bear arms, drinking alcohol, driving), but instead of denying these rights, we establish frameworks to minimize the potential damage. This is true for euthanasia in Holland, where they legalized euthanasia, and the state of Oregon, where they legalized a more restrictive form of assisted suicide.

The main reason Canadians are unable to accept euthanasia is the implication that euthanasia undermines the value of human life. Even without resorting to a religious stance, euthanasia can be taken to imply that human life is simply another material product in our capitalist society. That is, citizens have value only insofar as they are useful, functional members of society.

Even people who agree that patients deserve the right to be alleviated of pain and suffering are unwilling to do so if it means potentially de-valuing human life. However, euthanasia does not deny the value of human life; it merely asserts different values.

Giving Canadians the right to some control over their deaths is respecting the value of Canadians as autonomous, self-governing individuals. Currently, we are forcing people to continue living when they no longer want to, and worse still, not on the grounds that it benefits the patient but for the benefits of society.

If we can deny Canadians’ final wishes because society will be better off, then there must be some way in which euthanasia is much worse than our current version of death.

Our modern, technological society is, if not entirely, at least partly responsible for the strengthened demand for euthanasia. We are dying now, not surrounded by loved ones in a family home, but in a sterile, impersonal and isolated hospital.

I fail to see how a death hooked up to feeding tubes, respirators and catheters, drugged up and nauseated with pain killers is more respectful of the value of human life than the painless death of a patient who chooses to forgo this indignity.

Euthanasia is very much in line with the Canadian desire to respect individuals’ wishes and to treat every human being with dignity and respect.

Opponents might agree that euthanasia respects autonomy but also maintain that autonomy is not the most important value in our society. In Holland, those who exercise the right to assisted death generally fall into at least one of two groups: those with chronic illness and the aged. Sickness and ageing are associated with decreased utility and increased dependence, the opposite of which we value.

In our culture, ageing itself is suspect and something to be fought with all possible means (consider cosmetics, hair colouring, hair implants, Botox, Viagra . . .). There are two problems here. The first is that we may inadvertently be encouraging euthanasia. Independence, beauty and strength fade as we age, and in our society it seems as if our value as human beings fades with them. If this is the case, then we are becoming more easily discarded. And the second is that, as well-trained consumers, we often look for the simple solution rather than attacking the deeper issues.

And yet, by arguing that euthanasia would have negative effects on society is to miss the point altogether. The call for euthanasia is a reflection of where we are as a society, not where we are going. That is, if we didn’t already see the world in individualistic terms, we wouldn’t be demanding euthanasia.

Of course, this isn’t a reason to encourage the trend to place autonomy above all other values. I agree, however, that denying euthanasia will do nothing to improve the situation. If we decide to fight autonomy’s prominence, we should start at the root of the problem.

Sarah Jones is a continuing education student. She has a degree in microbiology.