The dignity of life

A case against euthanasia

Sarah Bezan

“If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?” – Sue Rodriguez, sufferer of the degenerative effects of Lou Gehrig’s disease.

This statement, given by Sue Rodriguez in a testimonial to the Parliamentary Committee studying the Criminal Code in 1992, is an important representation of the feelings of many who are suffering from intolerable pain due to terminal illnesses.

For Sue Rodriguez, access to euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would have served to put an end to her suffering and to hasten death as relief from her compromised quality of life. Rodriguez fought a legal battle for a physician’s right to intentionally end her life based on her willful consent. Euthanasia promised her a “dignified death,” and Rodriguez — as do all human beings — deserved nothing less.

Yet the promise of a “death with dignity” may not be as straightforward as it appears. Indeed, it is something we all want, but are euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide truly about providing a “dignified death?” The Canadian AIDS Society, a proponent of the recently introduced private members´ bill (C-407) to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Canada, have argued that for some people, the loss of one’s independence leads to the deterioration of dignity.

Being in total control over the timing and manner of one’s own death, the AIDS society argues, is the only means to maintaining true autonomy and self-worth. While this argument has its merits in defending self-determination and the rights of the individual, it does not recognize that the desire to die arises out of an overwhelming sense of despondency.

Feelings of depression and defeat do surface as one becomes increasingly dependent on others, and the developing belief that life is no longer worth living is a common experience. But to satisfy an individual’s desire to die may not be an adequate response to the suffering of life.

When Adrian Dieleman, a counsellor at the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, broke his back and learned that he was going to be a quadriplegic, he “wanted to die because [he] couldn’t imagine that life could hold anything worthwhile anymore.” But “since then [his] life has changed a lot . . . success has come in different ways, and [he has] been able to help many people.” What disabled and suffering people truly need is compassionate support — not a confirmation of hopelessness.

Living with dignity would be the most appropriate response to suffering. This involves pain management, stable support networks for those who are suffering and, above all, the unconditional upholding of the inherent worth of a human life. Many argue that it is inhumane to abandon someone to unbearable pain and suffering.

However, it is hard to believe that in a world as advanced as ours, there can be no steps taken to relieve pain. For instance, The International Task Force On Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the United States published Power Over Pain in 2001, an important book on how those suffering from chronic conditions and terminal illnesses can obtain the pain relief they need.

Rita L. Marker and Kathi Hamlon of the International Task Force believe in the importance of establishing support networks for patients. They explain that dependent people often feel as though they have an obligation to relieve their caregivers or family and friends. But as they note, “if the choice of euthanasia or assisted suicide is considered as good as a decision to receive care, some people will feel guilty for not choosing death.”

Admittedly, stable networks may be hard to secure, as the cost of lethal drugs is much less expensive than treatment, and the possible savings to the health care system may lead to abuse and a depleted standard of care. Bill C-407, the private members’ bill proposed on June 15, 2005, is supposed to safeguard against this abuse.

However, Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has pointed out that the bill does not provide typical limits seen in other proposals for euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor does it require that someone at least try appropriate treatments for their ailment.

To be sure, there are serious flaws in the proposal. If euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were to be legalized in Canada under Bill C-407, it is likely that many vulnerable citizens will be abused and exploited. Therefore, it is essential that strong support groups and programs are in place to protect and uphold the inherent worth of suffering and disabled people.

It is obvious that we must re-examine what a “dignified death” really means. Perhaps it may require us to believe that there may be meaning to be extracted from the final crossroad of life, to trust that a human life is still of inherent value even when the body may not fulfill its ordinary functions.

We have grossly romanticized life if we remember it to have always been orderly, always comprehensible or always devoid of pain. In the end, death should be the assessment of a dignified life.

Sarah Bezan is a first-year English student at the University of Winnipeg.