The Euthanasia Debate in Canada
Of 2,025 medical specialists who answered a poll on the subject, 75 per cent said they were “certainly” or “probably” in favour of legalizing euthanasia, as long as the practice were strictly regulated.
The president of the federation of medical specialists, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, said doctors already see some form of euthanasia in the course of their work.
“Eighty one per cent of doctors do see the practice of euthanasia given the circumstances in their practice,” Barrette said. “They hear their patients, they see their patients, asking for it.”
The Fédération’s president, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, claims that the polling data demonstrates that, “the specialists are in step with Quebec society”; however, a recent poll by by Angus Reid demonstrates that the Fédération’s position may well be applicable far more widely than just in Quebec.
In the September 2009 poll, Angus Reid compared attitudes on euthanasia between Canadians, Britons, and Americans and concluded that there is a strong majority (71%) of Canadian who support legalizing euthanasia in some form and that those attitude cohere with those held by respondents in the UK, but are divergent from opinions of respondents in the US.
Even more striking is how stable the numbers remain when compared across a cross-section of age ranges,
In the prostrations of my adult life, I’ve always found myself drawn to the “right to die with dignity” argument about terminally ill individuals having an inherent right to self-determination in an existential (as opposed to political) sense. My life has been, in many regards, populated by instances of death from an early age including the two grandfathers I never had the chance to meet, to my father who died when I was nine, the death of one of my grandmothers six years ago, the impending passing of my remaining grandmother. As such, cliched though it is, I can’t but see death as a wholly natural component of existence itself and not something to be shut out from discussion or consideration around the trajectory of one’s life.
It is, to my mind, regrettable that we only really have a discussion about euthanasia and it’s appropriate (or inappropriate, depending on your view) place within society in the wake of controversial and high profile circumstances such as Robert Latimer here in Canada and, of course, Terri Schiavo in the US (ironic the outcomes of those two cases given the attitudinal differences between the two countries). So I can’t help but see the debate absent any highly-charged attending/impending decision as a positive and healthy step rather than attempting to parse arguments and considerations on-the-fly (pace Schiavo) or after the fact (pace Latimer).
Obviously strong opponents to euthanasia are likely to stand athwart any proposed legislation. Any willingness to discuss details of such legislation would be, de facto, an admission of some kernal or moral integrity in the arguments of euthanasia proponents. That said, I wonder if the overwhelming support that the issue seems to have in Canada is a good indicator that, rather than boycotting the issue and potential resulting process altogether, euthanasia opponents would be best served to ensure that the “strict regulations” qualifying the Fédération’s members’ support are up to the task of properly shaping appropriate application.
If the writing is on the wall in regards to euthanasia in Canada based on public opinion, I think it makes sense a.) to have legislation directing all related activities in a dispassionate manner (at the time) and b.) to ensure that the legislation as comprehensive as possible and informed by the arguments and ideas of all sides, or at least having had those arguments/ideas considered.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Bob, here's a question fo...
- Possible, I suppose, but ...
- Good job, Ian. We must al...
- The principle has its mer...
- It isn't that it's inhere...
- If Pelosi is contradictin...
- So can I assume you think...
- on Ten BooksDDI, baby. DDI.
- Erik:Thanks for the plug!...
- Really interesting articl...
-
16 comments
It certainly looks like the support is broad and deep. It is vital for both opponents of euthanasia (morality) and proponents (practical politics and morality) that heavy duty safeguards be put into place on any legal form of euthanasia. As long as it is strictly contained within the bounds of giving a person in a hopeless situation an option to choose their own death I am supportive of it. But if it even inches towards any form of cost/benefit calculus on the part of government or insurance providers or the ability of the grand nephew to get their hands on Gramma’s silver or house then I’m vehemently opposed.
Jaybird
October 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Absolutely.
Stuff like this is why hypocrisy was invented. In public, everyone ought to talk about how life is a positive good, how we ought to cherish it, and how euthanasia is wrong.
In private, however, one understands that sometimes there are things that other people just wouldn’t understand if they were talked about in public… such as so-and-so’s request to die peacefully in a haze rather than ravaged and twisted.
It’s not anybody’s business to know the exact circumstances of Pawpaw’s death. Say “Cancer” or “Aneurism” or “Infarction” or something.
As the polling goes, interesting that the US counter-example is the much larger percentage of ‘un-sures’. I imagine people looking at that graph would immediately jump to the much larger US position of strongly oppose and point out higher religiosity in the states. But to me the unsure category is far more intriguing. Sounds like a country in possible transition, maybe? Or perhaps one where the topic really hasn’t been sufficiently broached in larger discourse.
Scott,
If I recall, the Terri Schiavo issue was a little more complicated in that there was some dispute as to who had the legal right to make the decision on her behalf and I think the battle lines may have been drawn over that issue. I think the right to die issue may have been secondary.
North
October 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Dave, a clarification. There was no doubt about who had the authority to decide. Her husband had complete control. The ruckus was about all the people who thought he shouldn’t have control because he was going to unplug her.
Jaybird
October 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Standard Libertarian Disclaimer: This topic is none, absolutely none, of my business.
That said. I found the Terri Schiavo issue disturbing on about a thousand levels.
For one, the husband had shacked up with another woman and had a non-zero number of children with her. This is not, in itself, particularly creepy. He was, however, claiming to be a husband to Terri at the time. This strikes me as creepy. He had (it seems obvious to me) abdicated in his role as husband. He was (it seems obvious to me) a husband to the woman with whom he was living and with whom he had a non-zero number of children.
Was he the legal husband of Terri? Sure. Of course.
But I’m one of those crazy conservative types when it comes to marriage. He had (it seems obvious to me) divorced Terri.
Terri’s parents said “let our daughter live!” Now, of course, this is, of course, one of those loaded statements. That said, *IF* there is going to be an error made here, why not make the error in the direction of “letting Terri live”? The argument that we ought to respect the relationship of marriage seems odd in the face of the fact that the (ostensible) husband didn’t do so.
Given that the (ostensible) husband (it seems obvious to me) divorced Terri, I thought that the best option would be to allow Terri’s parents to take care of Terri.
Of course, getting the government involved was screwed up. The Republicans really didn’t distinguish themselves. I remember thinking, more than once, “great, the Republicans finally found someone they want state-funded cradle-to-grave medical care for”. Additionally, finding out that my intuitions led me to be on the same side as Randall Terry was a mind-frig.
And, on top of that, making it a Federal Friggin’ Issue was completely screwed up to the nth degree.
And yet… I thought it was messed up on about a thousand levels.
Scott H. Payne
October 14th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
This is precisely my point.
I didn’t bring Schiavo up because it clearly demonstrates under what circumstances I support the idea of euthanasia (@Dave). Rather I brought it up because it is a good example of how we tend to shy away from talking about issues like euthanasia until such a time as we have a highly charged and emotionally-clusterfucked situation on our hands and then everyone loses their mind making their points.
An issue that is between a family (albeit estranged) because a topic of national political discourse. Presidents come back from vacation to make ideological, if not wholly inappropriate, moves on the issue, and very little in the way of truly constructive discussion ensues.
Whether you agree with euthanasia or not, I’m suggestion that a debate about legalizing it and under what circumstances it ought to be legalized is a discussion that is worth having. And yet, we tend to not want to have those conversations because they’re hard. Given where public opinion seems to be here in Canada, I would offer it is all the more important that we go ahead and steel ourselves to have that debate. Ergo, the linked is good news, no matter how messy it might turn out to be.
Jaybird
October 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
No matter what the Official State Policy will be towards euthanasia, it will be the wrong one. “How is that possible?”, I hear you ask.
I jab my finger at the table. “If you make the Official State Policy to be euthanasia is acceptable in hospice cases, or in cases where the person is a kabillion years old, or a close of one of those Kevorkian patients, there will be, inevitably, cases that will push that boundary. Moreover, there will be cases where people will say ‘Gee, Pawpaw, keeping tabs on you is really eating into my day and you have all this stuff we could sell. Could you knock yourself off?’ and while that particular case is overstated, there will be cases at the margin that will result in people knocking themselves off who will be otherwise inclined to not do so. It’s outsourcing murder at that point.”
I take a deep breath and pound my fist upon the table. “And if you make the Official State Policy that you do *NOT* support euthanasia, you’re going to end up with bullshit cases where The State starts investigating deaths that were requested by a patient in his or her right mind to ease pain in a situation where death was (otherwise) inevitable. You’re going to end up with Terri Schiavo situations where people are left to starve over a period of weeks rather than within a moment of a pinprick. You’re going to end up causing pain there as well.”
I take my boot off and start banging it against the table. “The only proper official policy is none at all. This is something that is so very personal and private that The State ought not be involved at all. If there is a family that needs to come to terms with Pawpaw’s inevitable death, they should come to whatever conclusion they come to without the state yelling in their ear that ‘Hey, you can always put him to sleep like you did old Spotty!’ or that ‘Conspiracy to commit murder followed by commission of said murder is murder one, baby!!!’ It needs to be something that is taken care of on an individual basis and the second a general plan is developed and put in place by politicians it will be worse than nothing at all NO MATTER WHETHER SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION IS CHOSEN.”
I collapse in the corner.
Scott H. Payne
October 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
You want some water or something?
Jaybird
October 15th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Well, I wrote “I hear you ask” and then wondered where it would go from there and then I saw Khrushchev and once that gets in your head, you can either run from it or run with it and I chose the latter.
Creon Critic
October 15th, 2009 at 12:51 am
taken care of on an individual basis and the second a general plan is developed and put in place by politicians it will be worse than nothing at all
Jaybird, I think you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. They are not ideal, but the (UK) Crown Prosecution Service’s interim guidelines assisted suicide prosecutions (BBC or pdf) or Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act seem like good balancers of the considerations you mention (as well as those considerations mentioned upthread by North). I think its right that the state tries to ensure that people make informed choices while trying to ensure that the unscrupulous don’t pressure the vulnerable into early deaths. You’re right that striking a balance is difficult, we won’t get it right 100% of the time. But these seem like legitimate aims of state power to me, and ‘none of the above’ leaves the individual worse off than thoughtful (UK, Oregon), even if imperfect, state intervention.
Jaybird
October 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
“the perfect the enemy of the good.”
So merely just having a policy where medical science is not used to kill people is not “good enough”. It’s something that, obviously, needs to be improved upon.
On a National level, no less.
North
October 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Too much information now Jay. Too much knowledge, too much awareness of the issue and too many busybodies looking into things. You can only have an unspoken rule about euthanasia when you have a general attitude of trust and agreement on that subject and a willingness to let things go. We don’t anymore. This is a litigious society. Every death in a hospital is reviewed for propriety. Any upset relative can call their lawyer and launch a suit. Maybe it was better back in King George the 5th’s time when his doctor quite pragmatically gave him a lethal sedative douse to smooth him along into the arms of the great beyond. But in today’s society said doctor would be bankrupt from lawsuits and swinging from a tree (so would his hospital). The law can only be silent when everyone agrees to silence and that culture is gone for better or for worse.
As for Schiavo, the husband seemed pretty crumby. But lousy husbands are not grounds to disregard marriages. Conservatives were supposed to be all about the precious sanctity of marriage in the law.
Jaybird
October 15th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Instituting an official policy will all end in tears, mark my words.
“Conservatives were supposed to be all about the precious sanctity of marriage in the law.”
You and I both know that the law is an asterisk when it comes to marriage.
North
October 15th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Well of course it’ll end in tears. Every policy ends in tears. The only thing worse than instituting a policy now would be not instating one. Such is the no good answer situation we’re fumbling our way into. Though I don’t think you and I are actually disagreeing on much Jay.
And yes. But when you’re a hospital administrator trying to figure out which schmo you need to sign the form so your hospital doesn’t get sued out of business and you don’t end up eating catfood out of a can in an alley that asterisk is a big deal.
Jaybird
October 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I need to understand how not instituting one would be worse than instituting one in this case.
What excesses have happened under the current system that would have been prevented by even a flawed system?