Our parliamentarians need help with Bill C-14, the doctor assisted death bill. They should read On Death and Dying a book published in 1969. It was written by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and remains today as the principal textbook on the human reaction to death. As the times dictated, she did not dwell on doctor-assisted death. If written today, that would be a substantial part of the discussion.
What Kübler-Ross focused on in her book is the hope and will to live. If they understood human needs when faced with death, our MPs and Senators would never even consider that shallow and unworthy Bill C-14 that is now before parliament.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue a year ago as a human rights question. And that is as it should be. Is there any more important decision for the individual than the question of their life and death? And what right have we as fellow humans to question or set rigid parameters on that? Bill C-14 lacks empathy, humanity and recognition of the rights of the individual. People have to be allowed to choose ahead. Delays in the process can be inhumane. A person’s calendar years neither define maturity nor enjoyment of life. And cruel extensions of living horror need not be inflicted because the individual concerned is considered no longer competent.
Torturers over the centuries of man’s inhumanity to man could likely tell us that there comes a point in inflicting pain when the victim only wants an end. Only the extreme of sadists can continue on.
And we should also mention that Bill C-14 is also sanctimonious. What could possibly have caused the people preparing the bill to have included the stipulation that death must be foreseeable. Of course it is. Human life is finite. We are all destined to die. And we all want dignity in death.
Is choosing a time of death only for the strong? People drive their cars into bridge abutments and oblivion, they swim to the setting sun in western seas or they simply take an excess of pills to end their pain. The moral question is only theirs to resolve for we cannot inflict our scruples on their need.
Our parliamentarians have a responsibility to Canadians. They have to set aside religious doctrine, personal fears and reflect on the compassion needed for those who seek a peaceful end to pain and suffering. They cannot make decisions for us all. They have to honour people’s wishes—asked for today or set in writing when first diagnosed. They have to honour others’ wishes as they would want their own wishes to be honoured.
-30-
Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]