The editor:
Consider downhill skiing. There are well marked trails. Some say 鈥渂eginners,鈥� others say 鈥渋ntermediate,鈥� and some say 鈥渁dvanced.鈥� Then, of course, there are the unmarked trails where the high-risk-takers might dare to go. I remember my first experience on a beginners鈥� slope. It was scary. I had sworn that I would never ski again, but thanks to the encouragement of a friend I went back up and actually started to enjoy skiing. I remember being on an advanced trail, knowing that I was out of my comfort zone. I am not suggesting that skiers put themselves on a slippery slope. I am also suggesting that when we are in uncharted places in life, we are on the slippery slope. We need to be very conscious of our decisions because there are always further consequences.
On February 6, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that the Criminal Code鈥檚 ban on doctor-assisted suicide violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom. The converse of this ruling is that doctor-assisted suicide is a right and rules must be put into place to support citizens who are requesting that right. The Government of Canada has one year to draw up new legislation to determine rules for euthanasia. I would speculate that the Supreme Court has put the Government of Canada on a slippery slope. The topic of euthanasia has been previously challenged in the well-known cases of Tracy Latimer and Sue Rodriguez.
Reactions to the decision have been varied and many. While some want the criminal ban to stay in place, they can also see a silver lining. The court鈥檚 decision has a limit on who can access assisted death. Another group wants Parliament to move quickly to legislate the most stringent safeguards to prevent abuse. Saskatchewan doctors will be watchful to see if any new law will force them to participate in assisted suicide.
Many people think that assisted suicide is for the mentally competent adult who is capable of giving consent. The person is suffering from a terminal illness, has excruciating pain and death is near or inevitable. Euthanasia is simply a way of hastening the process in a merciful way. Is that what the court has in mind?
It would appear that their intention is not quite as simple as above, but is to include psychological pain as criteria. One obvious question consequently is the competency of a person who is suffering mentally. Suffering has not been determined either. Is it still based only on intolerable physical paid to the individual or is it going to be open to other types of pain? Would someone suffering from chronic depression now be able to ask for assistance in his or her own suicide?
There has been no discussion on whether there is a difference between incurable and terminal. Did Robert Latimer鈥檚 daughter have a terminal illness or was it simply untreatable? No mention has been made to date as to whether it must be the individual or could someone with power of attorney not initiate the process?
Once we have accepted the idea of suicide not as a tragedy we seek to prevent, but as a choice and a right, it will also be seen no longer as a crime, but as a service. It will also be expected to be performed at public expense. Once on the slippery slope will we follow in the example of other countries? In Belgium, legally assisted suicide is now granted to children and prisoners. Is this the slippery slope that we want to get on or are we already there?
The abortion issue has been a controversial issue for years. It is a prime example of a slippery slope. We are in the midst of another election campaign and already the topic of abortion, which is based on morals and religious beliefs, has surfaced. Justin Trudeau has already stated that in order to be a Liberal candidate you must be pro-choice. Obviously, anti-abortionists an pro-lifers are not welcome. Trudeau鈥檚 rationale is that choice in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the ultimate standard. Yet, some how the choice of being pro-life is negated and so is the choice or opinion that the life of the unborn is to be protected. Is a discussion on euthanasia going to be an issue in our election campaign? Do you see such topics as being divisive? Do you see them as being part of the slippery slope? Or is there a solid foundation upon which we can stand?
There is a solid fountain on which we can stand. It is based on the belief that God is the author of life and death. The fifth commandment of God says that 鈥淭hou shalt not kill.鈥� It is obvious that God is no longer welcome in our discussions. The Ten Commandments are the basis of JudeoChristians, but the majority of all religions agree that God is the author of life and death.
The Charter of rights grants rights to individuals for just about everything, including the right to terminate life, thereby taking control of the naturally unfolding of processes that are already in place. Thus we are rejecting laws of nature by killing (taking control of end-of-life decisions. Once we reject God as the author of life and death we are entering onto the slippery slope. Once there, our problems are multiplied.
Firstly, we have to replace God. Who is going to make the application? Will it be a competent individual, or a legal guardian, or someone having the power of attorney? Who is going to review the application? Will there be a medical analysis required? What will the doctor鈥檚 role be? Will the Government of Canada be free to define these terms or will he be challenged by the Supreme Court? Or will it become a special agency or perhaps a new federal government department (another bureaucracy)? Ultimately the question 鈥渨ho is going to make the decision?鈥� will have to be answered. The list of possible consequences will snowball.
Secondly, how is the assisted suicide going to be performed? Will it be in the hospital, in a clinic or a funeral home? Who is going to perform the actual process? Will it be under a doctor鈥檚 guidance, a specially licensed practitioner or an undertaker? Will it be done in the least painful way, or will economics play a role in this decision? What will the environment be like for the patient? What about psychological and mental health issues after being involved with the taking of a life? What about the consequences of such a divisive debate? Many more questions will be asked and how many answers will be given before the terms are acceptable to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Thirdly, who is going to pay for it? Would it be the user鈥檚 responsibility? Pay for it up front? Could it be paid by a private insurance company? Or could it be done as part of an overall funeral? Or will it become the taxpayers鈥� burden? Again there will be many snowballing consequences. These will include mental health, psychological, political, and family arenas creating division and tension amongst citizens and family members long after any agreement has been reached between the Government of Canada and the Supreme Court. The issues will be unresolved, not unlike the First Nations issues or the scars that have been created by the abortion deadlock.
So how did we get to such an ungodly position where killing can be done as easily as any other bodily function or as easily as dealing with bodily discomfort? The principles of relativism, secularism and modernism have been very instrumental in this unfolding.
Relativism is a theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolutes, but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. In other words, truths, values and criteria for judgement may vary from one culture or environment to another. It is this approach which entitles everyone to have their own opinions. As society tries to become tolerant and accepting of each other, universal standards may be weakened or compromised.
Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. It eliminates standards such as The Commandments and all other standards that all the religions in the world hold in high esteem. What replaces religious principles? Or do we now have a moral vacuum where any individual can come up with a moral theory and sell it?
Modernism follows secularism and with a moral guideline, anything goes. Results are based on popularity, advertising, pragmatism and are supported by the capitalist system. If the idea is popular, promote it, sell it and make a profit. Profits are then turned into the growth of similar concepts and the growth of an industry makes it right. People can choose. People in general can be manipulated into thinking they still have a choice. If you are on a ski hill, is your only choice to take a beginner鈥檚 run or an intermediate one? What about the choice of a different ski hill or none at all? Mr. Trudeau, do we have the right to support choice and also do we have the right to support life? Or is the right to support life no longer a right?Once religious and moral guidelines are taken out of the equation, we are in a moral vacuum or on a very slippery slope.
Is it possible to reverse the process? The definition of rights and freedoms has to be challenged. Do you have the right to stand and swing your arms randomly? Or are you responsible to assure that nobody gets hit? Mr. Trudeau, can you say that only pro-choice is constitutional, while pro-life is not? You seem to imply that with your restriction on eligibility of Liberal candidates. The shock level on your policy is high, but perhaps, not as high as on the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 6, 2015. Simply, in my humble opinion, you are both trying to legalize immorality.
Rod Degenstein
Canora
