Euthanasia patient ends conception of life
getty
Canada’s extremely lenient euthanasia laws, which are due to be extended next year, to include people with mental health conditions and potentially minors, have been slammed as a reminder to The Nazis Treated People With Disabilities by a leading academic in the field.
in one Articles published by Associated Press Last week, Tim Stanton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, said the country’s uniquely permissible euthanasia law was “the greatest existential threat to people with disabilities since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.” “
The AP article additionally details the story of 61-year-old Alan Nichols, who had a history of hearing loss and depression and, according to Nichols’ brother, was illegally “deathed” by the Canadian state in 2019. .
Although Nichols’ family cited a pathetic lack of oversight and gross negligence on the part of the medical professionals who treated him, the Canadian Mounted Police, in cooperation with the British Columbia Health Ministry, declined to bring any criminal charges to the fore.
Nevertheless, the episode concerning the upcoming expansion of laws governing euthanasia in Canada in 2023 raises serious questions.
Could it be that a country famous for its “liberal universalism” and liberal fundamentalism has grossly distorted the principle of access when it comes to medically assisted dying?
Access is, in most cases, the precious ethos and lifeblood that allows people with disabilities to thrive as working members of society.
Yet, within the region, unfettered access may indeed prove to be one of the deadliest forces the disability community has had to grapple with since the “mercy killings” of the Third Reich nearly nine decades ago.
a global issue
WorldwideEuthanasia, where doctors use lethal doses of drugs to end the lives of patients with incurable and chronic diseases, is legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and parts of Spain and Australia.
Additionally, several US states, including California, Colorado, and New Jersey, allow a format in which a physician can prescribe barbiturates which are then self-administered by the patient.
Canada’s euthanasia laws came into force in 2016 and resulted in nearly 10,000 deaths last year.
Proponents of the practice in Canada claim that there are strong checks and balances in place and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said that the national euthanasia law “recognizes the rights of all persons … as well as the inherent and equal rights of every life”. value.”
Still, there exist a number of trends and protocols that set Canada apart from other regions in which euthanasia is legal that have prompted opponents to express concern that the country’s medical establishment is faltering on a cliff.
Unlike in Belgium and the Netherlands, there is no monthly commission to review problematic cases, whereas in Canada, the procedure itself can be performed by a nurse practitioner, but is limited to purely doctors.
Perhaps, most troublingly, where the issue has become most politicized and associated with liberal fundamentalism is the way in which euthanasia is actively considered as a “treatment option” by physicians caring for patients. is proposed from.
Whereas in other countries where it is legal, euthanasia is silenced more than all other medical treatments and viewed as an entirely different – in Canada, it is inserted more deliberately into routine dialogue between doctors and their patients. goes.
For eligible patients who do not need to have an incurable disease, but only have a life-limiting disability – it is not so much that physicians are encouraging them to choose euthanasia, but rather to consider it among other treatment options. Similar positions are proposed as alternatives. and palliative care – in some situations by the patient himself without raising the issue.
live with dignity
Dr. Ramona Coelho, a Canadian family physician, told the Associated Press, “The entire premise of the law is built on discriminatory approaches to people with disabilities.”
Continuing, “Most Canadians think that it is a service of compassion to those who have nothing left to give and are being offered death. Being implemented so liberally and so easily in a short period of time that people are dying who would have been fine with more care and the resources to live.”
It’s a view echoed by Marie-Claude Landry, the head of the country’s human rights commission, who said euthanasia “cannot be a default for Canada to meet its human rights obligations.”
Addressing the notion that, when patients are presented with treatment options by doctors, they can view their future lives with a disability through the lens of economic deprivation, Landry said, “an era of Where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity.”
Last year, three UN human rights experts denounced Canada’s law, saying it has “discriminatory effects” on people with disabilities and runs contrary to international human rights standards.
Meanwhile, during a recent tour of the countryPope Francis attacked Canada’s culture of utilitarianism when it comes to its euthanasia policy, denouncing the fact that “patients, in place of affection, are put to death.”
Some may argue that interventions based on religious precepts only run the risk of polarizing a debate that is worthwhile and which can no longer be sidelined by any country in the world.
To extend the religious connotation – it is often said that “the devil is in the details” but, in the case of Canada’s euthanasia law, the exact opposite appears to be true.
Certainly, the real danger lies in the unique interplay of such a morally complex and emotive policy arena and a sense of ambiguity, latitude and laissez-faire brought about by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unwavering agreement with liberal sovereignty.
There’s unlikely to be an easy answer here.
However, a starting point might be to acknowledge that access should only preserve the primacy of the welfare of people with disabilities and should never be hijacked as an excuse to advance broader political ideals.