Report goes too far on assisted dying
It took jurors only a day to return with a verdict against Cindy Ali: guilty of first-degree murder.
The evidence that Ali, who professed to be a God-fearing churchgoing lady, had smothered her daughter — a 16-year-old girl who suffered from cerebral palsy, couldn’t speak or walk or feed herself, needed round-the-clock care — was compelling, and the defendant’s claims of a violent home invasion, with intruders who somehow caused the teenager to stop breathing, a tissue of lies elaborately but clumsily constructed.
A wicked crime committed against a helpless victim, by her own mother.
This jury was clearly convinced by the prosecution’s argument that Cynara Ali, who’d survived far beyond the three years predicted by doctors when the condition was diagnosed, had become such a burden to the accused that she placed a pillow over the girl’s face, then called 911 with her tall story about two well-dressed black men, Jamaican accents, a mysterious package they were seeking. First-responders, who managed to get a pulse from Cynara — the teen was taken off life-support a day later — were suspicious from the start. There were no footprints either inside or outside the Scarborough townhouse, on a snowy day, as one later testified in court. And then there was that ridiculous letter which the family purportedly received a couple of weeks later, allegedly from the assailants, helpfully explaining they’d worn shoe covers, thus left no footprints behind. Signed off with a smiley face.
Cindy Ali pleaded not guilty so we’ll never know for certain why she did what she did. An appeal is planned and automatic for first degree convictions, which carry a prison term of life with no parole eligibility for 25 years. But the Crown presented several theories for the crime, from mounting debts to mounting resentment toward a child who would never be anything other than an encumbrance. A child who was nevertheless capable of laughter and communicating some of her feelings, such as hunger and pain.
Under different circumstances, yet not profoundly different, in a future dystopian Canada where death has lost its sting, its taboo heft, Cynara Ali might very well have been put to death, by a willing physician, if her condition was deemed so irreversibly dire, her life so absent of quality, her suffering unendurable, her decision-makers-by-proxy convincing. And nobody could call it murder, then. It would be assisted dying as an act of compassionate homicide. Alarmist? Imagination run amok? That dreadful scenario is not so great a leap from where we’re already heading. It is precisely why the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, faith-based organizations and other advocates for the most vulnerable among us took impassioned positions against physicianassisted dying before the Supreme Court of Canada, warning of a “slippery slope” of sanctioned euthanasia. In a landmark ruling, the Court last year unanimously struck down the ban on doctor-assisted suicide for competent, consenting, severely ill adults — suffering from either physical or psychological pain — who want to control the time, place and manner of their death but are incapable of hastening that death without a helping hand.
Remove the delicate language and it’s still euthanasia. I refuse to call it “death with dignity,” which implies that suffering, a deeply straitened existence, is undignified and a life in extremis — a state of grace for some religions — of lesser value.
The Supremes concluded 9-0 that prohibiting aiding or abetting someone to commit suicide violates Charter rights. They gave the government 12 months to craft a regulatory framework for physicianassisted suicide. June is the deadline.
But the Court was exacting about parameters. Medical professionals should not be forced to assist in suicides if it goes against their freedom of conscience, morals or religion. Only competent adults — and not necessarily terminally ill — could avail themselves of the endof-life option.
Already, though, we have a joint Senate-Commons committee report that overreaches limitations envisioned by the Supreme Court. The report treats assisted dying — its authors prefer the neologism “MAID” (medical assistance in dying) — with far too much casualness, pushing the ethical boundaries beyond what the justices had contemplated and sorely lacking in safeguards to prevent voluntary euthanasia becoming (borrowing a phrase from a recent column by my colleague Thomas Walkom) “a new medical growth industry.’’
The report’s 21 recommendations give short shrift to protections for persons with underlying mentalhealth issues who may not be competent to make an informed request and might be vulnerable to coercion. It would permit those diagnosed with crippling illness such as dementia to pre-select their death, a measure not permitted in Quebec’s existing right-to-die law. Every publicly funded hospital in the country would be required to offer euthanasia services. Under amendments to the Criminal Code, all medical practitioners — doctors, nurses, even pharmacists (under special circumstances) — would be allowed to kill people. “At minimum,” the committee said, an “objecting practitioner must provide an effective referral for the patient.” And, most worrisomely, after three years under these suggested protocols, assisted suicide could be extended to “competent, mature minors” of any age.
A minority-view report was issued by MPs on the committee, exceedingly troubled by some or all of these recommendations.
Cardinal Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, is so horrified about the legislation which might ensue that he delivered a sermon on Sunday at St. Paul’s Basilica — shared through videotapes or written statements with congregations at 225 churches across the diocese — urging both the protection of vulnerable groups such as the disabled and exemption for doctors, nurses and Catholic hospitals from having to provide a service in intrinsic violation of their religious beliefs.
Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast told the National Post that Catholics — 13 million Canadians — who pursue doctor-assisted suicide — “a morally great evil” — might be denied sacraments and other last rites.
Dr. Jeff Blackmer, vice-president of medical professionalism with the Canadian Medical Association, also expressed disappointment that the committee didn’t incorporate their argument that doctors who oppose assisted dying on grounds of conscience should not be required to refer patients to willing colleagues. The CMA had proposed an alternative for the creation of a central directory of physicians agreeable to facilitating assisted death.
Blackmer even raised the possibility that some doctors would rather retire or move to the U.S. if the committee’s proposals are enshrined in law.
Ottawa has given no indication when new legislation will be tabled and, of course, the Liberals are under no obligation to accept the committee’s recommendations.
It’s doubtless true that the committee’s report has contributed to the national conversation about assisted dying. But some of these ugly recommendations are completely at odds with the Supreme Court’s guidance and public tolerance.
They should be smothered in the crib. Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.