Guest columnist Angela MacDougall offers another view on assisted dying.
History of such legislation in other countries paints clearer picture
I am responding to Russell Wangersky’s column regarding the assisted dying debate (“The right to choose,” Cape Breton Post, June 4).
Wangersky says, “… for most of us, when there is no real quality of life, when constant pain is too great ... I won’t appreciate, then, anyone who would want to make my decisions for me ... I see no reason why anyone, regardless of the strength of their faith and belief, has a right to dictate how I live–or not live. … If there is assisted dying legislation, as there will eventually be, anyone with contrary beliefs and faith will still have the right to live and die as they see fit ... I should get to make my decisions. And you, yours.”
He wants us to live and let live or die and let die, and seems to suggest can’t we all rise to that ideal; if believers could drop their “life is sacred” weapon and come over to support his peaceful approach, wouldn’t it be better for all involved? But it’s not fair for a professional like Wangersky to promote this to people as it is an unfortified solution which is actually as empty of peace, as it is of morality.
He gave no consideration to our government, which was dictatorial before even being formed. As soon as it was sworn it sprung into action with this legislation which certainly didn’t spring from a caring for life. Everything this government has reflected to date is pro death as far as I’m concerned.
“The Liberals are back” at the UN is about them changing Canada’s agreement; monies previously to go to developing nations for clean water, medicine, medical care for a woman’s pregnancy and infant delivery but not for abortion/contraception. Under the euphemism “reproductive health rights” the Liberals extended it to go to UNFPA making clear to the world they support organizations that are the world’s largest abortion promoters/providers. Funding death is costly, as is Old Age Security, CPP, medical. They need to tramp on the morals of believers to push forward their rob Peter to pay Paul plan.
Wangersky disclosed no history of such legislation in other countries, though it is readily available, as in the Netherlands. In what was described as a “robust and humane” system of euthanasia, they saw its pace speed up, rising 15 per cent per year between 2007 and 2014. As numbers soared, criteria expanded and children became eligible. What previously was described as heartbreaking reasons of torment were now reasons of escaping loneliness. One in 25 deaths is assisted now. Non-voluntary deaths, where patients aren’t judged competent, are about 300 annually. These are illegal killings but are almost impossible to prosecute. Palliative sedation is estimated at 17,000 yearly. It’s estimated 25 per cent of them had no sign of pending death, so may have lived for years. Against predictions, suicide increased 35 per cent these six years.
Wangersky had no business promoting false peace. Peaceful people put no qualifications on human life. From the instant of conception till natural death we’re either alive or dead. It’s when we start to stop caring we point to ALS, Downs, etc., to qualify persons as half dead or too far gone. It’s the modern way.
What every adherent of this new way can’t seem to get even the most elemental grasp of is that the real winning moment in life is not having your feet under you – your faculties, enough to eat, a warm house and friends – but it is from the overwhelming strength a person has built up in themselves through their true appreciation for life, which sustains them when challenged with sickness and hardships. It’s called courage. Courage is a bi-product of living a moral life, of knowing every life is valuable in this world. It’s a mighty fine love that springs up inside oneself, always having a feeling of hope and never despair.
‘Peaceful people put no qualifications on human life’