Canada can be proud of MAID law

Re: “Assisted deaths raise questions,” May 3

Tristin Hopper's article contained some disturbing criticisms of Canada's MAID law that deserve refutation.

Families should not be allowed to legally challenge the decision of a family member requesting MAID. That decision should be entirely the prerogative of the person making the request. I do not believe that healthy people can understand the suffering or perspective of someone who would make such a request, and families often have selfish reasons for wanting to keep a loved one alive.

I take exception to the quote of the foreigner who stated that Canada is “euthanizing its poor.” Likely this person has his own personal reasons for not wanting his country to emulate Canada. But, in any case, the answer is not to restrict the law but to ameliorate social conditions so that continuing to live is affordable by the poor.

The suggestion that societal costs are saved by euthanasia is also disingenuous. No doubt the avoidance of costly medical costs for treatment does realize savings, but this is not the rationale on which the law is founded; rather, it is to reduce suffering.

Nor does the law in any way preclude or reduce the resources available for research on diseases and treatments that would promote longevity.

The article's final reference to MAID applying to those “only” suffering from mental illness betrays his failure to empathize with the suffering that mental illness can cause.

Canada can be proud of its euthanasia law — its popularity indicates the societal need — and be even prouder when MAID is expanded to include more situations such as prior consent in the case of dementia patients and certain mental illnesses.