A right or a wrong?

Re: “A creeping culture of death” (Opinion, Jan. 18)

In response to Dr. Sherif Emil’s article, I would like to note that the poor state of Quebec’s health system does not call for further abuse of patients’ individual human rights. It calls for the fixing of the system. In any event, even in the world’s best hospitals, there are patients facing certain illnesses who take informed and rational decisions to abandon treatment, or in some countries, to end their days humanely and with dignity. That’s their entitlement as human beings — let’s not interfere with it. William Raillant-Clark

Montreal

Re: “A choice the terminally ill should be able to make” (Editorial, Jan. 17)

I am distressed by the oversimplification of the process of euthanasia expressed in your editorial. Euthanasia is not a gradual slope; it is a definite line that, if crossed, makes physicians agents of death completely opposed to their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. There is a major difference between killing a patient and providing him/her with the tools to do so. If a patient wants to kill himself/herself, there are many possibilities, unfortunately, by which they may choose to do so without the complicity of their physician. In contradistinction, palliative care, even to the point of prescribing medication that may shorten a patient’s life, does not involve the physician in killing his patient, and yet such a patient may die with dignity.

To put someone in pain to death and yet insist that there be no mental problem, for example depression, is completely fallacious. It must be an exceedingly rare patient (if he or she exists at all) that has a chronic pain syndrome without depression. To expect that such a candidate be “of sound mind” is extremely jejune. As a psychiatrist in practice for 40 years, I have had to help numerous patients not to commit suicide. This kind of law makes it “OK” to commit suicide and even get the doctor’s assistance to do so.

Finally, with a certain degree of playing fast and loose with termination of human life, coupled with the steady diet of TV and movie violence, are we not cheapening the intrinsic value of human life? Are we not inviting the spectre of the murder of innocents?

J.C. Pecknold, MD FRCPC

Westmount

I am greatly disappointed that in your editorial you have chosen the words “assisted suicide” to refer to that which the Quebec government actually named, translated into English, as “dying with dignity,” for the proposed legislation that may be presented this spring. Assisted suicide could be a person supplying a loaded gun to someone who wishes to take his own life; I vividly recall that, for

» many years, The Gazette ran an advertising campaign titled “Words Matter.”

Quebecers have spent much time discussing the “dying with dignity” issue, at family gatherings and in committees. Polls have shown strong support for such a societal decision. The conditions re- quired are quite demanding. Individual doctors may decide not to co-operate. And, most important, since life is so precious, ending it surely deserves a name which clearly indicates the seriousness of such an act.

Other communities have chosen the term “assisted suicide” to describe what is involved, but I strongly believe that, since Quebec is the first Canadian province to have so evolved on this issue, if given a choice on how it should be named, Quebecers would opt for the much more solemn “dying with dignity” phrase. And who knows, the rest of Canada might follow our example and adopt this terminology. Robert Marcogliese

Montreal

I congratulate The Gazette for tackling the emotionally difficult topic of assisted suicide in its Jan. 17 editorial. Yet, I was a bit surprised to see the editorial board profess the thesis that legalization of assisted suicide in Quebec represents “a clear expression of societal expectations.”

While I do not claim to have taken a survey, I think that legalization of assisted suicide is incompatible with the position of the chief rabbinate of Montreal, which represents — either directly or indirectly — the beliefs of a respectable proportion of Quebecers. How many Quebecers consult the Bible for spiritual guidance at one point or another? My feeling is a substantial fraction, if not the majority. Shalom Spira

Montreal

Further to the Jan. 15 experts’ report regarding the implementation of the Select Commission on Dying with Dignity’s recommendations, the Association québécoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignité (the Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity) wishes to state its position.

Individuals have the right to make their own decisions independently and to know that their advance directives will be respected. This is why we continue to carry out legal proceedings in order that the section of the Criminal Code that prohibits any person from assisting another in dying be declared unconstitutional. It is in this spirit that we support Ginette Leblanc’s case, to be heard this March.

The upcoming bill would allow the provision of medical assistance in end-oflife or imminent death cases, but would leave unresolved the matter of patients who are living in unbearable physical or psychological pains and are suffering from chronic incurable illnesses, but whose stable state prevent that their stated advanced directives be respected.

Safeguards are necessary, but we hope that medical assistance in dying will no longer be considered a crime in Canada. We remain actively engaged in the debate on this key societal issue.

For more information, we invite you to email us at info@aqdmd.qc.ca. You can also visit our Internet site at aqdmd.qc.ca.

Hélène Bolduc President, AQDM (Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity)

T.M.R.