Slippery slope vs. right to choose
Re: This Ruling Changes Everything, Feb. 7. The Supreme Court of Canada has once again declared it is the justices who run this country, legislative bodies be dammed. Their ruling that demands assisted suicide in this country is a dark blight on our nation.
For more than 30 years I have counselled and sat with families who have watched loved ones die, often a painful or prolonged process.
Nonetheless, I believe this decision will send Canada down the slippery slope the same court led us when it effectively demanded the legalization of abortion. Of course, there were supposed to be “safeguards” to stop abortion from degenerating into another form of birth control — what a joke that has been. And there were “matters of conscience” regarding medical and other personnel we were assured would not be violated — again, what a joke.
The court knew this would happen because over the years it has been in the forefront to assault those provisions. Do we think it will be any different in this case? The change won’t happen tomorrow, but it will happen, given the activist nature of the courts. And given the incremental nature of their manipulated change, like the frog in the kettle, most Canadians will not be aware of the change until it is upon them.
Jim Church, Kelowna, B.C. I see only two arguments against legalization presented: Religion and morality. Who is Barbara Kay or anyone else to tell me their personal beliefs about what is right for me are more im- portant than my own? I find this disturbing. Isn’t this precisely what we are fighting in the Middle East?
The “slippery slope” argument implies future generations cannot be trusted to make decisions about what they want for themselves. No doubt 97 years ago there were those who said giving women the vote was a slippery slope.
Hugh McCoy, Toronto. Re: Highest Court Covers Its Eye, Andrew Coyne, Feb. 7. Andrew Coyne’s logic that nothing should be done legally to assist those who wish to be permitted to exercise their self-determination is condemning people who are crying out for help to a cruel and unusual punishment.
In contrast to the Supreme Court, Mr. Coyne’s verdict that others must suffer because we as a society are not morally reasonable enough to administer a just outcome for those asking for assisted suicide is justifying pain without just cause.
Pleading ignorance to avoid social responsibility seems to be a cop-out. If Mr. Coyne is arguing the court is covering its eyes, isn’t he in response sealing his open mindedness to working things out?
Pleading to those in pain to please continue to suffer because we as a society are too stupid to help them carry out their wishes is downright vicious. Pleading the court’s decision is judicial advocacy that will make matters worse is surrendering logic to despair.
Advocating such inaction in the face of complexity guarantees nothing will ever be done to improve the human condition.
Tony D’Andrea, Toronto.