Conscience a proper compass

Doctors should take different tack with assisted suicide

Re: ‘ Take my name off the list,’ Feb. 27

Autonomy is a gift to mankind, and our free choice helps to make us human. It includes the freedom to kill oneself but, until recently, not to kill others except in very special circumstances such as war or self-defence.

Now, after 2,400 years of prohibition, the right to kill has been given to our doctors, who generally have embraced it as another means of relieving suffering. However, it seems some doctors who initially signed on, want to renege. Why?

The philosopher kings of the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Medical Assistance in Dying ( MAID) only 24 years ago, but unanimously supported it in 2015. Since the Constitution was repatriated, individual rights have gained ascend- ancy in both legal and public thought as a guiding principle. According to this code, as a general rule, others have no right to impose on your will, and even if you intend self-harm, they shall not interfere, but instead may, or must, assist you.

The problem seems to be that when we find a fellow human about to jump off a bridge, we know that giving him a push is somehow a worse idea than trying to help him back. We find that his autonomy cannot determine our action because it conflicts directly with our conscience, which is who we are. Moreover, suppression of conscience, such as is being required of doctors, is traumatic to the human psyche, and just as we are at the bridge, so doctors are rightly reluctant to comply with the new code.

It seems that autonomy as our guiding principle is imperfect. Conscience, compassion and even tradition are better stars to follow. Dr. Richard R. J. Smyth, West Vancouver, B. C.