Killing babies just another ‘form of care’?
The president of the Quebec College of Physicians wants to explore the prospect of euthanizing suffering babies and believes it’s nobody’s business but doctors’.
To be fair, Dr. Mauril Gaudreault would let parents have a say as well, so he’s not being totally arrogant.
Gaudreault’s rather obscene suggestion illustrates just how far down the slippery slope we have plunged when it comes to mercy killing, euthanasia, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), call it what you will.
It is worth quoting Gaudreault extensively from his testimony last week before the special parliamentary committee looking at MAID.
“Medical assistance in dying is a form of care, a medical act that may be appropriate in certain circumstances,” he said, according to the parliamentary translator. “It is not a political or moral or religious issue. It is a medical issue.”
So basically, you can trust me; I’m a doctor! No need to have discussions on the meaning of life, the value of a human being, or the philosophy of existence. No need, even, for society to take a stand, just leave it to the medical profession.
He went on: “Medical assistance in dying is governed by the Criminal Code. It is regulated by court rulings, and it has been the subject of ethical and deontological discussions for nearly two decades. Its acceptance is now complete. Society has evolved.”
If Canadian society has reached the stage — and it may have — that it is acceptable for doctors to use their judgment when deciding to kill babies, as well as the disabled, on the basis of pain and suffering, then we might want to rethink that society. Because a society that doesn’t want to have a political, ethical and, yes, religious argument over that is a society that has lost its moral compass.
Gaudreault continued: “On the issue of babies from zero to one year of age, the college believes that for this group as well, medical assistance in dying can offer an ethical and responsible alternative to avoid an unacceptable and unavoidable end of life in unbearable suffering.”
Pain and suffering can, indeed, make life unbearable, but is that the only criteria on which we should decide to euthanize someone? For Gaudreault, the answer appears to be yes.
Gaudreault appeared before the committee a month after Dr. Louis Roy, also from the Quebec College of Physicians, gave evidence and caused a furor when he first suggested euthanizing babies who had “severe malformations” and “grave and severe syndromes” for which their “prospective of survival is null, so to speak.”
Gaudreault told the committee he wanted to “set the record straight,” adding, “The college has never talked about euthanizing babies. Still less did it talk about administering medical aid and dying without parents’ consent.” Oh, so no killing babies, then? “The college said this was a prospect to be explored and that the suffering of the parents also had to be taken into account.”
Oh, so we’re just talking about killing babies. And also “mature minors” aged 14 to 18 because “suffering does not take age into account. Suffering has no age,” said Gaudreault.
The disabled, too, can be euthanized as long as they meet the correct criteria, he said.
As to the question of how doctors will know what is intolerable or not, Gaudreault said, “From a medical point of view, physical and mental suffering can be assessed
clinically in particular by direct observation, a questionnaire, and a clinical examination by the physician.”
But of course there would be a questionnaire, because the question of living and dying would be a matter of medical bureaucracy courtesy of the Quebec College of Physicians.
Gaudreault gave evidence sandwiched between two stories that illustrate just how badly euthanasia can go wrong.
Alicia and Christie Duncan told how their mother, Donna, a psychiatric nurse, suffered a concussion in a car accident in 2020. COVID caused delays in treatment and Donna Duncan suffered headaches, anxiety and depression.
Eventually, Donna Duncan went to her doctor of 20 years and asked to be approved for MAID. He declined but she managed to get another doctor and a nurse practitioner to approve her request.
Christie Duncan told the committee: “How did the opinion of someone who had cared for my mother for 20 years carry less weight than the opinion of two people who had just met her and simply ticked off boxes on a MAID assessment form?”
Meanwhile, Kerri Joffe, of the ARCH Disability Law Centre in Toronto, told of a disabled person in their 30s, living in their own home and with a part-time job because of the support of family, friends and volunteers. But the death of a family member left the disabled person facing the prospect of going into a long-term care home with the loss of home, independence and community. The person had requested MAID.
“They have been very clear, they don’t want to die. They are not suffering because of their disability, they want to go on living in a dignified way in the community,” said Joffe. “That’s not possible because their supports are not available.”
She added, “ARCH urges the committee in its final report to be clear, some people with disabilities are being induced to consider, apply for, and go through with MAID not because they are suffering because of their disability but because of social and economic inequalities.”
When euthanasia was introduced in 2016, we were told there would be safeguards. There would be no slippery slope. Now we are euthanizing mothers who can’t access proper health care and the disabled who want to live but can’t get home support.
And now Quebec wants to explore the option of killing babies. What can go wrong?
STORIES ILLUSTRATE JUST HOW BADLY EUTHANASIA CAN GO WRONG. — HIGGINS
SUGGESTION ILLUSTRATES JUST HOW FAR DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE WE HAVE PLUNGED.