Assisted dying rules tough to lay out

Re: Assisted suicide, but who will help? By Brian Cross, March 5.

The issue of physicianassisted dying is one that is fraught with many issues related to ethics, politics and health care, not to mention anecdotal individual experiences.

As the different views are expressed in the media, there will seem to be many conflicting positions depending on underlying assumptions.

Ethicists will argue patient rights and the right to end suffering.

Politicians will talk about constituents and our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. That is their job. Their concerns are regulatory and about creating laws.

In health care, our concerns are about patients’ health and quality of life. Our life’s work is to heal and care for our patients, promote health and relieve suffering.

Physician-assisted death is an issue that the medical profession struggles with not because we don’t necessarily believe in it, but because making one single mistake is unacceptable.

One error in this instance results in a loss of a life. Consider the judicial system with the courts and the burden of proof that is required to incarcerate one single person, not for loss of an entire lifetime, but for just for a portion, whether for months or years.

The court system is complicated for reliability. It is expected to work for every single case.

Reliability in determining who is capable of asking to die, however, is not complicated, but complex.

The difference between complicated and complex is this.

Building a car is complicated whereas raising a child is complex.

Moreover, those who have not raised a child may find difficulty in understanding the complexity — which brings me back to the issue of physician-assisted dying.

It is difficult for even physicians to know all the scenarios at this point in time and time will be needed to develop a reliable Canadian process that we can relate to and accept.

ALBERT NG, Windsor