I am a spiritual writer, an elder, and a person with a disability. I am very happy to be alive, but I can easily imagine situations where I would like the option to end my life, and I fully support the right to end our own lives at a time of our own choosing in a medically comfortable way. I wish the US laws permitting this were broader, as they are in Canada. We've had right to die here in Oregon since 1994 for people who are terminally ill. It seems absurdly cruel to me that adults who want to end their lives for rational reasons cannot do it in a medically reliable and comfortable way. We treat our beloved pets with more compassion than we do our fellow humans in this regard. The opposition to physician-assisted dying most often comes from religious and disability groups. Speaking as a spiritual person with a disability, I see nothing in these laws that threatens people with disabilities or that in any way encourages us to end our lives. And my own sense of the sacred in no way forbids ending our lives at a time of our own choosing in order to spare ourselves or others unnecessary suffering and hardship. I wish the religious fundamentalists would stop imposing their beliefs on the rest of civil society, and I wish people who have reservations or fears about physician-assisted dying would see the excellent documentary "How to Die in Oregon": http://www.howtodieinoregon.com.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. We interviewed individuals living with disabilities in Canada and they shared that they were very concerned about MAiD for our series (you can watch free at UnveilTV.com). In particular, that there are almost no healthcare spaces that are MAiD-free and that doctors who don't fully understand their disabilities offer the procedure, unsolicited, multiple times.
I have been with family members (as primary caregivers) who have died with dignity naturally. My husband, who had ALS, spoke with his Doctor at the clinic who was adamantly against any sort of intervention. Dr. Bedlack, rightly so, saw his patients as valuable members of society. We both have (had) DNRs, as that is a natural death if allowed to go through to it's natural conclusion, but at the age of 70 I'm a bit wary of traveling to Canada now should anything happen to me. (I live in the southern U.S. and for a long time spent my summers near Sudbury.) My aunt, who was a contemplative nun, over 40 years ago, referred to abortion as the "coming euthanasia. " I think she has been proven correct. What a fascinating article. Thank you.
I think the majority of people regard MAID for the terminally ill as, at the least, a defensible position. I was a Canadian GP for 30 years, working in a rural area and running a small hospital. I did a lot of palliative care, and I know it is far from perfect, so I would have agreed to perform MAID for the terminally ill if I had still been at work when it came in.
But we are witnessing it being expanded to the mentally ill, the socially dependent, and even disabled children. This is not something most of us are comfortable with. And it gets worse when the government begins to see this as an economically desirable tool for curtailing public expenditure. 6% of deaths in Quebec are now medically assisted, and across the country, there was a 30% rise in 2022 from the previous year. No doubt careful calculations of cost-savings are being performed in ministries that are responsible for spending on caring for needy citizens, and bureaucrats are licking their lips at the thought of how this would assist their budgets. The latest proposal is for 'targeted organ donation' which would allow someone choosing MAID to say in advance to whom their organs should go. How much of a free choice is it when your family member who needs a kidney starts to talk to you about "wouldn't it be great if..."?
The slippery slope is no longer a theoretical risk: it is here and we have started the long slide downhill. And the government has an excuse—the Supreme Court of Canada has the ability under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to dictate law to parliament, and that is what has happened. If the terminally ill have this right, it cannot be legally denied to other citizens, and so parliament has to come up with laws permitting it. When the Charter was written into our constitution in 1982, there was much debate about how this would change our legal and constitutional landscape, but this particular wrinkle was not predicted. Judicial oversight can go too far, and the ultimate authority should lie in an elected parliament answerable to the electorate and no one else. For some strange reason I am more comfortable with every suicidal adult having access to painless and guaranteed success than I am with a government offering to end things for citizens that are getting expensive to look after. Doctors ought not to be in the business of polishing people off, as it encourages bad habits (if you get my drift). Once you have your chit from the doc saying you are in your right mind, you present it to a pharmacist and get a pill and some instruction. Squeamish pharmacists may exclude themselves, or simply give a printed handout if they don't want to describe the details, which would be something like "Go home. Swallow this pill. By the way, have you settled your bill here before you leave?"
As someone with an incurable cancer, I want my doctors to help me live as long and as well as possible. Only I should be able to say if I have had enough. Teaching our young physicians that death is always an option for difficult cases will, inevitably, corrode our doctors' sense of what their duty to their patients should be. It places an unfair onus on the sick, the poor and the disabled to "do the right thing for society" rather than to make a free choice if they ever get to that stage. How much pressure might be applied to young physicians to go beyond the terminally ill and include these less clear-cut cases? It isn't unimaginable that professional bodies would sanction physicians who were choosy or squeamish in this regard for discriminating against a class of applicants, just as we are no longer allowed to follow our conscience when it comes to declining to treat gender dysphoria without being punished. This is getting beyond a horror story: it's a horror show and I want no part of it.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for sharing some of your story. I'm grateful you stopped by. What MAiD will do to the medical mind and the future of medicine, as you point out, is very sobering to consider.
I am a spiritual writer, an elder, and a person with a disability. I am very happy to be alive, but I can easily imagine situations where I would like the option to end my life, and I fully support the right to end our own lives at a time of our own choosing in a medically comfortable way. I wish the US laws permitting this were broader, as they are in Canada. We've had right to die here in Oregon since 1994 for people who are terminally ill. It seems absurdly cruel to me that adults who want to end their lives for rational reasons cannot do it in a medically reliable and comfortable way. We treat our beloved pets with more compassion than we do our fellow humans in this regard. The opposition to physician-assisted dying most often comes from religious and disability groups. Speaking as a spiritual person with a disability, I see nothing in these laws that threatens people with disabilities or that in any way encourages us to end our lives. And my own sense of the sacred in no way forbids ending our lives at a time of our own choosing in order to spare ourselves or others unnecessary suffering and hardship. I wish the religious fundamentalists would stop imposing their beliefs on the rest of civil society, and I wish people who have reservations or fears about physician-assisted dying would see the excellent documentary "How to Die in Oregon": http://www.howtodieinoregon.com.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. We interviewed individuals living with disabilities in Canada and they shared that they were very concerned about MAiD for our series (you can watch free at UnveilTV.com). In particular, that there are almost no healthcare spaces that are MAiD-free and that doctors who don't fully understand their disabilities offer the procedure, unsolicited, multiple times.
Gabrielle Peters' article "Reality, not religion, is the reason people need MAiD-free health care" is eye-opening: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2024/maid-free-health-care/
I have been with family members (as primary caregivers) who have died with dignity naturally. My husband, who had ALS, spoke with his Doctor at the clinic who was adamantly against any sort of intervention. Dr. Bedlack, rightly so, saw his patients as valuable members of society. We both have (had) DNRs, as that is a natural death if allowed to go through to it's natural conclusion, but at the age of 70 I'm a bit wary of traveling to Canada now should anything happen to me. (I live in the southern U.S. and for a long time spent my summers near Sudbury.) My aunt, who was a contemplative nun, over 40 years ago, referred to abortion as the "coming euthanasia. " I think she has been proven correct. What a fascinating article. Thank you.
Thank you for reading and for your reply, I'm grateful you found it fascinating.
I'm sorry that you feel wary to travel to Canada, but understand why. Blessings to you!
I think the majority of people regard MAID for the terminally ill as, at the least, a defensible position. I was a Canadian GP for 30 years, working in a rural area and running a small hospital. I did a lot of palliative care, and I know it is far from perfect, so I would have agreed to perform MAID for the terminally ill if I had still been at work when it came in.
But we are witnessing it being expanded to the mentally ill, the socially dependent, and even disabled children. This is not something most of us are comfortable with. And it gets worse when the government begins to see this as an economically desirable tool for curtailing public expenditure. 6% of deaths in Quebec are now medically assisted, and across the country, there was a 30% rise in 2022 from the previous year. No doubt careful calculations of cost-savings are being performed in ministries that are responsible for spending on caring for needy citizens, and bureaucrats are licking their lips at the thought of how this would assist their budgets. The latest proposal is for 'targeted organ donation' which would allow someone choosing MAID to say in advance to whom their organs should go. How much of a free choice is it when your family member who needs a kidney starts to talk to you about "wouldn't it be great if..."?
The slippery slope is no longer a theoretical risk: it is here and we have started the long slide downhill. And the government has an excuse—the Supreme Court of Canada has the ability under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to dictate law to parliament, and that is what has happened. If the terminally ill have this right, it cannot be legally denied to other citizens, and so parliament has to come up with laws permitting it. When the Charter was written into our constitution in 1982, there was much debate about how this would change our legal and constitutional landscape, but this particular wrinkle was not predicted. Judicial oversight can go too far, and the ultimate authority should lie in an elected parliament answerable to the electorate and no one else. For some strange reason I am more comfortable with every suicidal adult having access to painless and guaranteed success than I am with a government offering to end things for citizens that are getting expensive to look after. Doctors ought not to be in the business of polishing people off, as it encourages bad habits (if you get my drift). Once you have your chit from the doc saying you are in your right mind, you present it to a pharmacist and get a pill and some instruction. Squeamish pharmacists may exclude themselves, or simply give a printed handout if they don't want to describe the details, which would be something like "Go home. Swallow this pill. By the way, have you settled your bill here before you leave?"
As someone with an incurable cancer, I want my doctors to help me live as long and as well as possible. Only I should be able to say if I have had enough. Teaching our young physicians that death is always an option for difficult cases will, inevitably, corrode our doctors' sense of what their duty to their patients should be. It places an unfair onus on the sick, the poor and the disabled to "do the right thing for society" rather than to make a free choice if they ever get to that stage. How much pressure might be applied to young physicians to go beyond the terminally ill and include these less clear-cut cases? It isn't unimaginable that professional bodies would sanction physicians who were choosy or squeamish in this regard for discriminating against a class of applicants, just as we are no longer allowed to follow our conscience when it comes to declining to treat gender dysphoria without being punished. This is getting beyond a horror story: it's a horror show and I want no part of it.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for sharing some of your story. I'm grateful you stopped by. What MAiD will do to the medical mind and the future of medicine, as you point out, is very sobering to consider.
Thanks for reading.
heartbreaking. important. a must read.