|
June 21, 2012
We should worry about elder abuse but fears that doctor-assisted suicide will
increase that risk are unfounded.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that Gloria Taylor has the right to die with
dignity with the help of a doctor. Taylor has late-stage ALS which could lead to
an agonizing death by suffocation.
Dr. Will Johnston does not approve. Johnston, a member of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition, said that the ruling will lead to elder abuse. But how
likely is that when abuse of seniors already widespread?
Elder abuse is so rampant that the Government of Canada launched a campaign to
reduce it. You may have seen their TV ad showing examples of elder abuse. Their
website warns: "Abuse can be at the hands of a spouse, an adult child or other
family member. Abuse can be inflicted by a caregiver, a service provider, or
other person in a situation of power or trust. Abuse can happen when a senior is
living in an institution or a private residence."
Opponents of the right to die worry that the despicable people will hasten
granny's demise for an inheritance, or kill off disabled people because they are
inconvenient, or hasten the demise of patients to free up health care resources.
These practices already occur too frequently. The court's ruling will not create
more malevolent people; they already exist.
Nor will the ruling make it easier for these sinister characters to do their
dirty work. The court carefully spells out the terms for people to arrange their
own deaths. Gloria Taylor will only be allowed to have a doctor-assisted suicide
if she meets a number of conditions set out by the judge, which include an
assessment from a psychiatrist and confirmation from her physician that she has
been fully informed about her prognosis and the ability of drugs and palliative
care to alleviate her suffering.
|
In fact, the right to die could reduce total abuse, not increase it. It
would certainly reduce Gloria Taylor's end-of-life suffering. She has given
it a lot of thought in her twelve page affidavit submitted to the court.
Taylor is the type of strong-willed person who will benefit from the ruling.
"I have never been a person of small voice or weak opinion. I have no
problems standing up for myself or, for that matter, for others," she
proudly states in her affidavit.
Like most rational people, she doesn't want to die but she worries about the
lack of control of her death. "As ALS generally affects the ability to
control the muscles used to breathe, I use a respiratory ventilator when
sleeping and already use it sometimes in the evening just to watch
television. I fear that I will eventually suffocate and die struggling for
air, like a fish out of water."
While it is not illegal to commit suicide, the court concluded that the
assisted-suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities because
they need assistance - - they don't have the strength to do what other
terminally-ill people can legally do.
Denial of control over my life defies the Charter of Rights but common
sense. After all, whose life is it? Not long ago, subjects were chattels of
the king: their continued existence was at his discretion including the
prolonged agony of death by torture or as cannon fodder in war.
Parishioner's lives were the property of God who mercifully allowed life or
capriciously snuffed it out.
If my life becomes unbearable because of a terminal illness, who should
decide whether life is worth living if not me?
David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at
dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
|
