Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | Science : Medicine | print version

Print | Comments |

Canadian Panel to Study Euthanasia Stacked with Pro-Euthanasia Academics

by Thaddeus M. Baklinski - LifeSiteNews.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122109.html

OTTAWA, December 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Royal Society of Canada, an association of scientists and scholars "dedicated to encouraging education and the advancement of knowledge in the natural and social sciences and the humanities" has established a panel of "experts" to "assess the pros and cons of permitting physician-assisted death" in Canada.

The society has appointed a six-member "Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making," chaired by Dr. Udo Schuklenk, professor of philosophy and Ontario research chair in bioethics at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.

Four of the six panel members are already well known for their pro-euthanasia position, having published works in support of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The expert panel will "focus squarely on the questions of whether or not physician-assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia ought to be decriminalized in Canada," Schuklenk said in a statement to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, adding that the panel plans widespread consultations. "We will tackle these questions by means of an in-depth review of the legal situation in the country, as well as a review of the situation clinicians, as well as terminally ill patients, face on the ground in Canada on a daily basis."

The panel will also "canvas the international landscape," Schuklenk said. "A number of jurisdictions outside Canada have since decriminalized physician assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia. We will evaluate the experiences made in these countries with respect to influential arguments deployed against decriminalization by opponents of voluntary euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide."
...
Continue reading
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122109.html

Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #443857 by pyjamaslug on December 22, 2009 at 6:28 am

Hmm,
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are, whatever the moral questions, tough things to get right in a legal and practical context. For one thing, how do you ensure that the wishes of suffering relatives are not projected onto the protagonist?

The screaming and shouting of the fundamentalists, which contributes little to the moral debate, and less to the practical, is not really helpful. There are a host of important questions to sort out before we can let the essentially brain dead processes of the law loose on such a subtle and personal issue but I fear that the clowns' chorus will drown out the discussion.

Moral absolutism really is a strong deterrent to rational thinking.

Other Comments by pyjamaslug

2. Comment #443860 by mordacious1 on December 22, 2009 at 6:46 am

So their point is that only true believers and anti-euthanasia persons should be on the panel? How far would that get them?

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #443864 by Big T on December 22, 2009 at 7:05 am

If someone is, say, 21 years old or older, and suffering from a terminal illness, ask him or her if he or she wants to be euthanised. If she or he is not mentally retarded and/or schizophrenic, grant his or her wishes. The mentally handicapped and/or schizophrenic can be given opiates and/or tranquillizers. To hell with 'slippery slope' arguments. Why make terminally ill people suffer unnecessary agony?

Other Comments by Big T

4. Comment #443867 by Spinoza on December 22, 2009 at 7:35 am

Huzzah!

Other Comments by Spinoza

5. Comment #443869 by Russell Blackford on December 22, 2009 at 7:46 am

Yay for Udo!

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

6. Comment #443885 by RainDear on December 22, 2009 at 8:49 am

It is incredible how such a basic human right as the right to die is deliberately turned into a much, much more difficult question than it should be. I do believe it is one of the awful by-products of our religious heritage. Centuries of claiming the human life belongs to some heavenly emperor instead of the individuals themselves deprives us of the right and obligation to make informed decisions. They call it respecting the sanctity of human life. I call it avoiding the responsibility of facing the tough questions.

There is no reason to believe legal, well supervised and carefully controlled euthanasia would turn into any kind of moral problem. All we need is establishing a set of rules. But usually, whenever the matter even comes up, some religiously indoctrinated doctor in high office claims the moral high ground and starts all kinds of ad hominem attacks.

As a consequence of keeping euthanasia illegal, the area is very grey. The terminal and suffering patients are living and dying under circumstances that are inconsistent. It's not about some death pill, but passive, possibly more painful decisions about operations, nutriments, medication etc. This "soft euthanasia" it is a part of actual daily reality in thousands of hospitals in western Europe. And the moral burden is left on the medical staff.

Other Comments by RainDear

7. Comment #443886 by Shiva on December 22, 2009 at 8:51 am

I don't see why people that want to die can't be allowed to die.

Other Comments by Shiva

8. Comment #443887 by Arjen on December 22, 2009 at 8:53 am

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are, whatever the moral questions, tough things to get right in a legal and practical context. For one thing, how do you ensure that the wishes of suffering relatives are not projected onto the protagonist?

And that would be a reason to not have legislation about it? In my personal experience with this subject, it is not that the person undergoing assisted suicide is pressured into it. It is family and friends that want them to hang on for just another day.

I'm Dutch and we have pretty liberal euthanasia legislation, but in the opinion of a lot of people, mine included, it is not liberal enough. I want to have the right to decide when to end my life , with dignity. At the moment, here in the Netherlands, there are a lot of exemptions when I can't have assisted suicide because of the term: "Intolerable Suffering", which has been explained mostly in a very narrow sense.

Off course, there has to be a system in place to prevent needles deaths and I do not think it would be wise that you could be able to buy a suicide pill at the pharmacy, but in the end, who are you to tell me what "Intolerable Suffering" is for me? I want to have the right to choose the time of my own death and be able to die with dignity.

Other Comments by Arjen

9. Comment #443889 by mmurray on December 22, 2009 at 9:09 am

I don't see why people that want to die can't be allowed to die.

Because it is hard to define `want to die'. We don't allow healthy suicides to suicide. Usually they want to suicide because they are depressed and when properly treated they don't want to suicide. So we have to set up rules and procedures for how we are going to decide who should be allowed to die or more to the point helped to die. Then we have to deal with the complications: How to deal with the situation when a person wants to die to stop being a burden on relatives. How to stop governments withdrawing financial support for palliative care so that more people find their suffering is intolerable. How to deal with people who are not sick but find old age so intolerable they would rather be dead. How to deal with people who are not mentally competent. Can people be allowed to write wills saying `kill me if I get Alzheimers'? I think something needs to be done and something should be done but it isn't a trivial exercise finding the optimal solution.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

10. Comment #443892 by rod-the-farmer on December 22, 2009 at 9:14 am

One question that bothered me about euthanasia is what happens to life insurance in a case where the decision is made by the "victim" ?? One can imagine the insurance company saying "This was a form of suicide, and we don't pay when that happens." The alternative is the victim lives in agony so that death when it comes is deemed 'natural', and the insurance is paid to the beneficiary. I can easily imagine a situtation where the victim chooses to die, so that the insurance money goes to the beneficiary, who may need it badly.

Anyone have experience of a situation where the hospital was the one who pulled the plug, after consulting with family members ? Was the insurance policy paid ? Did the insurance company even know there was a deliberate action, and death was not entirely natural ?

Another possibility.....what would the insurance company do if the victim contracted a curable disease that could be fatal, but refused to be treated for it, so the insurance money would be paid to the beneficiary ? Would that be considered suicide ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

11. Comment #443896 by Szymanowski on December 22, 2009 at 9:37 am

Because it is hard to define `want to die'. We don't allow healthy suicides to suicide. Usually they want to suicide because they are depressed and when properly treated they don't want to suicide.

Suicidal people are usually depressed? I wonder whether that's genuinely true, or whether it's because they are automatically pigeon-holed as depressed for being suicidal.

Can people be allowed to write wills saying `kill me if I get Alzheimers'?

They're allowed to write them at the moment in the UK but the wills have no legal meaning.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

12. Comment #443897 by Arjen on December 22, 2009 at 9:38 am

How to deal with the situation when a person wants to die to stop being a burden on relatives.

By having a good social safety net, so that people do not become a burden.

How to stop governments withdrawing financial support for palliative care so that more people find their suffering is intolerable.

One does not come in place of the other. They can easily and happily be used side by side. Make legislation that ALL options have to be available.

How to deal with people who are not sick but find old age so intolerable they would rather be dead.

How about giving them the right to die? There has been an important case in the Netherlands on this very subject. A man committed assisted suicide with the help of his personal physician. The man was old, but in perfect health and very sound of mind. He just lost his wife of over 60 years and could not carry on. He died peacefully. Is that a bad thing? Well, according to some it was. The physician had to appear in court on murder charges. In the end he was convicted but not sentenced, if I remember correctly.

How to deal with people who are not mentally competent.

This is very hard and in such a case the patient needs to be protected, but is that a reason to let someone suffer? Even a person who is not mentally competent can be in a lot of pain without hope of recovery. And here a good social safety net can do wonders again.

Well, I hope I will be able to do that in the future. I have had the pleasure of seeing three of my grandparents slowly take that route and I do not want it.

I think something needs to be done and something should be done but it isn't a trivial exercise finding the optimal solution.

It isn’t that difficult at all. The only thing you need is a basic general healthcare system and social safety net for all, organized by the government. It is not that cheap, it has its flaws, but generally speaking the Danes, Swedes, Fins, Dutch and other socialist communist depraved countries seem to like it.

Other Comments by Arjen

13. Comment #443904 by atomsmasher on December 22, 2009 at 10:03 am

It's quite obvious to me that anyone who wants to die should be allowed to. If you aren't interested in life, please, by all means, take yourself out of it. I don't care if it's because they are depressed or terminally ill, if they wish to go, let them go!

There are too many people on earth -- a huge percentage of which will die under circumstances they did not choose -- for us to be condemning thoses who choose to die in a method of their choosing.

Personally, I hope to die by my own hand. It's the most desirable out-come I can think of. If you think people should be encouraged to live then you've been persuaded by the pervasive religiosity of our society.

There's nothing special or valuable about any one human, apart from in the minds of friends and family, and the idea of being 'considerate' of others by staying alive is to pander to some stupid notion of 'responsibility' to other animals.

If you want to die, please, do us all a favour and get it over with. The more people who die by their own hand, the better.

If you have the opportunity to assist someone in this task, don't be one of those Christian assholes who tries to talk someone out of it. Oblige them! Otherwise you're a Christian in atheist clothing and you're less than human and probably deserve to be dead more than the poor sod to whom you are denying assistance.

Other Comments by atomsmasher

14. Comment #443906 by GalacticAtom on December 22, 2009 at 10:05 am

Comment #443860 by mordacious1

So their point is that only true believers and anti-euthanasia persons should be on the panel? How far would that get them?

Where did they say that?? I think their point is that the panel should be evenly balanced, not stacked either way.

Other Comments by GalacticAtom

15. Comment #443913 by Naturalist1 on December 22, 2009 at 10:56 am

Everyone is raising very good points on this. Here in Canada..the fact is soft euthanasia is practiced on oncology wards every day. I was once married to an oncology nurse. Patients in the final stages of cancer are "Snowed Under" with increasingly large doses of morphine on what is called an "Open Ended Prescription". As their disease progresses into a death imminent stage the drugs are increased to a point where these pain interventions stop their heart. My mother was one such patient. They die quietly without pain instead of in agony from pain. This ultimately is the humane thing to do for people in this end of life scenario.
I recently had a discussion with a close friend who also recently lost his father in a similar way. His question was why do we have laws that grant a veterinarian more legal protection for doing "The Right Thing" for a loved family pet than they do for a physician who in concert with a family grant the same mercy to a fellow human being.

Other Comments by Naturalist1

16. Comment #443915 by Pete.K on December 22, 2009 at 11:22 am

@Naturalist1

Yes, my father went the same way, he was deteriorating rapidly, so he was on morphine for just 24hrs with an ever increasing dose, best he went then, rather than deteriorate further and ruin my memory of him.

And I agree with the loved pet analogy, why is it an act of kindness to put a suffering pet out of it's misery, yet we're expected to make humans suffer pain and humiliation for as long as possible.

I have no intention of even reaching my fathers state, I want to shuffle off MY mortal coil while I can still wipe my own bottom, and no religious nut job is going to take that right away from me.

Other Comments by Pete.K

17. Comment #443917 by mmurray on December 22, 2009 at 11:42 am

If you think people should be encouraged to live then you've been persuaded by the pervasive religiosity of our society.

How do you know what I have been persuaded by ? I can't speak for anyone else but I have been persuaded by the fact that depressed people who try to commit suicide and then are successfully treated are pleased later that they are still alive. Have you ever seen the damage a suicide does to the friends and family around them ?

If you have the opportunity to assist someone in this task, don't be one of those Christian assholes who tries to talk someone out of it. Oblige them! Otherwise you're a Christian in atheist clothing and you're less than human and probably deserve to be dead more than the poor sod to whom you are denying assistance.

Just make sure you have a good lawyer and try not to get done for murder. At least not in the US where they have the death penalty.

I have no intention of even reaching my fathers state, I want to shuffle off MY mortal coil while I can still wipe my own bottom, and no religious nut job is going to take that right away from me.

Pretty much what my father said when he watched his mother die of Alzheimers. Now he has it and is past the point of being able to do anything. It might not be a religious nut job who takes away the right to die it might just be the way you life goes.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

18. Comment #443918 by bendigeidfran on December 22, 2009 at 11:43 am

I would have it illegal and just let people off. Judges can't see inside juror's minds yet so whatever the judge directs the jury can happily vote 'not guilty'if appropriate.

Most of the cases flying off from UK to get topped elsewhere could trivially do it themselves.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

19. Comment #443922 by Dog Boots on December 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm

With the rate of progress we now see in medical sciences it may not even be a century before we can practically live as long as we want. Then we'll have to start deciding when to kill people (or at least deny them everyday standard drugs) who DO have a productive, enjoyable future ahead of them.

THAT will be a tough nut to crack. This one is easy...

Other Comments by Dog Boots

20. Comment #443925 by Szymanowski on December 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm

And we wonder why Christians don't feel welcome on this site...

Other Comments by Szymanowski

21. Comment #443928 by hungarianelephant on December 22, 2009 at 12:58 pm

13. Comment #443904 by atomsmasher

Don't you think there's a bit of a difference between "encouraging people to live" and "legally preventing them from getting help to die"?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

22. Comment #443937 by rugby on December 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Arjen, did you just say the man lost his wife of sixty years and was in a perfectly sound mind? Either he was in a period of intense grieving, which is incredibly likely to lead to a bout of extreme acute depression, or he was fine with the whole thing, pointing to anything other than being of sound mind.
Assuming it was the former, the grieving process is something that everybody has to face in their life. And it is gut wrenchingly hard. But if we start assisting people with suicide in this case we are committing a grave injustice to their potential for recovery and future hapiness (not to mention the happiness of those who care about them).
For lack of a better description, grieving, and the associated depression ARE "curable", normally with the passage of time.
Would you let someone have an assisted suicide who had treatable cancer? I sincerely hope not.

Other Comments by rugby

23. Comment #443939 by rugby on December 22, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Also, i know i'm going to probably get trolled for this, but did anybody see the interview with richard dawkins by andrew denton on australian tv? I was really, really disapointed with Dawkins on that. He came across as tense, TOTALLY humourless, and with the most arrogant sense of false humility i think i have ever witnessed. I genuinely respect and appreciate what he does, but he has actually dropped quite substantially in my estimation.
I don't think asking one of the most intelligent men on earth what his opinion of 'being wise is' is an especially onerous question, and yet he responds as though denton was a complete dickhead for even asking.
And denton is an avowed atheist!

Other Comments by rugby

24. Comment #443941 by Demotruk on December 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Is the topic of the article not really about the weighting of the "expert panel" in favor of a particular side, rather than euthanasia itself?

It's important to know whether or not the panel is really a (somewhat) representative panel of experts, or if as is suggested, specially selected experts which will make the conclusion the politicians want them to make. I think the former is more likely, and experts* may simply be more likely to be of the pro-euthanasia persuasion. Regardless, unless we are ok with simply affirming our present beliefs, that's what people should be looking into.

*although I am not sure how "expert" is defined in this context

Other Comments by Demotruk

25. Comment #443944 by CaptainMandate on December 22, 2009 at 2:19 pm

suicide is the only permanent cure for depression

all other treatments fail if the patient gets depressed again.

My point being that the decision to want to live or want to die is based on a state of mind. If I choose to die then suddenly become happy with my life, who's to say it's not just a symptom of mental illness£ just like depression

I believe it's a human right to choose. I can't see any moral reason to argue outside of a religious one. I can see there are legal implications as RTF pointed out but the law would just have to adjust and policies clarified on the matter.

The problem seems to be that we are all aware that you might make the "wrong choice" i.e. circumstances may change, cures found, better ways of coping developed but life's a short ride. people make fatal "wrong choices" every day somewhere in the world. The only one we have a problem with is the one where the victim gets to think about if they made the right choice or not before deciding

we need to grow up. God doesn't decide when we die. because of medicine, God no longer decides we must die when we get sick, and as such we have a population explosion. We accept that in exploding populations something will have to give one day. we accept it will be unpleasant, but we're not quite ready to accept the responsibility of chosing when to take ourselves out of the picture.

A species that has a shocking record of murder when it comes to managing resources, based on race, religion, even the sex of a newborn child, needs to at least open up to the concept of not forcing anyone to live

[edit]

sorry I'm not suggesting euthinasia as any kind of method of handling a population crisis, just pointing out the dual standards. Many people can become "qualified" to make a decision to kill another human, judges, soldiers, dictators etc but to assume one could be qualified to make that judgement on themselves is just too much for some to consider

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

26. Comment #443946 by LWS on December 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm

This is excellent news for all of us. The hysteria around making end of life choices as influenced and dictated by the religious must end.

May I remind everyone here that it is really important to write & sign a Will. Any unsigned document is completely worthless. In Canada Wills cover physical issues with regards to health and end of life care as well as financial assets. Preparing a will, designating a power of attorney and trustee, is not complicated and really is part of the business of managing your life. I am astounded at the number of people who do not do this. If you have not made legal arrangements for yourself then the government can step in and that sure isn't pleasant.

Schools should drop religious instruction classes in favour of teaching people the basics of law as we all need some understanding of our rights. The law is not mystical and yet so many hold irrational beliefs about it.

Other Comments by LWS

27. Comment #443951 by Logicel on December 22, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Only secular anti-euthanasia academics have a place in this panel. They could be hard to come by.

Other Comments by Logicel

28. Comment #443967 by mordacious1 on December 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm

14. Comment #443906 by GalacticAtom

Only in the sense that when I was ranting awhile back that Sotomayor would be the 6th catholic on the Supreme Court, one would think that I wanted the Court to be "balanced" between catholics and non-catholics. No, I don't want any catholics on the SCOTUS. And this "pro-life", anti-euthanasia, anti-abortion group does not want an atheist/pro-euthanasia person like Udo to be on this panel or any panel. They would prefer that the panel be made up of god-fearing chriistians (and maybe a token jew).

Other Comments by mordacious1

29. Comment #443993 by Lucas on December 22, 2009 at 5:52 pm

There is, y'know, a whole Church of Euthanasia out there.

No one should try to take your death away from you. For some, it's all they have. If I'm lucky, I will get to choose the moment of my own death, and no law or any opinion of anyone else will stop me if I get that opportunity.

(As an aside, when I was told in 7th grade that my debate team would be arguing euthanasia, I thought we'd be talking about Chinese kids - "youth in asia".)

EDIT: Ooh, also, everybody should see the cover art to the second Acid Bath album "Paegan Terrorism Tactics" from 1997. It's a painting by Dr. Jack Kevorkian.

Other Comments by Lucas

30. Comment #444006 by BlueCollar8theist on December 22, 2009 at 6:10 pm

This matter should hardly be subject for debate. A system to help remove the fear and suffering of a person afflicted with a terminal illness is a very humane idea.
One needs only imagine themselves in shoes of the sufferer to see that they would likely want the same thing.

Other Comments by BlueCollar8theist

31. Comment #444145 by Arjen on December 23, 2009 at 1:18 am

@ Comment #443937 by rugby on December 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Yes, he was grieving, but he was very sound of mind. He just did not want to go on without his wife. He did have all the counselling, the physician documented it well, the guy just did not want to continue. For him, living without his wife was intolerable suffering.

Something slightly similar happened in the UK, where a couple, one gravely ill, went to Switzerland to die together. One of the couple could have gone on as well but chose not to.

Why judge their decision?

Other Comments by Arjen

32. Comment #444153 by Arjen on December 23, 2009 at 1:43 am

Personally, I hope to die by my own hand.

I hope to live a full life in good health, with a clear mind, active till my last day and die in my sleep at old age after a good dinner with family and friends.

But I want to have the option available to choose my time of death if life does not grant me this wish.

Other Comments by Arjen

33. Comment #444183 by Fuller on December 23, 2009 at 5:56 am

Note to the writer of this piece: don't put the word "expert" in quotation marks unless you're actually going to question their qualifications.

Wait, I just put the word in quotation marks. Nevermind.

Other Comments by Fuller

34. Comment #444337 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2009 at 11:26 pm

lol, but there's a difference between using quotation marks to mention a linguistic item, such as a word or phrase, and scare quotes, to express disagreement or doubt.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

35. Comment #444369 by steveroot on December 24, 2009 at 4:06 am

34. Comment #444337 by Russell Blackford on December 23, 2009 at 11:26 pm
lol, but there's a difference between using quotation marks to mention a linguistic item, such as a word or phrase, and scare quotes, to express disagreement or doubt.

This is the difference between "use" and "mention" of a word or phrase.
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/phenom/old/usement.html
According to the text from the "Introduction to Logic" course which I took in college (in about 1970!),
"For correctness, we should, when a word is mentioned rather than used, employ the familiar device of putting quotes around this word."

I wonder if "scare quotes" is a form of "mention":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

36. Comment #444626 by rugby on December 25, 2009 at 6:57 am

Hey Arjen, yeah, i guess it comes down to a matter of opinion. In my opinion we should only be using euthanasia in cases of terminal health issues (the fact that in australia at the moment suicide is killing more people between ages 15-34 than any other cause is another confounding factor! at what point does depression become terminal?), but unfortunately your situations serve to feed the slippery slope argument, which i guess i'd rather avoid.
I think euthanasia is another is another one of those issues like abortion that is far more complicated than it first appears, and i always like to avoid being at the extreme end to either side of the argument.

Other Comments by rugby

37. Comment #469447 by darren92 on March 14, 2010 at 10:11 pm

From an evolutionary point of view, euthanasia (by which I mean a pleasant voluntary death instead of drowning etc) is hated partly because next of kin are losing a related human animal with similar genes. This explains why anger is increased towards a younger person who wants to be dead but anger is less towards a dying older person who would die anyway. This hatred of euthanasia is disguised selfishness.

Other Comments by darren92

Reload Comments | Back to Top