The start this week of "roadshow" hearings by a National Assembly committee on the issue makes this a suitable time to reassert our view that fitting euthanasia into public policy would be the wrong solution, and a dangerous one.
The public debate opened last year after the Quebec College of Physicians endorsed euthanasia -the medically-assisted ending of a human life - as appropriate under certain circumstances. A 2009 survey of members of the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists suggested that euthanasia is already practised in Quebec, although under the legal and ethical radar.
The Criminal Code, which is federal law, says (Sec. 14) that "no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given."
Mere federal jurisdiction rarely stops Quebec, of course, and Geoff Kelley, the West-Island MNA chairing these hearings, argues that Ottawa would have to respect any recommendations his committee makes. That's wrong, but it is more than just hubris. Quebec is not the only place having this debate.
We should be asking why the pressure for euthanasia is apparently increasing now. Decline of religious faith might be one reason. Another may be the increasing numbers of Canadians, most of them elderly, living with reduced capabilities, chronic pain, or other symptoms of decline. Old age, as the adage says, is no place for cowards.
Support for mercy killing is usually couched in terms of dignity, which seems bitterly ironic since it's hard to think of a more extreme denial of dignity than killing, however benevolent the motive. Still, we accept that those arguing for euthanasia as a dignified alternative are fully sincere in their views.
As a social issue, however, we suspect that lurking behind this debate, perhaps even below the conscious level, is awareness of the steadily-growing cost of end-of-life medical care. Palliative care now strains not only government health budgets but also the stamina, budgets, and patience of family caregivers. But is that a reason to authorize MDs to become what a group of anti-euthanasia McGill profs calls "society's executioners"?
In European countries where euthanasia is permitted, there have been cases of errors, and lives ended without consent. Down that road lurk horrors we must not bring upon ourselves.
There are, Quebecers should remember, real alternatives to euthanasia. Pain management can be improved, for one thing. More importantly, "dignity" can mean more than a quick exit; it can mean respect for human life, too. Feeling unwanted is apparently a substantial spur to the decision to end one's life. "People with chronic illnesses who receive appropriate care are less likely to want to end their lives," in the words of Madelaine Michaud, president of a public-sector retirees' group. Yet Quebec today has just 600 palliative-care beds, although demand is much higher: 35,000 people die of chronic illnesses each year in Quebec. The federal government used to have an End-of-Life Care Secretariat, but disbanded it in 2007.
Authorized euthanasia would surely be cheaper and more efficient than improved care and affording true dignity to the living. But efficiency should not be the prime criterion in this matter. Quebecers had better be careful what they wish for.
/Editorial+There+dignity+euthanasia/3492633/story.html#ixzz0yxTWS3HH