TORONTO -- Physician-assisted
suicide and the elimination of terminally ill or severely disabled patients
run counter to the values of Canadian society, says the vice-president
of the Catholic Civil Rights League.
Speaking Jan. 22 at a debate
on the legalization of euthanasia, lawyer Philip Horgan said Canadians
should reject efforts to change the Criminal Code to permit anti-life practices.
Horgan was opposed by Ruth
von Fuchs, a librarian and a long-time executive with the Right to Die
Society.
"It is my submission that
a law allowing the right to die is contrary to the norms of Canadian society,"
Horgan said. He dismissed the argument that the decision to de-criminalize
suicide in 1971 indicated society's acceptance of a right to die.
Horgan refuted von Fuch's
suggestions that reasoned legislative safeguards built into right-to-die
legislation would prevent abuses. "The most common complaint we hear is
that we couldn't regulate the right to die," von Fuchs told the audience.
"But a step-by-step approach to such legislation would address these and
other concerns."
Horgan, however, cited the
example of the Netherlands to show how efforts to promote physician-assisted
suicide are open to abuses. Although doctor-assisted suicide is officially
against the law in Holland, the country witnessed at least 1,000 such deaths
in 1994. Horgan said these were cases where comatose or mentally incompetent
patients were eliminated without their consent.
"This was a modern, sophisticated
country were these deaths occurred," Horgan said, "and there were safeguards
in place. Given that Canada has about twice the population of Holland,
are we prepared to accept as many as 2,000 similar deaths in this country
each year?"
He also referred to the Latimer
case in which a Saskatchewan farmer killed his severely handicapped daughter
by poisoning her with carbon monoxide fumes. Although he was found guilty
of second-degree murder, Latimer received a lenient sentence on the grounds
that the killing was motivated by compassion.
Horgan suggested that compassion
is not an appropriate justification for legislation allowing assisted suicide.
Instead of concentrating
on right-to-die legislation, Horgan called for a greater emphasis on palliative
care
and other proactive approaches
to care-giving to address the needs of terminally ill or suffering patients.
He cited examples in his own family where a consultative approach to the
treatment of a dying relative benefited both patient and family members.
The audience, most of whom
were seniors, seemed divided in their support of the two speakers. Many
raised the quality-of-life argument in defending the need for some form
of assisted-suicide legislation.
Horgan countered that is
not appropriate for the able-bodied to impose a quality-of-life standard
on the weak and suffering.
"What does it say about our
culture that we attempt to avoid suffering by eliminating those who are
weak, vulnerable or in pain?" he asked.
