Alex Schadenberg
The Interim
On Nov. 4, 2004, Evelyn Martens was acquitted of aiding and abetting the suicide deaths of Leyanne Burchell and Monique Charest. After her acquittal, Martens stated to the media that she has retired from the assisted suicide cause. But her acquittal has opened a door for the assisted suicide issue in Canada.
Two weeks later, in response to a question from Bloc Quebecois MP Richard Marceau, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler stated to the Parliamentary justice committee that he had “decided it is time to go back to the drawing board, in light of recent high-profile assisted suicides in Quebec and British Columbia” and that Parliament should revisit the issue of assisted suicide.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition reacted to Cotler’s remarks by stating the Evelyn Martens trial, and the Charles Fariala case in Quebec, prove to Canada that the current laws concerning assisted suicide are correct and need to be enforced by impartial juries. EPC explained that both Monique Charest and Charles Fariala were not terminally ill – in fact, Monique Charest did not have a condition that would lead to her death. Both were depressed and needed professional help, not suicide.
Media response to the justice minister’s comments were fast and furious. The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and the National Post all supported the minister’s call for a debate on assisted suicide in Canada. Whereas Cotler indicated that a national debate should occur across Canada, giving Canadians an opportunity to express their thoughts, the Globe and the Post indicated that they supported a debate in Parliament.
The Globe has gone forward by printing several columns supporting the legalization of assisted suicide. These included published an article by John Crispo, emeritus professor of political economy at the University of Toronto, entitled, “Give me my right to die.” Crispo lauded the possibility that Parliament will discuss assisted suicide, but added that he would rather they legalized euthanasia. He stated: “I not only want to avoid undue pain and suffering, I do not want to be a burden on my wife, my family and friends, or even society. And I do not want to be incapacitated physically, although I might change my mind if and when I reach that stage.”
Clearly, Crispo fears suffering, but he also disdains disability. Comments like these are precisely the reason that people with disabilities fear the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The negative attitudes in our society toward disability not only create undue pressure upon people with disabilities to accept that their lives are not worth living, but these attitudes are, in fact, systemic in a society that promotes radical individual autonomy.
Crispo also stated: “I find it truly incomprehensible that we cannot accept an individual’s right to decide when it is time for them to go to sleep. I would accept a very simple procedure designed to ensure that an individual is making such a decision of their own free will, but that’s all.” In other words, Crispo wants a “right to die” and is not concerned with the fate of vulnerable Canadians who will not be protected by the minimal standard of protection that he proposes.
Once again, vulnerable Canadians are not part of the debate to legalize assisted suicide. They are simply an impediment to overcome in the march to radical individual autonomy.
The Globe also published a column by retired journalist Anthony Westell, entitled: “It’s my right to die when I want to.” Westell argued that opposition to assisted suicide is based on religious convictions. He stated: “Opponents insist that the rights of the individual must take second place to what they believe to be God’s prerogative to decide when a person should die.”
Westell then stated: “So it is important that the debate should be framed outside the religious box. The burden should not be upon those who favour a right to die, but upon opponents to show why the state should deny this civil liberty.” In other words, by reducing the argument to a religious issue, Westell then doesn’t need to justify a change in the law, nor does he need to examine the relevant concerns related to societal attitudes toward people with disabilities, the elderly and other vulnerable Canadians.
Finally, the Toronto Star published an article by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest and current religion writer, who wrote about his admiration for the late Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and the great advances in palliative care over the past 20 years. He then explained that not everyone’s pain can be relieved by palliative care and not everyone wants to die in a hospice or palliative care setting. Harpur concluded his article by promoting a pro-assisted suicide book and advocated that readers contact Dying with Dignity to receive more information.
There have been a lot of articles printed on the issue of assisted suicide and there seems to be a definite position being presented by the major media in Canada.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that there is an outward effort to prime the Canadian public for a change in the law. This effort is supported by most of the major media and has a sympathetic justice minister listening to its demands.
