Text from a speech given in Vancouver by pro-life MP, Don Boudria
Before I begin to talk to you about what we are fighting for, let me take a moment to tell you who and what I am not fighting against. I know that there are many people who endure physical and mental pain when they are terminally ill. One such person is Mrs. Sue Rodriguez, a courageous British Columbia mother who is suffering from a terrible and disease called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). I know that I speak for all here present when I say that our thoughts and our affection are with her.
We are here because we care about human life, Mrs. Rodriguez’s life and the lives of all others in this world. This meeting is in support of life and particularly those who are vulnerable, and not against anyone.
Picture yourself, if you can, as a legislator sitting in Parliament in 1987. The Supreme Court of Canada had declared the abortion law – if it could even be considered a law – unconstitutional. Members of Parliament from all sides of the House of Commons were listening to representations from constituents on this very hot topic. Some so-called extremists were saying that the absence of a law protecting the life of the unborn child could even some day lead to a similar legislative vacuum at the other end of the life cycle. These rabble-rousers were even saying that we had embarked on a slippery slope starting wit abortion, then on to living wills, then to passive euthanasia and finally to physician-assisted killing, wanted or otherwise. Imagine anyone being so unreasonable.
Six years later, three bills and one motion, advocating various forms of human killing have been introduced or debated in Parliament. We have already slid some distance. One initiative, Bill C-203 even got as far as a Parliamentary committee before it was finally put out of commission by yours truly along with another M.P. namely, Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas).
Still, the question remains as to why are we against mercy killing or euthanasia? After all, mercy-killing suggests that killing (presumably under certain conditions) is merciful. Euthanasia for its part means good death. By definition, this kind of death must at least be potentially good. Those who are advocating this kind of “merciful killing” and “good death” are portraying themselves as protectors of the terminally ill. Obviously you can see how easy it is to fall into that trap. But what are the consequences of permitting the taking of human life? Dare I say the killing o others? I suggest to you that there are plenty.
Firstly, let me talk to you about the experience of another country. Until recently, euthanasia was not legal in Holland; yet, in that tiny country with one quarter of Canada’s population, there are estimates that up to 12,000 persons per year were sent to premature death. On February 9, 1993, the Dutch parliament formally approved “voluntary” euthanasia; a week later, a Dutch Justice Department spokesperson, Liesbeth Rensman told the Associated Press that legislators would be studying the effect of this voluntary euthanasia law for three months in order to “see what happens and how careful (physicians are), then perhaps there could be a regulation for killing without request.” Do we still think that the slippery slope could not slide any further?
What we are talking about is giving the doctor the right to kill.
Doctor Robert Conot, author of Justice at Nuremberg has reminded us of what can happen when a society allows itself to be guided by utilitarian rather than humanitarian principles. In Nazi Germany, the mentally/physically ill were entitled to the “favour” of painless death. This principle was subsequently extended to other “useless eaters” including residents of homes for the aged. The Nazis than extended the concept to include the Jews and eventually anyone else who was not considered useful by those in power.
That society slid into the euthanasia abyss. To quote Conot: “Theirs (the Nazis) was no plunge to damnation from conscious decision but a step-by-step descent into darkness, each step marking a small erosion of ethics and morality.”
Let us pretend that I am wrong about the slippery slope. The what? Well, euthanasia would still be just as reprehensible because it cheapens human life. We learned through the media that a Dutch psychiatrist was acquitted of injecting a depressed patient with a lethal substance. How can we tell our fellow citizens that murder is wrong when we permit doctors to kill? How can we tell our young and emotionally fragile citizens that suicide is wrong and how life is precious when we allow other lives to be destroyed in such a cavalier manner?
The Criminal Code of Canada forbids aiding , counseling or assisting a suicide. It does so because the absence of such rules would erode the patient-doctor trust.
Firstly, we have all but forgotten the holocaust because it occurred too long ago. Secondly, we are living in tough economic times and people’s compassion for one another has diminished in the face of these hard times. Some are asking how we can afford to keep spending money on those who are sick and who will probably die in the near future. Third, there are in my view certain individuals who are using the present situation for their own gain. Their lack of scruples is at least part of this problem.
Notice ladies and gentlemen that I have not even invoked any religious reason yet as to why killing is wrong; yet, there are plenty of those as well. What is interesting is that, at least in my part of the country, standing up for human life is equated with some sort of religious extremism. While I do not apologize for my religious beliefs, these convictions are not necessarily at the centre of the debate. Even an aetheist could and should agree with the points I have raised thus far. Having said this, I an sure you would agree that moral and religious convictions do help to understand these arguments even better.
Some months ago, I was confronted by a pro-euthanasia supporter in the media who said, “it’s easy for you to be against euthanasia. You might feel different if someone I your family was suffering and terminally ill.”
“You are right,” I said, “I didn’t always feel so strongly about this issue. But my father died of a malignant brain tumour in 1991 and my mother-in-law died of cancer in 1992. Having lived through such difficult times has strengthened and not weakened my resolve on the worth and fragility of life,” I concluded.
Ladies and gentlemen, we must resist all the temptations to permit euthanasia. It is a quick fix for the narcissistic society in which we live where the body is glorified at the expense of virtually everything else.
Last week, a constituent of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell whose husband is suffering with ALS phoned me to congratulate me on my work for preservation of human life. She stated to me that her husband was ill and that he would never recover. But she also said that no one had the right to say that her husband’s life was useless or was not worth living. And that is why I am here today.
Keep it up. The right side! The side of life.
