Harvey Chochinov, Steven Fletcher, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Editor’s note. Steven Fletcher is a MP in the Canadian Parliament. Fletcher has quadriplegia and (to quote Dr. Chochinov), “As of late, Fletcher has been focusing his formidable energy on promoting physician-hastened death.” (Fletcher has introduced an assisted suicide bill.)
The National Post has published an insightful article by Dr. Harvey Chochinov, concerning Steven Fletcher, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
Chochinov, who is Canada’s Research Chair in Palliative Care begins the article by stating how much he admires Steven Fletcher. He continues by offering an explanation of why the leaders of the disability community oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. Chochinov states:
According to a recent IPSOS Reid
poll, nearly 70 per cent of Canadians support the availability of death
hastening alternatives for people living with significant disabilities
that might impair their quality of life. In other words, Canadians find
it inconceivable to imagine themselves confined to a body that even
remotely approximates the one Fletcher now permanently resides in. While
the majority of Canadians admire him, at some level I suspect they are
afraid of the abject vulnerably his life proves is possible within the
repertoire of human experience. This fear is so deeply seated that they
imagine themselves preferring death. For anyone wondering why
physician-hastened death makes disabled people feel vulnerable, wonder
no more.
Human beings are not good at
predicting how they will react in circumstances that have yet to unfold.
While Fletcher argues that death should sometimes trump disability,
studies of people who become disabled due to spinal injuries, head
trauma or strokes, offer a strikingly different perspective. Just under
10 per cent of these patients become suicidal and the majority
relinquish their wish to die within a year or two. In his biography,What
Do You Do If You Don’t Die?, Fletcher recounts suicidal thoughts that
lingered long after his catastrophic accident. He says that had
doctor-assisted suicide been an option after his 1996 car accident, he
would have considered signing up and checking out. Thankfully it was
not. His recovery took determination and strength, but such is the stuff
that Steven Fletcher is made of. It also took the support of family and
friends, the unwavering commitment of medical professionals and it took
time.
Chochinov then explains how legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will change medicine:
Those of us working in healthcare
understand that life-altering illness, trauma or anticipation of death
can sometimes sap will to live. In those instances, health-care
providers are called upon to commit time; time to manage distress,
provide unwavering support and to assuage fear that patients might be
abandoned to their hopelessness and despair. That is the essence of how
medicine has traditionally responded to suffering. Stopping time by way
of arranging the patient’s death has never been part of that response.
In light of the decision by the Supreme Court, we must now contemplate
Canada’s future euthanologists. …
Fletcher said he did not want to
die drowning in his phlegm and in pain. I assured him, on behalf of
Canada’s palliative care community, that we would not let that happen.
He said that he did not want to be reliant on machines to keep him
alive. I told him that competent Canadians, under our current laws, are
entitled to refuse or discontinue treatment, including life-sustaining
measures. He described autonomy as a core Canadian value. I reminded him
that autonomy has its limits, particularly when it causes others to
feel more vulnerable and implicates the physician’s role in response to
suffering.
Chochinov concludes by quoting from that same recent debate with Fletcher:
With too few Canadians having
access to palliative care, little wonder that people are afraid.
Offering the option to have their physician end their lives feels akin
to confronting homelessness by eliminating guardrails from bridges.
Nonetheless, Fletcher feels that safeguards, such as a “cooling off”
period to establish that a request to die is sincere, not coerced and
sustained are possible. If so many in your circumstance change their
mind, I asked him, do we now require a two-year waiting period? His
response was, “maybe.”
Maybe? Fletcher’s euthanasia bill that is before parliament lacks a waiting period.The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is asking parliament to Give us time! EPC wants a Commission to give Canadians a chance to express their concerns and we support use of the Notwithstanding Clause (S 33) to give us time to devise effective protections for all Canadians.
Editor’s note. This appeared at alexschadenberg.blogspot.com and is reprinted with permission.
Send to Kindle
Source:NRLC News
No comments:
Post a Comment