Doctor, doctor, please help me die!

-
A Sunday at Lake Manitou

Next Sunday, we begin a discussion in an adult study group in Eigenheim on the volatile question of doctor-assisted suicide. We all know what that is: the least euphemistic definition of suicide is “self murder,” as compared to, say, patricide, which is “father-murder.” And in law, murder doesn’t apply unless the act is premeditated, deliberate. If suicide were considered a crime in law—which it practically is not anymore—a doctor assisting in a self-murder would be guilty of, at least, being an accessory to murder.
Similarly, if in law the human foetus were ever declared a person, then the one performing an abortion (or personally attempting to abort her own unwanted pregnancy) would be guilty in law of murder. There are plenty of people campaigning for the law to be rewritten to make that a fact, aren’t there?

There are ethical standards, though, that are not governable by legal systems elected to create national laws, police them and try persons who don’t conform to them. Ethical standards derived from faith, particularly, can and do frequently conflict with legal systems as in, for instance, fundamentalist Mormon approval of bigamy. Canada’s laws show no interest in fornication or adultery, but for a Christian or Muslim denomination to hold their own members accountable for sexual activity outside of marriage is common and expected. Freedom of Religion is surely meaningless if individuals are not allowed to live their lives guided by the principles of their particular religion. So should bigamy at Bountiful, BC have been ignored by Canada’s legal system?
We are prone to conflate the two ethical standard setters—faith and politics. Where national laws don’t enforce our standards, we have a hard time accepting the difference between what a secular legal system can and cannot do and our own frustration with what appears to be inexcusable conduct in our neighbours. As crassly as I’ve heard it put relates to gay marriage and the cynical adage: “If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry someone who is the same gender as you. Just get off cases that aren’t yours.” In a multi-cultural society, democratic government should never legislate from the playbook of any particular community, should it?

But back to doctor-assisted suicide. To require a doctor to “assist” in a suicide when that doctor has serious faith-based scruples about the ethics of suicide would be generally—and probably constitutionally—unethical. Similarly, expecting a doctor to perform an abortion when he or she believes a person becomes a person at conception would also be generally—and possibly constitutionally—unethical. But to legally restrict a certain doctor in a certain case from medically assisting one who wishes to end an intolerable life would also defy principles of individual freedom, wouldn’t it?

I’m not a medical doctor, obviously, so my window on the question is understandably limited. For me, the question when discussed in my faith community is not about what national law should be, but whether or not I or a loved one can count on our faith family to support us in choosing to end life if death becomes inevitable and the agony, meanwhile, beyond bearing. Isn’t there something unethical in a person suffering so that others’ consciences are protected?

I’m sure that a medical doctor with strict scruples about suicide could feel more like an executioner than a healer if asked to administer the cocktail that eases a person out of this life. Perhaps if there is no prohibition on suicide when chosen by an adult person with a clear mind, then more work should be done on devising self-administered means; a better equivalent of the cyanide-pill option. Where medical side effects or the possibility of “things going medically wrong” are not relevant, why should it be a doctor who “pulls the trigger?”
I hope that as we discuss this issue, we will do so with a full appreciation of the fact that even in a faith community, there is no guarantee of unanimity, no absolute to cling to . . . at least not on this question. 






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy or bust

-
Image
  Politics . You can tell how people relate to this word by the way they use it. “I’m not much interested in politics,” for instance, equates it with the day-to-day news about our current government, elections, party dynamics, etc. A narrow definition.                By whatever word we use, it’s clear that the setting and enforcing of the principles under which we form community—and function as community—existed before the word was coined. In families, in schools, in workplaces, on the roads, in the economy, the making and respecting of agreed-to behavioural expectations in a community is the necessary defense against chaos.                How behavioural expectations come to be, how they are altered, how they are enforced … and most importantly by whose authority … is fundamental. The “benevolent dictator” model has a long history: give...
Read more

Do I dare eat a peach?

-
Image
  All the talk of Joe Biden’s unfitness for the position of president of the USA must have others of his age—80 plus—wondering about their own fitness. Most of us octogenarians are well aware of our physical limitations, I think, but mentally? How can I know, for instance, if the lines I’m writing are logically sound, or if they fall somewhere between inane and gibberish? How can I know if my diminished capacity can be trusted to make such a judgment? And what if my friends are too kind to tell me when to close my laptop? Hearing an aging loved one tell the same stories to the same people every day has the able-minded nodding knowingly and cluckingly (that’s a word, isn’t it?). We’re obviously too kind and too hip not to know that people experiencing obvious dementia deserve to be “handled with care,” and we’ve devised places and strategies to preserve for them whatever dignity is still possible. But it’s not dissimilar from the pain-relieving, ointment applying, chair-exercisin...
Read more

Stories We Live By

-
Image
  David Brooks, writer, philosopher and journalist, said in a recent speech to the Aspen Ideas gathering that the current divisive, belligerent mood among the people of earth can’t be attributed to our real-life situations. We have space, food, water, shelter, healthcare enough for everyone, and more. We don’t fight because we need to, he said, but because we carry stories in our heads to which we respond. It's clear that he doesn’t mean story in the same way I meant it when I published a collection of short stories , but there’s something to be gained in connecting the two, particularly when behaviour is guided by, for instance, The Holy Bible , or the Quran , each telling a story by which adherents understand life and by which their actions are governed. Scientists, as a rule, act according to a very different story of life, their exploration guided very much by the saga of evolving nature and the incontrovertible principles that govern all things. Our stories —I think Broo...
Read more