Death with Dignity - Process Matters

DEATH WITH DIGNITY is a right, that should never have had to have been granted, but a right that is inherent in our humanness as determined by our ability to reason.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms holds as equity millions of lives and more than 300 years of toil, it is a beautiful document, it should be respected.

The following is discourse on the functionality of Bill 14 legislation that would ensure people can exercise choice AND would ensure that DEATH WITH DIGNITY stays entirely in the hands of people. Our country is institutionalized and people tend to forget that Canada is in no way collective citizenry, but rather, a collection of individuals. Thankfully now, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individuals have choice and the government is compelled to provide it absent any influence other than to administer “interface” between people.

   

The critical element in this legislation is that functionality builds a firewall between the state administering “treatment” and the choice to access DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures. The present DEATH WITH DIGNITY process as posited by Bill C 14 is dangerous in the extreme.

CLICK HERE: PRIOR DISCOURSE ON DWD BILL C 14

“PRIOR DIRECTIVES” are essential in administering DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures, while provisions are required for persons absent PRIOR DIRECTIVES; PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be a part of the mix.  There are basically three management categories for people wanting DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures; PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place (no competency or competency in place), No PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place with competency and No PRIOR DIRECTIVE absent competency. 

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be managed in a manner that informs medical personnel of DEATH WITH DIGNITY triggers and measures, in and for actuation, in a standardized way and the fact that there is Prior Directive in place (as opposed to the "document" itself) and must be registered centrally.  In this way, if an event that removes mental competency occurs there are means in place to have people’s wishes attended to and all relevant family and or designates informed.

The Registry would contain the fact there is a PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place and contacts provided by the patient at the time they registered.  This facilitates strict privacy requirements AND allows for circumstance where people arrive to care absent mental competency to be cared for as they've directed.  The registry would be managed by the respective jurisdiction or it could be nationwide and managed co-cooperatively if various jurisdictions if agreed.

People with PRIOR DIRECTIVES would have no requirement for court proceeding as the process precludes; an immediate assessment of choice, the application of institutional maleficence or other duress.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In the event a person wants to access DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures absent a Prior Directive and they have mental competency, then all the processes laid out in the present iteration of the legislation must be actuated PLUS, an expedited court process. The aforementioned registry could also serve as a gazette to notify people of pending court processes and requirements to notify next of kin must be in place. A special process measured in hours would require that a court process be initiated, announced via the gazette, reasonable effort to notify next of kin is made, opportunity for intervenors is provisioned and finally the order is provided. This order process would be similar to the “bench order process”: very quickly executed, no hearing required, unless next of kin offered objection or someone applied for intervenor status.

In the event that an individual enters care absent mental competency and absent a PRIOR DIRECTIVE, then all medically necessary measures to sustain life must be undertaken.

It must be emphasized that under no circumstance can state representatives of any kind in any number authorize the ending of life. The provision for two doctors’ opinions absent judicial oversight is sheer folly and obscenely irresponsible from the perspective of vulnerable populations and the possibility of measures being misdirected in some way.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

People have the right to choose their own course in life and in managing life’s end, the state's only role here is to ensure that people’s wishes are attended to and facilitated, that interface between conflicted parties is managed and that the vulnerable are protected. Bill C 14 is failing on all counts. 

Death with Dignity - BILL C 14 Change Please

It is fundamental that an individual holds domain over mind and body, this is the paramount concern in drafting legislation of this sort and this legislation is failing in this concern. The recent attempt at DEATH WITH DIGNITY legislation is weak to say the least, it institutionalizes a personal choice, it makes arbitrary the decision to actuate “treatment”, it fails to attend to legal review, it reduces the safety to the individual that exists now, it seems to preclude the right to offer written authority prior to events of ill health taking place and perhaps worse, it fails to subordinate itself to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please Note: I am waiting some verification - this a 1st DRAFT

Link to Bill C 14
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8183660

All legislation exists under the umbrella of Section 7 of the charter and all legal concern contemplates its application from the perspective of “reasonable” state intrusion on section 7 rights. The fundamental under pinning here is CHOICE. To be at liberty, is to be able to choose and when one chooses something absent harm to others, the state has no authority to intervene and where possible the state should facilitate a chosen action. There are moral concerns of a specific nature being forwarded in the resistance to this legislation and the manner in which choice to DEATH WITH DIGNITY has been “watered down” here. This represents gross intrusion on many fundamental rights that support an individual’s autonomy.

CLICK HERE: Letter to Peter MacKay, past Justice Minister

DEATH WITH DIGNITY is in no way a medical decision, the decision to die is a profoundly personal one, once the choice to seek medical aid to die is made, the medical decisions are in the actuation of the act – how, where when. The only impediment to the choice to end one’s life should be the presence or absent of mental competency as determined by standardized legal tests for mental competency and under the presumption of competency.  Rational people choose to live, unless affected by a complex of factors to choose to die; the perception of legitimacy of those factors as a rationale for choosing to die is a profoundly personal one and one that the state has no place to influence.  So the state putting parameters on the reasons for seeking DEATH WITH DIGNITY breaches sections 7 rights. Medical personnel should be acting on the request of a rational person as opposed to their perception of reality. The determination of grievous and irremediable (medical) condition should lie with the person whose choice it is to make and if this was the case, the term of the condition would have no relevance.  

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

With this legislation the state  imposes itself once again on the rights of parents to manage their children’s lives in accord with their specific culture and values. There has been an increasing propensity for the state to encroach on parental choice, an offensive trend. Who better to manage the fate of a child than the ones that love them most?

Suicide, as it is widely perceived, as an aggrieved person taking their own life at a moment of lost perspective, is by any measure an unreasonable act and should in no way be associated with a person seeking DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

The only reason that vulnerable people are put a risk with DEATH WITH DIGNITY legislation is if you institutionalize the process. My making a choice to seek solution to use DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures, in no way imposes on another human being; save the emotional effect on love ones. When you place decision making in the hands of the state, then you expose vulnerable people to risk. The only barrier now to medically induced death in practice, is the opinion of two doctors, there is an absence of judicial review – this is a very dangerous circumstance. There should be an expedited court functionality to facilitate rapid judicial review and opportunity of intervenors to offer weight to court deliberations in circumstances where mental competence is in question. In this way, if the event is being exercised against the interests of the person of subject, third parties can seek intervenor status – that is to say “trusties” may be authorizing medically induced death in circumstance where information is incomplete. If you choose to regulate this choice with law, you require LEGAL process to manage it, if you’re going to insist this is an institutional decision then you require LEGAL process to manage it – two people saying it’s okay is insufficient and it is arbitrary. It is better to insist that the “system” is required to respond to clearly stated wishes related to DEATH WITH DIGNITY and leave all legal and moral onus on the individual.  

It is essential that people be given right for prior directives or better, that prior directives are made mandatory and can be confirmed by family or designates. In doing so the state is barred from in anyway influencing the use of medically assisted death. The provisions provided make no mention of designates or family, it is conceivable, or functionally possible, that medically induced death could be implemented entirely by state actors or strangers, by the co-operative action of four or five people with no judicial review. There can never be a circumstance where a state actor or collection of state actors can facilitate the death of a citizen FOR ANY REASON, humane or otherwise, and most certainly never absent judicial review.

Authorization to for DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures should come from the person affected and no government institution should be provisioned the capability to make that decision on someone’s behalf – functionally it could happen under this law. This being an essential part of crafting this legislation, it follows that it be mandatory that people provision documented directives in advance with their verification at the time of actuation OR verification by a designate; certainly absent advanced directives, judicial review becomes critically important.

The passion that I feel in regard to this issue is driven in large measure by my experience with my own mother, she expressed clearly to me on numerous occasions what her wishes were, she had a stroke and was incapable providing consent – this legislation would force me through the same scenario as I went through, having to let her dehydrate; a most inhuman circumstance.

I believe in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this government has forgotten that it has historical equity in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has failed to subordinate itself to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all our ability to hold domain over mind and body is diminished because of this.

Click here: DEATH WITH DIGNITY - PROCESS

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

GENERAL COMMENT ON LAW AND A DISTURBING TREND

"It is the case that in the practice of law, that the minutia tends to take us away from justice, the big picture. In Canada we have a circumstance in play that has the erosion of fundamental law occurring at an alarming rate. If you have a deep belief in common law and its fundamental tenets that are the foundation of our system, then you will share my concern with respect to this disturbing trend, a trend that has expediency trump due process. There are a number of examples of this trend throughout the system, no more glaring however, than the BC Mental Health Act. An act that has drifted away from fundamental law, and that was drafted and is now administered is a manner that flouts common law traditions and the charter. We need to be very wary of the “tribunalisation” of legal process, as it has been applied here a number of ills have emerged; not the least of which is the stagnation of statute absent exposure to court process and alterations due to its administration in the face of precedent effect. We need to ensure that people have the benefit of the “full due process” that courts provide. We need to protect evidentiary process. We need to ensure that the standard of review is commensurate with state sanction. We need clarity in law. We need the absence of arbitrariness. " Bill C14 as written puts far to much power in the hands of medical professions and negates due process - in much the same way the BC Mental Health Act. does. 

MP Voting – Policy, Morality & Abortion

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In reading Mr. Murphy’s recent piece in the National Post titled “Christian’s Need not Apply”, Mr. Murphy references profound ethical dilemmas at the intersection of politics and religion; I assert there should never be a dilemma there. Mr. Murphy was contemplating the challenge of religious conscience, voting, the abortion issue and Justin Trudeau’s insistence that all liberals must vote in favour of pro-choice. Now, the abortion is the most difficult of issues by which to make a point because, it has been so badly tarnished by an extended and heated debate; one hopes if the point can be made here, it will provide a means by which to conduct governance absent the inappropriate imposition of what is often religious doctrine. I should premise this discourse by saying that I live in harmony with the Charter of Rights and freedoms and most Christians would find little fault with the way I live, save perhaps a little too much zeal in Scotch consumption; the key thing to note, however, is the delineation between the two – religion & governance.

 

In forging policy, the very first question is “what are we endeavouring to manage”. If the policy is related to human action and or human interface, the next question is “what goods are being moved forward or harms are being reduced”. Here we take our guidance from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 7, Life, Liberty and Security of person provisions that we are at liberty to conduct our lives as we see fit, save a direct and immediate threat to another or the public at large. The Supreme Court of Canada has read the charter and is applying it, and this will be the rigour by which legislation will be tested in the future. The only time a personal action can be managed by a statute in Canada and have continuity with the Charter is when it has externalities that affect public health & safety – in an immediate way. Mr. Trudeau Sr. said “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” and he was right, nor the kitchen, nor my liquor cabinet, nor my medicine cabinet – the government has no role to play in private and personal choice. To have a diverse and secular society this is as it must be.  

 

The critical assumption that must be maintained in the contemplation of legislation is that we are governing a population of informed adults who have the right to make choices and resist the inclination to protect people from themselves. The paternalist bent in governance in Canada is offensive to the informed and enlightened. The encroachment on personal liberty is insidiously escalating in Canada and has been for some time, government finds its way into every aspect of our personal lives. The channel by which government often finds its way into our personal lives is via morality-based legislation, the other channel is through government-provisioned services – e.g. medical services, between the two, Canada has become a totalitarian state. By accepting that others’ truths are as valid as our own, we can forge a human interface between diverse groups that is harmonious. Societal harmony is in no way everyone believing the same thing, it is providing a venue by which people of diverging beliefs can co-exist.

 

The abortion issue is most challenging, for me and most others I believe, because it bumps up against a universal concern for the sanctity of life. At the other end of life, death, the way is crystal clear; it is an adult managing their own life’s end. With the issue of abortion, it is the suspension of a created life that is so troubling for us all. Here, however, we need to ask ourselves, what rational woman would end a pregnancy absent good reason. How is an organization as blunt and unwieldy as a government going to intervene effectively in such a herculean choice to be made by a woman?

 

If offering council to a young woman who was contemplating ending an accidental pregnancy, my advice would be to carry to term and find an agreeable arrangement for the child’s well-being. This advice would be offered less from a moral perspective and more from a concern for the long-term happiness of the young woman. I have limited experience here, but I do know, that no one I’ve encountered has found happiness from having an abortion and many have from happiness witnessing a new life.  The most important consideration here is that there was an accidental pregnancy in the first place – the event in and of itself demonstrates a complete lack of leadership in the young girl’s life – she has really been failed by the people responsible for her. Even in the case of just an unwanted pregnancy, the personal circumstance is so nuanced there is no way to draft legislation to address what is a deeply personal issue. We have to rely on the good judgement of women and support mechanisms to maintain this as a very last resort in the most difficult of circumstances – where the whole complex of events makes it medically necessary. Will there be errors made, it is inherent in the whole human endeavour that tragic errors occur, it is a question of finding the best means to mitigate human tragedy. 

  

The very best way to address any moral issue, and this is no exception, is by being active in civil society. Seek to effect good and wholesome behaviour through culture, a culture of love, informing, support and health, rather than a culture of the persecution of the sinner. It is the ambient culture of shame, the overzealous suppression of sexual inclination and the seemingly unquenchable desire for the “moral” to punish that has driven so many women to abortion and many to extreme harm and death. If it is Christian morality you’re drawing on for guidance here, the look to Christ for direction, as opposed to dogma, Christ taught about tolerance and love as opposed to fear and control. Most of the pain associated with the whole challenge could be avoided with openness and being proactive, this of all issues calls for leadership at the forefront, rather than managing the aftermath.

 

 

As a nation we had reached equilibrium on this issue, an awkward consensus – perhaps an agreement to disagree; it is odd that this issue came into election concern from the progressives, normally it is the pro-life group railing against the present Canadian circumstance.  The fact that it could be activated in political interests as Mr. Murphy asserts, reflects the mercenary nature of politics; it is my sense, that in this case, it was a predominantly progressive Canada protecting hard-earned ground.

MORE ON LAW AND MORALITY

CLICK BELOW

Creation of Policy - Correct Moral Perspective

Rational Policy - Policy of Choice

Violence Against Women - Causation

Progressing personal liberty case for moral relativism

Death with Dignity - Our Right Our Choice

Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay

Minister of Justice and Attorney General 

Email: peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca

RE: Supreme Court Decision – Death with Dignity

I am relieved at the Supreme Court's decision to allow us to manage our own life’s end. It is fundamental that we, as free people, retain the right of dominion over mind and body. One always wishes to live forever, we all come to the end, and when we do, we should be permitted to manage it.

I have advocated for this approach aggressively over the years. I sat through my mother’s death; we removed the intravenous and watched her die for 3 days. It was an utterly stupid circumstance, her death was a foregone conclusion, and we were forced to sit, watch her suffer and wait for the inevitable; this is emblematic of “palliative” practices in play now.  I loved my mother, I cared for her without government help, and then I had the government between her and me in her passing, she suffered for no reason – her fate and the fate of millions who have suffered rests on the heads of people who have distorted the compassion that Christ himself taught us.

The management of one’s own life end is an extremely personal matter, the state has no role to play here, save to ensure that people’s wishes are respected. Much of the challenge with ceding choice to the individual on this matter emanates from an archaic interpretation of Christian Theology. The Christian moral complex has served us well in most regards, where it is failing us or where it bumps up against freedom of choice, the state is obligated to side with the individual – that is what a secular democracy requires.

The constant refrain against death with dignity from the people with disabilities is unwarranted. One understands their concern in the context of government conduct in the past, that is to say, programs like state-sanctioned sterilization terrify us all. The same progress that is facilitating the choice this court decision provides, has quelled any inclination that anyone rational actor might have in treating the disabled in a way that is untoward. The concern expressed by many in the disabled community with regard to the systemization of their demise is grossly insulting to us all, or to suggest that we would stand by while people were encouraged to end their lives is equally insulting. The fears are unfounded, we are becoming increasingly more concerned that the disabled community finds its way into society, the whole trend in Canadian society is to become more inclusive.  This group’s fear should in no way affect my choice to end my life as I see fit.

There seems to be a generalized mindset from opponents to the right to choose to end one’s life that somehow the government will, or other actors, begin to take control of that choice. The fearmongering about the systemized euthanizing of our old people or the disabled. These are irrational comments, we are effecting a state of CHOICE, the only way someone can have their life ended is by choice. These irrational arguments and fearmongering emanate from the desire to impose a single moral complex on the entire population, the state has no place in the imposition of morality; morality is best dealt with in the civil society. The sanctity of life is in no way diminished by extending the choice to people to have a dignified end or an end of their choice, the quality of life itself, however, is bolstered.  

The key element of “regulation” or law in this matter is to ensure that CHOICE resides with the individual in totality. This must be ensured by the government, the only means that a Doctor’s assistance to end life is rendered is by the direction of the affected individual OR by a written directive in the form of a living will.  It is critical that this is never a “medical” decision, or a decision of medical personnel or a government representative, this must always be isolated from the state and to the individual. By way of example, should a ward of the state fall into a circumstance that is terminal and be rendered unable to offer clear direction to the state or is deemed absent of capacity to choose, then all the conventions for the preservation of life or hitherto conventions of palliative care must be applied. Provisioning this, loud and clear, in the legislation sees to the liberty of the competent and addresses the concerns of the frail and disabled.  

The days of government managing the personal lives of the populace are waning, the Canadian population is generally progressively inclined, well-educated and very competent – they are best suited to run their own lives. I adhere in the main to the Christian moral complex, which is what shaped me; education and study have informed any choices I make outside that complex – that is my right and my choice. Others may make choices to live under a different code perhaps, which is their choice and their right. One has to have confidence in their belief system’s validity to accept the presence of another under Canada’s dominion, it is theological insecurity that is fueling opposition.

We are a secular democracy as opposed to a theocracy; we need to work to support that in the context of a morality-neutral public square, that is to say, the public square needs to facilitate the innate right to maintain a given morality when exposed to the public square. By ensuring the choice to end one’s life resides solely with the individual, we ensure the public square is neutral – my making a choice in private has no influence or effect on others. This is the spirit of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is supported by the subsequent court process, that our actions absent threat of harm, or harm to others, are permitted.

   

Please encourage your counterparts in government to be courageous in forwarding the right to hold dominion of one’s mind and body, it is the most fundamental element of human existence, and it is the most sacred responsibility of governance.   

Thank you for your work and leadership thus far.

Kind Regards,

Neil E. Thomson

Canada - Let's Talk Culture

It is curious to me that there are a group(s) of people who see fit to pass judgment on others' chosen way of life – whether it be diet, social habits – and the like.  They make observations, and engage in the application of various sources of pain from a position of anonymity – and never engage in discourse or debate to defend or support their position.  The challenge I have is that most times they are unclear on the criteria they are acting on: they execute in a subjective soup.

The propensity to remain anonymous builds a culture absent of accountability and impairs attributing responsibility for errant actions. It reduces people from people of substance to something less desirable. The random application of pain or discord is a tactic used very effectively by Stalin and others to quell the population’s inclination for self-advancement – in Stalin’s case, the random shooting of citizens was used to ensure the population's head stayed down – they lived in a state of surrender. Anonymity breeds underhandedness, one realizes that in the defence of good underhandedness can be a virtue; however, to make a habit of it in daily life is undesirable.

Are we culturally permitted to ignore the rights of others and to simply ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the preeminent document to direct human interface in Canada?  If the right to hold domain over one’s mind, body, and property and to have a private life is no longer held sacred, then what is the society we are building? If an individual’s autonomy is taken by the anonymous, and all in authority turn a blind eye, have we taken rights and replaced them with corruption. There are many types of corruption, corruption is the permitting conduct that deviates from the stated modalities of conduct as prescribed by the government we all share; in Canada, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that defines the social contract. We can congregate, form allegiance and within a defined private association engage in whatever life modalities we choose - the Charter gives us that. HOWEVER, when you are handed a mandate by the government of Canada, you're bound to exercise yourself within that mandate in COMPLETE accord with the Charter. When historical conduct comes up against what the Charter says, in officialdom, the Charter Rules. If in governance we permit infidelity to occur between action and the principles expressed in the Charter - then we will stop being governed, and might and mass will determine where we go. When it is required to “gang” up to live, when people go outside the law to engage in force or corporal conduct when thugs suited leather or silk run like marauders with no channel to be brought to account – what society have we built. When underhandedness becomes your life modality, then you move from sight – for something somewhat necessary to uphold and repair becomes the mechanism for others to destroy and harm – worse, however, is that the distinction between the two becomes muddled.

A culture of subservience is a very ugly place to take society, it reduces people to chickens scratching for crumbs and approval, it progresses the worst of people; it makes the worst of people. To force people to surrender, to haze people to groupthink, is to make a population of Lemmings.  Lemmings are subject to following what is offered and have followed some of the most hideous forays in human history. This is why we must reform induction and hazing practices in some of our institutions in Canada, they are essentially forming themselves in option to the constitution of our country.

There is a better way, begin first with a declaration, inspire with creed, and let creed be supported by critically thinking & independent people – who make their own choices. Make honesty integral to the person first and teach subversion as a measure of last resort - very last. My mother taught me never to betray a confidence and my father taught me a firm handshake and that the eyes are the windows of the soul – there is merit in this life modality – while one lives in the open and with it comes a degree vulnerability, it sends the message that you're willing to challenge and be challenged – to make the societal interface an exchange of ideas, rather than an exercise in might.  

We can do better, in Canada we've got the gift the enlightenment gave us, albeit an imperfect and incomplete document, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – we should complete the document, and we should build a culture that is consistent with its values.  

Law, Legislation and Liberty - LEGISLATION THAT PUTS CHOICE - WHERE CHOICE BELONGS - WITH YOU

Law, Legislation and Liberty - LEGISLATION THAT PUTS CHOICE - WHERE CHOICE BELONGS - WITH YOU   

READING TIME: 10 MIN

All legislation should be viewed through the lens of the two freedoms, as in law there are "legal tests" there should be "law creation tests". The two freedoms test would ask the questions "have we reduced or expanded individual choice?" and "have we facilitated action?".  

Two Freedoms:

The First Freedom - The absence of coercion.

If you believe as I do, that the assurance of personal sovereignty is the most fundamental right - innate in our humanity and that government’s paramount focus should be the protection of personal liberty, then you will accept the wisdom of giving the first freedom priority over all other considerations in the creation of legislation. In legislation, the first freedom is best satisfied by the government engaging in the creation of legislation that commits the government to inform people, rather than to control people - educate rather than regulate.

The public is best served by having in government, deeply enshrined, a clear direction to protect by informing the individual, so they may respond to their environment as they see fit within their own good judgment. To the extent knowledge is applied under decree from central authority - is the extent to which imperfect response to a local stimulus occurs, to the extent knowledge is applied at the point of action - is the extent to which better outcomes will occur.

Decree governance rarely provisions solutions tailored to the multitude of actions the populous encounters or undertakes, requiring the populous to adjust actions in accord with circumstance rather than decree (law), thereby requiring them to move outside the law – a little at first and then as much as is required to effect the action they want. This reality effects the erosion of the credibility of the law and makes the government a “micro-manager”. As no central body can anticipate every human eventuality, the practical requirements of life push people outside the law and having been forced by practical concern outside the law they become vulnerable to coercive intervention from corrupted officials or competitive actors. The relevance of law is diminished and state authority is appropriated for self-interest, in this phenomenon, the justice in government falls with only its authority remaining. This is a toxic circumstance, as it leads to the corruption of government and, having been driven into the minutia of human actions government becomes increasingly costly and complex.

Government must seek to develop institutional adversity with respect to regulation and prohibition when they fall in conflict with the choice of a reasoned person. Governments' historical roots extend from a modality of direction through control, as was necessary perhaps in antiquity with the masses having greatly reduced intellectual capital relative to the contemporary population. Today, however, the masses are well educated and capable of self-governance. Governmental paternalism has become outmoded and unnecessarily stifling to the populous’ choice. 

By having the first freedom, the absence of coercion as the paramount focus in devising legislation – government removes itself from the enforcement of morality; this removes bias from the governance of one moral position over another, allowing a truly secular society to emerge. Canadian society has as a foundation a set of Christian morals, and for the most part, they have served us well. There are aspects of the application of Christian morality as applied by the government that generates immorality, these aspects are in effect the product of conflicting programming that flows from the Christian narrative into society and by extension government. The errors that emerge from this reality have been on repeat since Christianity appropriated government to further its interests. By allowing the first freedom to lead governance, over time, the positive aspects of the Christian influence will gain prominence and the negative aspects will subside; and this reality will extend to all perspectives – the best of all moral origins will emerge.       

The following is an example of some typical language one encounters in government legislation and an example of how wording may be changed to express the importance of personal choice.

2.3 The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation by prohibiting and regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics.

This time with liberty in mind

2.3 The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation, by collecting pertinent information in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics for distribution to the citizenry and then by regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics, in a manner that recognizes a reasonable person's sovereign right to utilize foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics according to their own judgment.

This wording shifts the role of government away from prohibiting to the role of informing. To support the efficacy of this assertion, that extending more judgment to the individual in the context of extremes is rational, consider the following; Arsenic is widely available but rarely eaten as there is a general knowledge that Arsenic is harmful, so reasonable people refrain from consumption based on information as opposed to regulation, so the scientific information pertaining to harm is a de facto prohibition.

Regulations requiring labelling stating Arsenic's presence are all that is required for the safety of the public. Vitamin C, on the other hand, requires judgment in consumption; there is a wide range of views throughout health literature as to varying doses and their affects. Conventional medicine in my view recommends too low of a dosage; I take into consideration the government recommendations and choose to consume a higher dose. I also disagree with my doctor on the proper dosage for Vitamin C. As an informed individual, I personally make a choice as to the risk and benefit of a given dosage, and choose to consume a higher dosage than all the conventional bodies recommend. That is my right.

There is an endless array of examples of government intruding on the individual for any number of reasons, and very rarely are they valid. The first freedom’s focus, in this case, would provide a circumstance where the government extends judgment to the individual by setting the priority to inform rather to prohibit or regulate. There is a continuum of consideration, Arsenic is clearly accepted by people as a substance that one should avoid taking, and rational people avoid it. Vitamin C requires people to inform themselves regarding its use and exercise judgement, Alcohol carries an affect that some desire. By committing to informing people of the potential benefits and harms the government achieves a better outcome by relying on rational people to exercise judgment at the point of consumption.   

It is important to note that the legislation that emerges under the more liberal “purpose” may end up looking similar to the legislation that falls out of the more authoritarian “purpose”, the difference, however, is the spirit is dramatically changed – putting the government in its rightful place – subordinated to people as opposed to subordinating people.    

The Second Freedom - The provision of base resources – knowledge and access to “capital”

The satisfaction of the second freedom is difficult as it is often overexerted, extending government into the realm of personal choice. The addressing of the second freedom must have at its core the avoidance of intrusion on the first freedom. The second freedom should only be exercised in matters of human concern related to minimum standards and personal liberation in the context of societal advancement. At the end of slavery in the USA, slaves were freed to a circumstance lesser than they experienced under slavery-free but physically worse off.  There was an obligation on the part of the government to provide the means and ability to exercise their newfound liberty – through basic sustenance and education. The second freedom’s valid application only extends to the point of execution, insomuch as it draws on the resources of society at large. There is an important distinction to be made with respect to government reasonability, slaves absent knowledge were completely ill-equipped to function – too often in modern society, the second freedom gets extended to include extravagant elements of life.        

In Sweden, the government changed the pension plan from mandatory mass contribution to a pool, to one of the mandatory contribution of an individual to a single account. The Swedish government did an excellent job of mitigating intrusion on the first freedom and attending to the second freedom in the execution of this plan. The government assessed the portion of the pre-accumulated pension attributable to one individual and provided a choice as to how that individual could manage their own pension amount. The individual could choose to self-direct the funds or they could choose a number of plans the government provided. While people were under some coercion to participate, the Swedish government mitigated this intrusion through the provision of choice.  

We are all permitted to purchase alcohol and as a result, a few become afflicted with alcoholism. Policy relating to this issue requires an ex post facto response. The first freedom is rightly extended and then for the few who are proven incapable, via judicial review, then the second freedom is actuated - mitigation programs. This stands in contrast to what is often the approach where the right of a sound individual to exercise good judgment is impaired by legislation designed to administer the actions of those of poor judgment.