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
No comments:
Post a Comment