Assisted Dying has been illegal in Great Britain, but as of yesterday it is permitted, at least in the first stage of legislation.There was an intense debate in the British House of Commons but in the end the bill was passed by 330 votes to 275. This will now be scrutinized in parliamentary committees and amendments to the bill may be put forward.
The bill applies to those who are at least 18 years old, have received a terminal diagnosis and have no more than six months to live. Two doctors and a judge would have to give their approval, and fatal drugs would need to be self-administered.This is more restrictive in almost every way than Canadian legislation.
Among those opposed were religious leaders, although the now departed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was supportive. The objections were valid, as they have been in here in Canada. It is our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, to ensure that palliative care is available to everyone, and to have safeguards for those with disabilities.
I have been concerned that the tail has wagged the dog with our federal government bowing to pressures from provincial courts along with the speed at which some changes have been introduced. Still, I do feel that Medical Assistance in Dying, as it's termed in Canada, should be an option. We have gained the ability to prolong life even when it means suffering for some. According to the New York Times:
Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker and surgeon, rejected claims by opponents of the bill that its scope would later be extended to include a wider category of people. “This is not some slippery slope,” he said. “We are shortening death, not life, for our patients. This is not life or death; this is death or death.”
It is rightly argued that we should not be "playing god" in these often difficult and emotional circumstances and God help us and judge us if we become cavalier about assisting people to end their lives. It could also be said that we could be acting as deities when we use means to extend life, causing suffering and indignity.
I've offered before that it is our duty to listen carefully and to make our voices heard whenever new proposals are made regarding what we term MAID. The balance between compassion and justice will never be easy.
I'm with you David. This is one of those issues I can see both sides of the argument. But I fall on the side of supporting MAID when the conditions exist for such a measure. Having seen a family member suffer because she was guilted into rejecting MAID, it would have been much more humane if she had gone ahead with it as she had initially wished. As was mentioned in your blog, it's not life or death, it's death or death.
ReplyDeleteI do think it's essential to consider different points of view and look at all of them through the lens of compassion. No one should be guilted into prolonged suffering -- why do some feel they have that right? Thanks Roger, and keep the faith with your Steelers.
ReplyDelete