Call For Right-To-Die Debate in Canada Elicits Condemnation and Denial

OTTAWA, November 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Robert Cushman, CEO of the Champlain Local Health Integration Network in eastern Ontario is mystified by reaction to an interview he gave to the Ottawa Citizen. While saying there needs to be open public discussion about how best to serve the needs of the aging baby boom generation, he said the debate should take place in the context of rising health care costs.

This has led to accusations that he is actually calling for a debate on euthanasia and the right to "die with dignity" as a matter of public policy.

Dr. Will Johnston, president of Physicians for Life, said in an interview in the Vancouver Sun, "Dr. Cushman seems to be hinting at a personal bias towards legalized suicide and he is trying to open the debate. He is softening public opinion by raising a false issue of costs. Our health care costs are not high because of a lack of assisted suicide."

Dr. Johnston continued that "Dr. Cushman is playing into the hands of right-to-die advocates who want to legalize euthanasia, which Canadians have already rejected. And tying the issue to the rising cost of health care is a rather ingenious way of broadening its appeal."

Though Dr. Cushman emphasized respect for senior's independence and their dignity, and that bottom lines aren't his only motivation for seeking public dialogue, his descriptions of "80- or 90-year-olds on ventilators being sent to intensive care units, some of whom have Do Not Resuscitate orders lost in the system," sent an ambiguous message.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said Dr. Cushman had backed off from his earlier statements because "the media seem to have derived different inferences from his comments."

Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are also concerned that elderly patients might be coerced into wanting to kill themselves out of guilt for their financial burden on families or the health care system.

Schadenberg explained that influencing an aging population to refuse medical treatment when it might be necessary and helpful is part of the concept of the "duty to die" which right-to-die advocates encourage.

"So even if Cushman is not saying explicitly that suicide and euthanasia would be an answer to this problem of an aging population and mounting pressure on health services, implicitly the result is "dying with dignity," that is, assisted suicide and euthanasia," Schadenberg concluded.

This is a very slipper slope for both sides.

I think that economic considerations and or the mere convenience of family or the Government having to care for the elderly or the seriously ill should never, ever be considered when making end of life decisions. These decisions should never left up to government or the HMO/insurance bureaucrats or to selfish family members.

Euthanasia = Wrong! Assisted Suicide = Wrong!

With that being said however, medical science has developed to the point where “life” can be “physically” extended past the point where any reasonable person or ethical or moral medical professional recognizes that any sort of life or chance at a recovery is possible and sometimes the more merciful thing is to stop artificial life support.

I’ve been through this painful process more than once.

My mother-in-law, after many years of illness and well into her eighties became comatose and total unresponsive while in a nursing home. She had no more will or desire to live. She was racked with pain and had one serious illness after another and was finally diagnosed with a very slow moving but ultimately fatal cancer. This cancer was not treatable in that any treatment for it, given her fragile state, would kill her more quickly than the disease would. She had finally refused to eat anymore before she lapsed into a coma. Before she lost consciousness, she told us repeatedly how tired she was and how she just wanted to “go home” so she could be reunited with her parents and her brothers and sisters.

Of course my husband and I insisted that everything possible be done to make her comfortable and while we didn’t want to hasten her death, we insisted that no extraordinary measures be taken. But against her written express wishes and ours, the doctors in the nursing home sent her to a hospital/hospice and put her on a feeding tube and a respirator and threatened to take us to court if we objected. She died three long years later after her heart finally gave out and the DNR order was followed. By this time she was in a rigid fetal position and the funeral home had to literally break her bones in order that she could be laid out in a coffin for her funeral. There was nothing merciful or ethical or medically sound in the treatment she received.

FYI, my mother-in-law was on Medicare and Medicaid and rather than saving money, we think the primary motivation for keeping artificially alive for so long against her and our express wishes was based on the money the nursing home and hospital received from the Government to continue her care past what was medically and ethically reasonable. To me, that is as morally irresponsible as it is to hasten a person’s death by euthanasia.

Several years later, within two years, both my parents suffered medically untreatable diseases. My parents and our family were fortunate that that they were in prestigious hospitals and that everything medically possible was done for them and all sound medical measures were exhausted. Believe me when I say that the doctors were not willing to give up and did everything possible to save their lives, but when science failed; we, their doctors and our family, were all in agreement to end treatment and artificial life support and they were allowed to die with peace and dignity. This was not an economic decision or one born out of convenience, but one based on true mercy and on sound medical advice without any concern or interference by the Government.

This is a very slipper slope for both sides.

I think there are some who would like to see the end come to the baby boomers as quickly as possible, for what they believe to be principles. They believe boomers messed up society on them, so the sooner the boomers are gone the sooner they can start trying to fix things. It's almost like they see a rational reason to fire up the funaces, tho it would be ever so much nicer if we fulfilled their desire ourselves.

Since there was some finger pointing at people my age, figured it appropriate to ask if those doing the pointing were in an age group that had done any better. My questions were not rhetorical.

I’ve been through this painful process more than once.

As have I. I've also had to consider the issue on my own behalf, in the hope that I can spare my sons from having to make the hard decisions for me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.