I think it is incorrect to lay at the door of MAiD the deficits in our social support programs that it exposes.
Opponents to MAiD yammer on incessantly about “natural death” - I got to watch my mother die that “natural death” this past summer - it was by no means peaceful, or easy - her last months were filled with the infirmities of a failing body, and an accelerating dementia that made it impossible for her to understand what was happening. MAiD was not an option in her case for a number of reasons, but anyone talking about “natural death” has no idea what the hell they are talking about.
The obvious problems with our supports for disability and those who need those supports are being made clear by the discussion of people accessing MAiD because those supports are so woefully inadequate. That isn’t the fault of MAiD - it is the fault of governments who find it much safer to talk about “tax cuts”, and “job creation” rather than actually funding support programs properly.
MAiD certainly raises a myriad of complex moral and ethical issues for medical practitioners that we should not ignore. Those are complex discussions that exist within the practice of medicine, and deserve to be carefully scrutinized through an appropriate ethical lens. However, difficult ethical problems are seldom resolved adequately with absolutist answers. Just as with abortion, MAiD needs to become the purview of the doctor and the patient working together to arrive at an ethical decision. Lawmakers attempting to draw out ethical boundaries inevitably creates a series of pernicious legal problems that are next to impossible to address with the relatively blunt language of law.
When I see these columns, I am reminded of a protest over cuts to AISH that Klein enacted where Klein quipped of protestors “they don’t look very disabled to me”. The cruelty of the far right (call them neoliberal or neoconservative if you wish) is the underlying problem, not MAiD.
Thought provoking as usual Jeremy. Reminds me of a book I read years ago called Denial of the Soul by Scott Peck. Worth a read if you haven’t already. Happy New Year to you in your new city, new digs. 🎉
Jeremy you have provided a lot of good reasons for opposition to euthanasia in this context. I personally would rather our country improve these services-especially long term care, before we expand this program. There will always be people who would still choose euthanasia as there are with people who would choose suicide generally but reducing it is a good. Here is another point of view given to me by my friend which has some good argments, too:
I think it is incorrect to lay at the door of MAiD the deficits in our social support programs that it exposes.
Opponents to MAiD yammer on incessantly about “natural death” - I got to watch my mother die that “natural death” this past summer - it was by no means peaceful, or easy - her last months were filled with the infirmities of a failing body, and an accelerating dementia that made it impossible for her to understand what was happening. MAiD was not an option in her case for a number of reasons, but anyone talking about “natural death” has no idea what the hell they are talking about.
The obvious problems with our supports for disability and those who need those supports are being made clear by the discussion of people accessing MAiD because those supports are so woefully inadequate. That isn’t the fault of MAiD - it is the fault of governments who find it much safer to talk about “tax cuts”, and “job creation” rather than actually funding support programs properly.
MAiD certainly raises a myriad of complex moral and ethical issues for medical practitioners that we should not ignore. Those are complex discussions that exist within the practice of medicine, and deserve to be carefully scrutinized through an appropriate ethical lens. However, difficult ethical problems are seldom resolved adequately with absolutist answers. Just as with abortion, MAiD needs to become the purview of the doctor and the patient working together to arrive at an ethical decision. Lawmakers attempting to draw out ethical boundaries inevitably creates a series of pernicious legal problems that are next to impossible to address with the relatively blunt language of law.
When I see these columns, I am reminded of a protest over cuts to AISH that Klein enacted where Klein quipped of protestors “they don’t look very disabled to me”. The cruelty of the far right (call them neoliberal or neoconservative if you wish) is the underlying problem, not MAiD.
Jeremy,
This was such a beautiful piece. Thanks for your humility in your change of perspective.
Solidarity,
ML
Thought provoking as usual Jeremy. Reminds me of a book I read years ago called Denial of the Soul by Scott Peck. Worth a read if you haven’t already. Happy New Year to you in your new city, new digs. 🎉
Jeremy you have provided a lot of good reasons for opposition to euthanasia in this context. I personally would rather our country improve these services-especially long term care, before we expand this program. There will always be people who would still choose euthanasia as there are with people who would choose suicide generally but reducing it is a good. Here is another point of view given to me by my friend which has some good argments, too:
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/canadian-euthanasia-as-moral-progress?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=98102&post_id=92748191&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email