medicine , to Aunt Martha ’ s chicken soup , to outright quackery !
As the senior population grows , the discussion of the dignity of both life and death has become more prevalent among us . As a result of such discussions , our cultural belief systems are being tried in a manner not experienced previously . Sociologists are quick to remind us that our belief systems are , for the most part , anchored in defined religious dogma . The Dalai Lama states , “ Our behaviors are greatly different if we believe that humans are spiritual beings on a human journey , or human beings on a spiritual journey .”
Looking closely at the history of Canada over the past 100 years , we can find numerous examples where ‘ royal battles ’ have been fought on matters that are rooted in our diverse belief systems . Military conscription , unwed motherhood , abortion , same-sex marriage and divorce are just a few such issues . My commentary is not intended to demonstrate which side of the issue is correct and justifiable . Rather , it is to simply admit that each of the issues mentioned has , in its time , created a significant change in the general belief system of our nurtured Canadian culture .
Conscription was considered to be a divine absolute : war was fought for God and country equally . Unwed motherhood condemned the victim to a life of shame , which often caused the collapse of an entire family — let alone prejudging forever the innocent newborn . Abortion was sold on the ‘ right ’ of each woman to have total responsibility for her physical being . Same-sex marriage is permitted in our country because our courts have deemed that this is a matter that supports human rights . While divorce was accepted early in our social structure for very limited reasons , today the door appears to swing open at the slightest nudge . Over time , is it the question of a right or wrong that has supported each of these practices or legalities , or is it the fact that , with increased use and familiarity , comes acceptance ?
While the intrinsic right to live a life of personal dignity is revered , it is not limited to seniors ( approximately twenty percent of the population ). We must pause to consider not only what is , but what is yet to come . The following question needs to be asked : is it possible that a vision that embraces new ethics and social norms — and which integrates euthanasia and assisted dying in medical practices — would greatly alter our acceptance and understanding of the end of our life , of dying , of life supports , of medical practices , of the relationship between patient and doctor , and the relationship amongst those who provide health care in all its forms ?
Given the volatility of this discussion , it is absolutely necessary that we reflect upon the implications of our sentiments for our institutions of justice , ethics and societal supports ; for , eventually , the legal justification of a medical practice which supports assisted dying will become common practice by a consensus which may be both socially acceptable and totally irreversible . While universal acceptance is no more possible for this issue than it has been for the previously mentioned historical cultural changes , euthanasia , assisted dying and suicide must be dealt with in our time .
In current reports and other literature that supports the right to a dignified death , there are some key words that keep arising and seem to be used to define the same or even different meanings . Euthanasia and assisted dying ( also known as assisted suicide ) are often presented as if no other way to die with dignity exists . It is also essential that we understand that euthanasia , or choosing to end one ’ s life with the assistance of a trained medical specialist , are , in fact , two very different actions .
The discussion of this fundamental topic has been rather limited in Alberta . Albertans often seem to be unwilling or unable to discuss matters such as these in a public forum . The arguments for or against these matters are very much a testimonial of how words can incite uncontrolled hysteria . Is it justifiable to believe that those who oppose euthanasia or assisted dying will die without dignity while all others who condone such practices are somehow guaranteed a dignified death ? This ambiguity is very much promoted by pro- euthanasia interest groups pushing for a rapid political solution steeped in thought subject to great emotion . Why has this demand for the right to die with dignity arisen ? One needs to look no further than the rise of therapeutic practices , which are relentless in their commitment to ‘ fight tooth and nail ’ for extending living . A case in point of such intervention is the Karen Ann Quinlan case . Although in an irreversible coma , she was kept ‘ alive ’ from 1975 to 1985 , when the courts finally decreed that all forms of life support be removed .
The strongest voices in our midst seem to have reached a consensus that the human right that supports the individual ’ s right in matters relating to the quality of one ’ s life must be maintained and protected at all costs . Only then can we be assured that , when circumstances demand it , we will have the justifiable right to make the final determination of when and how our life will end .
Where do you stand on these matters ?
ALBERTA RETIRED TEACHERS ’ ASSOCIATION News & Views Volume 19 21 , No . 32
21