Dear Editor:
In response to Mr. Dean Clark of Langley, regarding his latest of very frequent missives, but particularly his communication published Oct. 30 under the heading: MAiD fails, I contribute what follows.
I respect Mr. Clark’s freedom to have, and to have published his views, opposing or otherwise. It is a freedom, after all, that so many around the world can only dream of – if dreams of such nature are permitted…
Nonetheless, I find it a comforting rule-of-thumb to consider how my wishes regarding this or that topic affect (‘inflict’ is an equal option here) others. Mr. Clark’s comments, over time, have tended to cover many hot-button issues, usually with a very conservative leaning. And that is his prerogative, yet, I wonder how beneficial that is in the end.
All too often what annoys us individually, in circumspect, is entirely tolerable when peered upon through the lens of how the government is best positioned when it stays outside territory that is quite frankly none of its business. Admittedly, many jurisdictions around the world do trample on topics that many Canadians are fortunate enough to consider ‘personal choice’. This is a huge benefit of life in Canada.
Returning to Mr. Clark’s lasted contribution’s point; Mr. Clark does not wish to have euthanasia in his life. Therefore, I urge he not request it of his doctor. Conversely, to insist that others cannot avail themselves of this legal option is effectively sticking a nose into business not pertaining to Mr. Clark. Freedom is a hard-won and a hard-kept thing. I’m sure that if Canada ever became as ultra-conservative as perhaps Mr. Clark is, that he, too, would see a pendulum swing far past the point of his own comfort zone or personal limits of acceptability.
I guess what I’m saying essentially boils down to: if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it!
Although I understand and respect Mr. Clark’s obvious religious concerns that frequently are very much tied to his social issue concerns, it seems once again a step to far (some would say far too far) to impose such dogma, limitation and ultra-conservativeness upon members of the whole community when they do not see the world through the same coloured glasses. That, too, would be a step too far (indeed, perhaps far too far).
Taking Mr. Clark’s words in the referenced article as entirely factual, lacking even the slightest leaning, I suggest it is best to keep one’s nose out of other families’ business – even if their situation helps further a social point you have personal vested interest in altering. No good ever comes of meddling. Although I am sure Mr. Clark wouldn’t see his latest letter as meddling.
Yet, I’m sure not everyone in the family of Mr. Alan Nichols would agree that the legal euthanasia was exactly as characterized in Mr. Clark’s writing.
Stephen Ross, Murrayville