Editor: I am writing in response to the letter by Benjamin Budlong (The Times, Dec. 24) regarding Bill S-225 on euthanasia. Euthanasia is an issue that concerns the power of life and death and should not be taken lightly in any circumstances. That being said, it is important to accept that patients who are suffering due to terminal or untreatable illnesses deserve the right to a physician-assisted death.
In 2009, Bill C-384 concerning the “right to die with dignity” was rejected. While Bill C-384 and the new Bill S-225 are fundamentally the same, S-225 clarifies in detail the conditions and assessments required for a patient seeking euthanasia.
Bill S-225 offers a number of safeguards to protect the patient. To summarize them, if an adult patient with a terminal or untreatable illness or disability meets the conditions outlined in S-225 and seeks euthanasia, they may make a request with an assisting physician and a consulting physician. The patient’s consent must be voluntary and in writing in front of two witnesses and both physicians.
As for the witnesses, they cannot be related to the patient, an employee or physician where the patient receives treatment, or entitled to a part of the patient’s estate. This helps in eliminating any vested interest.
After that, there is a minimum of a two- week waiting period before the procedure can take place. Upon requesting euthanasia, the patient must fully understand the procedure and be informed of all alternatives for pain control and care. If at any time the patient objects, the procedure will be stopped. All of these safeguards are to ensure the patient has fully and voluntarily consented to a physician-assisted death.
Nowhere does Bill S-225 include “physiological suffering.” But psychological suffering is included.
Like physical illnesses, there are some mental illnesses that are permanent and terminal and cause severe psychological suffering. Examples include Alzheimer’s or dementia.
Budlong argues that euthanasia could be used to end short-term emotional suffering, but Bill S-225 clearly states that all illnesses must be untreatable and with no chance of improvement. Short-term psychological suffering does not fit into this category.
If decriminalized, Budlong argues that euthanasia would be used unwillingly on elderly or disabled patients. On the contrary, there is no evidence to show that this slippery slope would ever become reality. The requirement of patient consent is clearly stated in Bill S-225 as “acting voluntarily, free from coercion or undue influence.”
And with the safeguards in place, the patients have the right to revoke their decision at any time. It would be very difficult, if not nearly impossible, for a patient to be euthanized against their will. Therefore, there is no evidence to support that those who are elderly or disabled would be encouraged to seek euthanasia or be discouraged from living.
Bill S-225 does not promote or encourage euthanasia. Bill S-225 simply provides patients with a right over their own life and death. Those who support the right to euthanasia do not believe that life is pointless or a burden. These people just believe that those who suffer from untreatable or terminal illnesses should have the right to end their suffering if they seek it.
Shelby Deglan,
Langley