At its policy convention in Calgary this week, the Canadian Medical Association was poised to debate one of the most emotionally charged and ethically perilous issues in medicine: doctor-assisted death. But physicians got bogged down in semantics, in lengthy discussions about the appropriate language to use to describe hastening death at the end of life, and deferred real debate to a later, unspecified date and another unspecified time.
Marcia Angell was an editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world for two decades. She currently gives monthly lectures on ethics to faculty at Harvard Medical School. And she served on a panel that gave advice on medical issues to the White House. But Dr. Angell’s credentials were challenged, Wednesday, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia when a lawyer for the federal Department of Justice tried to prevent her affidavit from being entered in a case concerning physician-assisted suicide.
The words of a man who died in agonizing pain and those of his wife, who wept helplessly at his bedside for days while his life slowly ebbed, were read into the court record during the emotional opening of a right-to-die case. With a dozen lawyers in attendance, a packed public gallery inside and a crowd of placard-waving protestors opposed to change on the Supreme Court of British Columbia steps outside, lawyer Joseph Arvay started dramatically by reading the affidavits of Peter Fenker, and his wife, Grace.
Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.
Ms. Francine Lalonde moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee: Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005 . . . In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have. My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if the person continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness.