The Supreme Court of sa国际传媒鈥檚 decision last week to strike down the ban on assisted suicide comes 20 years too late for Sue Rodriguez, but it鈥檚 a culmination of the North Saanich woman鈥檚 battle for the right of an individual to decide how and when to die.
The decision is not an end, but a beginning. The court has given Parliament a year to draft new legislation that allows lucid and consenting adults who are enduring intolerable physical or mental suffering to seek medical help in ending their lives.
Parliament must not drag its feet on this controversial issue. The high court鈥檚 decision leaves a vacuum into which all sorts of unintended consequences could be drawn.
Rodriguez suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig鈥檚 disease. It鈥檚 a debilitating, painful condition, wasting the body but not the brain. Rodriguez wanted to end her own life, but could not do so without help. Since assisting a suicide was illegal, in 1993 she took her plea to the Supreme Court of sa国际传媒, which ruled against her.
In the end, the ruling didn鈥檛 stop Rodriguez 鈥� she died with the help of a sympathetic physician in 1994. Her courage inspired others, and was even admired by those who didn鈥檛 share her beliefs.
Attitudes have shifted, and the number of Canadians supporting assisted suicide has grown. An Ipsos poll conducted in October 2014 found that 84 per cent of respondents agreed that 鈥渁 doctor should be able to help someone end their life if the person is a competent adult who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and repeatedly asks for assistance to die.鈥�
But while many are applauding the court鈥檚 ruling, many others are also alarmed. It is up to Parliament to reconcile the many conflicting concerns. It won鈥檛 be easy, but it鈥檚 necessary. Leaving it up to provinces and medical associations to implement regulations isn鈥檛 an option 鈥� that could result in a patchwork of rules that might, for example, see people travelling from one province to another in search of relief.
Legalized assisted suicide is not for everyone. It should be a choice available to adults capable of rational thought. It should still be illegal to encourage suicide, or help people commit suicide when they are suffering from depression or medical conditions that would affect their ability to think clearly and logically.
Supporting the right to an assisted suicide should never be perceived as encouraging suicide, or discounting the value of any human life. And it should not replace effective palliative care that helps people die with dignity and in as much comfort as possible.
Assisted suicide and the right to die are deeply personal and delicate subjects. In the end, we all have to make our own decisions, based on our moral and religious beliefs, as well as the pain we are suffering. Many people would still decide to let nature take its course even if assisted suicide is available.
Safeguards are essential. We would need to ensure that people can make their decisions without duress, especially those who have difficulty communicating. Disabled persons need to be assured their lives do not count less than other lives.
The vulnerable need to be protected from pressure or influence by others. There will be temptations, for example, to hurry things along to free up medical resources. It鈥檚 a situation that, without strong safeguards, could be horribly abused.
The Supreme Court has brought us into new territory; the journey ahead is fraught with dangers. Some advocates for assisted dying dismiss the 鈥渟lippery slope鈥� argument, but without proper safeguards and decisive action by Parliament, the slope could indeed become slippery.
Despite this being an election year, MPs should set aside partisan wranglings and focus on what is good for all Canadians.
