Apr 22, 2015


In response to Jule Koch Brison’s Letter to the Editor in the March 19 edition which claims the recent Supreme Court decision supporting choice for end of life is “subverting democracy”, the following information needs to be available to readers to correct the misleading conclusions outlined in the letter.

  1. The recent Supreme Court decision is quite the opposite to “subverting democracy”. Approximately 85% of Canadians support the need to change the law to give the patient a choice. Rarely has there been such overwhelming public support for a change in the law. Thanks to the court, governments are now directed to listen to public opinion and change the law to permit choice.
  2. The most fundamental aspect of the end-of-life support is the right of an individual patient to have the personal choice to decide on how his/her life ends. This choice is protected by the rigorous requirement for consent so that no one but the patient makes the choice. Patients who are unable to understand their choice, cannot receive assistance. Currently, patients regularly end their lives, often in a brutal and degrading manner...overdoses, gun shot to the head, cutting wrists, car accidents, car exhaust, poison, jumping off buildings, plastic bag over the head ...often endangering others. Other patients lie in beds, unaware of their surroundings or family, clothed in diapers (incontinent) and force fed, often for years. Because of the current prohibitive law, some patients who have been diagnosed with dementia, take their lives prematurely so they can still be in control to ensure their wishes actually happen. Under current law, patients cannot receive assistance to end their life. The recent unanimous Supreme Court decision simply permits the patient to have the choice of choosing a peaceful, dignified end-of–life with the assistance of modern science, whether administered by a physician, a family member, a nurse, a specially trained individual, or (as many are) the patient herself.
  3. The new law does not give doctors or the state “the power to kill people”. Quite the opposite...it gives the individual patient the right to choose a dignified and peaceful ending to their own life perhaps surrounded by family, instead of being scraped off a sidewalk having died violently and alone, or in great pain, or after living in a vegetative demented state for years.
  4. Vulnerable people are not endangered since the rigorous competence based CONSENT provisions ensure that the individual makes the choice...no one else (not the doctor, not the family, not anyone but the patient). No competent personal consent...no assistance! Our seniors are not going to be “murdered” or “killed by the state”.
  5. It is unfortunate that the minority of people (15%) who oppose the change in the law, don’t seem to realize that the change will not affect them. The right to choice is based on voluntary consent of the individual...anyone who does not want to access end of life medical assistance does not have to. At the same time, the great majority of patients who want the choice, do not want the minority telling them they can’t have it.

Sounds democratic to me?

David Pattenden

Support local
independant journalism by becoming a patron of the Frontenac News.