Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 11/7/2016 (1532 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

The latest argument for limiting medical assistance in dying to those whose deaths are imminent revolves around the subject of "vulnerability." Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has consistently emphasized the need to "protect vulnerable persons who are disproportionately at risk of inducement to suicide."

In light of the youth suicide crisis in Attiwapiskat and other First Nations communities, there is a growing concern that aboriginal youth will fall victim to the so-called "normalization of suicide," especially if assisted death is extended beyond the "imminent death" criteria. However, the plight of aboriginal youth is completely unrelated to those gravely affected by non-terminal illnesses. To suggest that assisted dying for the latter will detrimentally impact the former is, quite frankly, a baseless claim.

JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Julia Lamb is challenging Canada's physician-assisted dying law.

Aboriginal suffering is historically based, due largely to racism associated with the Indian Act, the reservation system and abuse at residential schools. With political will and proper resource allocation, aboriginal suffering can be rectified over time once past grievances are addressed fairly.

Not so for those stricken with chronic, degenerative illnesses. For example, Julia Lamb, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, recently challenged Canada’s assisted-dying law because it is too restrictive and arbitrary. With no possible cure in sight, Lamb could suffer needlessly for years or even decades. The same reality awaits those plagued by multiple sclerosis, spinal stenosis, locked-in syndrome, traumatic spinal injury, Parkinson’s disease or Huntington’s disease.

The Liberal government, however, would have us believe that a slippery slope is inevitable once the criteria for assisted suicide is broadened to include the chronically ill. In defending her position, Wilson-Raybould warns that expanding eligibility would "send the wrong message that society feels it is appropriate to address suffering in life by choosing death. This message may encourage some who are in crisis and already considering suicide to act."

This assumption is misleading for several reasons. First, the new assisted dying legislation is all about choosing death to alleviate extreme suffering. Bill C-14 stipulates that assisted death is permissible if the illness, disease, disability or the state of decline causes "enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved under conditions they consider acceptable." The "message" this may send to aboriginal people is not disconcerting whenever one’s death is imminent, so why would irremediable suffering in non-imminent cases be problematic?

Second, if Wilson-Raybould’s claim were even remotely true, then the Liberal government should not have sanctioned attempted suicide, just in case it sent the "wrong message" to those with suicidal inclinations. After the Liberals decriminalized attempted suicide in 1972, suicide rates did not skyrocket. In fact, they actually declined on a per capita basis from 13.4 per 100,000 in 1972 to 13.0 in 1999. By 2012, the suicide rate had dropped again to 11.3 per 100,000. In other words, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between a more relaxed law and increases in suicide. For aboriginal people, socioeconomic conditions play a more vital role in this regard.

What the Liberal government is saying, basically, is that because some cases of assisted dying might negatively influence a vulnerable cohort, such as aboriginal youth, the thousands of people seeking relief from unbearable suffering — and for which there is no cure — must be denied the right to end their own lives.

Legally speaking, one does not deny or severely limit a fundamental right because it might be abused; instead, one does everything in one’s power to prevent the abuse. Therefore, the government should stop playing off one vulnerable group — those suffering from incurable diseases or ailments — against another — aboriginal youth — and start addressing the needs of both, albeit in different ways.

Ironically, by promoting the idea that a more inclusive assisted dying law "may encourage" vulnerable populations to commit suicide, Wilson-Raybould has only made Bill C-14 more vulnerable to future court challenges.

Stuart Chambers, PhD, is a professor in the faculties of arts and social sciences at the University of Ottawa. His doctoral dissertation explored the death and dying debate in Canada.

schamber@uottawa.ca