Letters: Apr 3/14

Apr 03, 2014

Re: Euthenasia

Quebec’s Bill 52, which would allow euthanasia and assisted suicide, is temporarily in limbo because of the election. However last week, on March 27, Manitoba PC MP Steven Fletcher announced his intention to introduce two bills that would allow assisted suicide. These bills are nothing other than making it legal to kill sick and/or depressed people.

Years ago, when the death penalty was being abolished in Canada, part of the argument was that it was inhumane to ask one person to kill another person, and so the justice system stopped executing criminals.

Why do we now want to ask the medical profession to execute sick or depressed people?

Perhaps it's really all about money. Killing suffering people certainly is the cheapest option. Or perhaps we just want to get rid of them so we can get on with our lives. Being around suffering people is agonizing; it makes us suffer too. So, out of sight, out of mind. Plus, heirs don't have to watch their prospective inheritance dwindle away.

The phrase "dying with dignity" is thrown about a lot, but when people are so low in mind and body that they cease to value their own lives, we give them dignity by supporting them, not by murdering them.

As for the claim that murder is necessary to "relieve" suffering, aspirin was not patented in the US until the year 1900, so up until then, doctors did not have even the most basic medicine to relieve pain. Yet the Hippocratic Oath, written in the late 5th Century BC, says: "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel…"

Does modern medicine have fewer resources than a 5th Century BC physician? Is there suddenly some new horrific epidemic of sickness in 2014 so that all of a sudden we need to kill people, which we've never done before?

There is very good news, however. On Tuesday, April 1, Motion M-456, which would create a national strategy for improving access to palliative and end-of-life care, was introduced by NDP MP Charlie Angus and received its first hour of debate in Parliament. I urge MP Scott Reid to support this humane motion.

Jule Koch

Re: Support for health services

Mr. Wise (Letter to the editor, March 27, 2014), the answer is simplicity itself. As soon as the government of Ontario reins in its wasted dollars, mismanagement, malfeasance, mis-appropriations, pie-in-the-sky projects fired up for hundreds of millions, and promptly cancelled for more hundreds of millions in losses and penalties, why I'm certain they could find a few bucks to fix my few remaining 70 yr. old teeth, repair my cataracts, and heaven forfend, give my social security payment a realistic cost of living increase. After all, just about every government worker is now on the "sunshine list", and I am definitely the leader of my own impoverished sunSET list. Taking care of the aged, the halt, the lame, and the poor will not build sovereign debt for your children and grandchildren, if the current generation weren't so greedy about filling their own pockets while they think no-one is looking. Maybe you should worry more about the moral legacy we are teaching our future generations, instead of begrudging me the cost of a ham sandwich tomorrow.

Ray Fletcher

Re: Marriage and the Charter

Jeff Green’s editorial (Secular Charter Does Disservice to Secularists, February 27, 2014), sure has staying power. Each successive edition of the newspaper has included a letter or two arguing the merits of the editorial, although most letters have focused on the same-sex marriage portion.

The original reply by Jule Koch (Letters, Frontenac News, Mar 6/14) attempted to use biology to mask the blatant discrimination against same sex couples when it comes to marriage. Biology, of course, was the very claim that used to be made when arguing other races were inferior. That is hardly a stellar record to hinge an argument upon. Besides, the logical conclusion one reaches when using biology has an argument against same-sex marriage, is that barren woman and sterile men should not be permitted to wed. Would that qualify as discrimination?

Successive letters have introduced god into the conversation to support a religious view of marriage as between a man and a woman. Of course, the authors ignore the fact the Jesus was from a broken home and after god impregnated Mary but did not wed her, Joseph had to step in and do the honourable thing. Again, this is hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement for heterosexual union.

Finally, Pamela Giroux attempted to use the argument that a homosexual union cannot lead to a “normal” family - as if the ability to create a child somehow equates to the ability to raise a child. I would argue that, in many cases, the creating part is the easy part, but the raising part is the part that matters most. When creating a loving, stable home environment, does it really matter if the parents have opposing anatomy?

Judging from the response to Jeff Green’s article, it seems it may take a couple of generations for our little corner of the country to realize masking discrimination in arguments using biology, religion or antiquated definitions of normal, doesn’t make it less discriminatory.

Clint Hammond