By Gordon Friesen
Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Critical statements have quickly appeared across the web, denouncing proposed "expansions" to California's assisted death system. However, with respect, I would suggest that this word is not nearly strong enough. For although it is still hard to say exactly what California is up to (considering that the full text of proposed Senate Bill 1196 is not yet available), a preliminary fact sheet clearly reveals that a new phase may be reached in that State's march towards a true, Canadian-style, poison death-medicine paradigm.
In another place (please see appendix i table) I have demonstrated that there are two main regimes of medically justified assisted death (not to be confused with true "right-to-die" countries like Germany and Switzerland). And that one of these (including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain) has a proportion of assisted deaths which is ten times greater that of its lessor competitor (commonly known as the "Oregon Model, and which includes all of the American States having legalized assisted death thus far).
What accounts for the lower
numbers reported by American States lies in their common requirement of a
"terminal condition" (usually understood to mean a six months
prognosis) and self-ingestion (the exclusion of doctor-performed euthanasia).
The basic idea being that someone who is already facing death might choose
exactly how and when they would actually die. Hence the name of existing
California Law: the "End of Life Options Act".
Crucially, there is no mention in this scheme of physical (or other) suffering, as we shall see: any legislation based on suffering is truly a "horse of a different color".
In Canada, by way of comparison, eligibility is all about suffering (for which euthanasia is explicitly defined as a medical treatment). And it is this fact which explains why all of the original Canadian "safeguards" have so rapidly fallen apart in that country (either through court challenge or new legislation). One after another --"major age", "capacity to consent", "death reasonably foreseeable"-- all have fallen by the way-side, because "suffering" knows no such boundaries.
Should SB 1196 pass (which, to be sure, it has every likelihood of doing) it is the Canadian model which California will effectively be adopting. The appropriate headline, therefore, should be: "California prepares to embrace Canadian-Style substitution of death for medical treatment".
Proposed changes in legal text
Getting down a little farther
"into the weeds" (to satisfy the curiosity of those who have been
following the nuance of legislative texts on this subject), the main change in
SB 1196 is to be found in the replacement of "terminal disease" to
"a grievous and irremediable medical condition", which term, as
textually lifted from Canadian Law, is defined as "(a condition which)
Causes the individual to endure physical or psychological suffering due to
illness, disease, or state of decline that is intolerable to the individual and
cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable".
It will be most interesting to see whether or not California legislators will actually dare to take the final step of definitely defining "Medical Aid in Dying" like some other States have done, as "the medical practice of...". However, this is hardly even necessary, in light of the all-embracing "grievous condition" definition cited above, and of the fact that not only assisted-suicide, but euthanasia also (intravenous administration) will now be available in California. For how could euthanasia be considered in any other way than that of a true medical treatment, when it is defined as a procedure performed by a doctor in order to alleviate suffering?
In sum: we are rapidly approaching the end of any further obfuscation or deceit.
Practical effect of the medical definition
As seen in Canada, euthanasia (as a medical treatment for suffering) cannot be reserved for people at the end of life, or for those capable of consent, or for those of major age.
But there are also other factors which have, thus far, received little attention:
1) Euthanasia as a preventive measure, applied to perfectly stable patients, with the goal of avoiding not present, but potential future suffering (as presently practised in Canada, at the mere pronouncement of any serious diagnosis).
2) The systematic promotion and prescription of euthanasia (to all and sundry) by enthusiastic doctors who believe they are simply performing their most fundamental duty of proposing what they sincerely believe to be optimum medical treatment in specific circumstances.
3) (as also seen in Canada)
The institutional normalization of euthanasia practice and promotion, which just
happens to be in the budgetary interest of public health services such as the
Veterans' Administration, Medicare and Medicaid.
4) Lessor development and availability of other treatments (for conditions such as cancer) which will inevitably be reduced in exact proportion to the adoption of euthanasia as a legitimate medical substitute.
In short:
California SB 1196 does not represent a mere expansion of eligibility requirements for a choice-based system of assisted death. It actually signals a full-blown tipping-point, where publicly funded medicine in that State will begin its transition to a euthanasia-based utilitarian paradigm of death-medicine --a routine substitution of death for care-- as already observed in Canada (from which place the relevant legal language has been textually copied).
One bright spot:
It will at least become more difficult for apologists of assisted death to keep a straight face --or even to make eye contact-- when using the word "safeguards" (or disparaging the "slippery slope").
Gordon Friesen, March 9, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment