By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
 |
| Gordon Friesen |
Article: Should EPC apologize to Helen Long from Dying With Dignity? (Read).
On May 7, Ms. Long's wish was eloquently granted when the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published a commentary by Amy Hasbrouck, past President of the Coalition, Founding Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, and a pillar of Canadian Disability activism for many years. This I believe, is precisely the sort of personal, informed, and directly affected testimony that Ms Long's call for disabled voices might most beneficially have elicited.
Unfortunately for the thesis of Ms. Long, however, Ms Habrouck's conclusion is unambiguously (and unapologetically) opposed to any medical homicide at all, much less that for persons afflicted with mental illness. Indeed, Amy made her argument by generously referencing both collective and personal experience, to examine the ways in which this now scheduled extension of medical homicide would negatively impact persons such as herself. In doing so, she rather colorfully condemned Ms. Long's use of the phrase "Nothing about us without us", observing that it is (in her opinion) grossly inappropriate to parrot words so clearly associated with those individuals, and organizations, which are most vehemently opposed to the objectives of death-lobby operatives such as Ms. Long.
As it turns out, Ms. Long has not seen proper to respond --herself-- to the comments of Amy Hasbrouck, and that, I believe, most wisely (although I would dearly love see her try). However, persons closely associated with Ms. Long have indeed flown to her defense, actually demanding apologies from both Amy Hasbrouck and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
It is perhaps best to ignore the ridiculous basis of such a request, but I do believe it is useful to examine the assumptions of entitlement which seem to have made it possible, since those same entitled assumptions are more widely (and most perniciously) weaponized throughout the underlying debate regarding medical homicide.
Briefly stated: it is widely assumed that the suffering of those people seeking recourse to medical homicide cannot be questioned. And from that first assumption spring several others. First, we tend to accept that such people may make any extreme statements that they like (including the most egregious attacks on other individuals); and second, that any criticism (whatsoever) of such individuals, of their behavior, or of their statements, is simply unacceptable.
However, that which might provide a reasonable standard in private conversation cannot be transported to the realm of discourse surrounding public policy. Unfortunately, in the present case, to accept that individuals seeking medical homicide might benefit from a special "sufferers" privilege --which places their beliefs beyond the reach of any rational criticism-- is also to concede the main point in contention (that acceptance of medical homicide is indeed justified as public policy). And that, in all conscience, we cannot do. For we must also remember the people whose defense we are espousing in opposing such a policy (which paradoxically includes Claire Brosseau, who we hope will achieve recovery from her condition).
It thus becomes necessary for us to confront the uncomfortable fact that what may be spontaneous, in individual communication, becomes strategic at the political level; that without reference to any individual, the exploitation of compassionate sentiment becomes a political tool, or as Polonius so shrewdly remarks in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't".
Without the slightest nuance, when those associated with the death-lobby tell us that we "do not understand", they are crassly attempting to impose upon the best sentiments of good people who do not, indeed, have such experience. But in so doing, they are also ignoring --and attempting to suppress-- the experience and desires of the lion's share of those people who actually do.
When we read Claire Brosseau's passionate diatribe in support of Helen Long (while savagely attacking Amy Hasbrouck, M.P. Andrew Lawton, and by extension so many others) we must remember that Ms. Brosseau's "suffering" cannot reasonably trump that of Ms. Hasbrouck.
More generally, it is simply not true that those who would seek medical homicide are suffering any more than their surviving counterparts. For there is, in fact, no correlation in this regard. Quite to the contrary: the number of people persisting in their struggle to survive (in objectively similar medical circumstances) is vastly greater than those who seek assisted death. For there is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide might be represented as normal.
When we are told, therefore, that we do not “understand” the suffering of that small minority who would allegedly benefit from assisted death, we must reply that this is false. For we (or at least a great many of us) do indeed understand.
However, unlike the death-lobby we also understand the suffering of the overwhelming majority, whose access to real medical assistance in their own wilful quest to survive, will be significantly degraded by the institutional acceptance of that practice.
Given the need to protect the vital interests of this majority, it is my firm opinion that the suicidal (and their ideological supporters) should be fully satisfied with the simple decriminalization of suicide. It is enough, I believe (and indeed more than enough) that society might view their choice in a morally neutral fashion. It is not desirable that the conceptual ramifications of that choice should be permitted --through official validation-- to pollute the social and medical landscape for the non-suicidal majority.
And indeed, this principle is even more evident when we remember that the dead are truly gone, and that our validation of them has no meaning to themselves.
But those who are struggling --with the consequences of socially validated suicidal acts-- remain among us now, and must continue to live in the world which this ill-advised cult of suicidal adulation has poisoned.
Gordon Friesen,
No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.
On May 7, Ms. Long's wish was eloquently granted when the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition published a commentary by Amy Hasbrouck, past President of the Coalition, Founding Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, and a pillar of Canadian Disability activism for many years. This I believe, is precisely the sort of personal, informed, and directly affected testimony that Ms Long's call for disabled voices might most beneficially have elicited.
Unfortunately for the thesis of Ms. Long, however, Ms Habrouck's conclusion is unambiguously (and unapologetically) opposed to any medical homicide at all, much less that for persons afflicted with mental illness. Indeed, Amy made her argument by generously referencing both collective and personal experience, to examine the ways in which this now scheduled extension of medical homicide would negatively impact persons such as herself. In doing so, she rather colorfully condemned Ms. Long's use of the phrase "Nothing about us without us", observing that it is (in her opinion) grossly inappropriate to parrot words so clearly associated with those individuals, and organizations, which are most vehemently opposed to the objectives of death-lobby operatives such as Ms. Long.
As it turns out, Ms. Long has not seen proper to respond --herself-- to the comments of Amy Hasbrouck, and that, I believe, most wisely (although I would dearly love see her try). However, persons closely associated with Ms. Long have indeed flown to her defense, actually demanding apologies from both Amy Hasbrouck and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
It is perhaps best to ignore the ridiculous basis of such a request, but I do believe it is useful to examine the assumptions of entitlement which seem to have made it possible, since those same entitled assumptions are more widely (and most perniciously) weaponized throughout the underlying debate regarding medical homicide.
Briefly stated: it is widely assumed that the suffering of those people seeking recourse to medical homicide cannot be questioned. And from that first assumption spring several others. First, we tend to accept that such people may make any extreme statements that they like (including the most egregious attacks on other individuals); and second, that any criticism (whatsoever) of such individuals, of their behavior, or of their statements, is simply unacceptable.
However, that which might provide a reasonable standard in private conversation cannot be transported to the realm of discourse surrounding public policy. Unfortunately, in the present case, to accept that individuals seeking medical homicide might benefit from a special "sufferers" privilege --which places their beliefs beyond the reach of any rational criticism-- is also to concede the main point in contention (that acceptance of medical homicide is indeed justified as public policy). And that, in all conscience, we cannot do. For we must also remember the people whose defense we are espousing in opposing such a policy (which paradoxically includes Claire Brosseau, who we hope will achieve recovery from her condition).
It thus becomes necessary for us to confront the uncomfortable fact that what may be spontaneous, in individual communication, becomes strategic at the political level; that without reference to any individual, the exploitation of compassionate sentiment becomes a political tool, or as Polonius so shrewdly remarks in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't".
Without the slightest nuance, when those associated with the death-lobby tell us that we "do not understand", they are crassly attempting to impose upon the best sentiments of good people who do not, indeed, have such experience. But in so doing, they are also ignoring --and attempting to suppress-- the experience and desires of the lion's share of those people who actually do.
When we read Claire Brosseau's passionate diatribe in support of Helen Long (while savagely attacking Amy Hasbrouck, M.P. Andrew Lawton, and by extension so many others) we must remember that Ms. Brosseau's "suffering" cannot reasonably trump that of Ms. Hasbrouck.
More generally, it is simply not true that those who would seek medical homicide are suffering any more than their surviving counterparts. For there is, in fact, no correlation in this regard. Quite to the contrary: the number of people persisting in their struggle to survive (in objectively similar medical circumstances) is vastly greater than those who seek assisted death. For there is no medical circumstance, whatsoever, in which consent to medical homicide might be represented as normal.
When we are told, therefore, that we do not “understand” the suffering of that small minority who would allegedly benefit from assisted death, we must reply that this is false. For we (or at least a great many of us) do indeed understand.
However, unlike the death-lobby we also understand the suffering of the overwhelming majority, whose access to real medical assistance in their own wilful quest to survive, will be significantly degraded by the institutional acceptance of that practice.
Given the need to protect the vital interests of this majority, it is my firm opinion that the suicidal (and their ideological supporters) should be fully satisfied with the simple decriminalization of suicide. It is enough, I believe (and indeed more than enough) that society might view their choice in a morally neutral fashion. It is not desirable that the conceptual ramifications of that choice should be permitted --through official validation-- to pollute the social and medical landscape for the non-suicidal majority.
And indeed, this principle is even more evident when we remember that the dead are truly gone, and that our validation of them has no meaning to themselves.
But those who are struggling --with the consequences of socially validated suicidal acts-- remain among us now, and must continue to live in the world which this ill-advised cult of suicidal adulation has poisoned.
Gordon Friesen,
No medical homicide for mental illness. Support Bill C-218.
