My Take | Canada is giving (human) euthanasia a bad name
As public health standards decline and resources dwindle, the country’s medically assisted suicide programme no longer inspires confidence
Our 17-year-old canine mix Snowflake died last week from acute kidney failure. She was always special to us because her brother Snowball died from poisoning when just a few months old in Hong Kong.
So Snowflake had always lived two lives – one for her brother Snowball. She had a happier life and much easier death from our vet, or so I hope.
Due to my lifelong pet keeping, I have had plenty of experience putting my babies to sleep. I have always thought that when the time comes, I hope someone will do me a favour and put me out of my misery.
You can argue I am confusing human lives with those of animals. Or you can agree I have some familiarity with euthanasia that can be relevant to its human application. You be the judge.
So far as humans are concerned, as you can probably guess, I have been a long-time supporter of state-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. If you push me further, I may even agree that patients who suffer unbearable pain and suffering, but may not be terminal, should also have the option. But of course, pain doesn’t really have objective or measurable criteria. So I do feel uneasy about that.
Well, that was pretty much the legal standard in Canada under MAiD, or Medical Assistance in Dying. The terminally ill – those whose death was foreseeable – belonged to Track 1. Those for whom death was not yet foreseeable, but found it impossible to sustain any quality of life fell under Track 2.
