This week brought an impassioned argument against expanding access to MAiD, and a dispassionate analysis of where we’re at and how we got here.
I find that I learn something from every commentator, but am reinforced in my belief that individual op-eds are only one component of public-policy debates. Each writer expounds their own opinion with a view to convincing the reader, but there is no conversation: no actual debate. We would benefit from having more venues where people who hold strong viewpoints can both express their views and respond to challenges to them.
This is a complex issue and positions tend to be a muddle of many components:
- Strongly held beliefs (some religiously based but not all) on the value of life and the right to personal autonomy
- Political beliefs on the role of the state (at all and specifically in medical decisions) and the courts
- Legal views on the appropriate scope of criminal law
- Opinions about the medical possibility and what we might call the “cost practicality” of managing pain, both physical and mental
- The trade-offs involved in spending money in one healthcare area versus another
- Emotional reactions to experiences of intolerable pain, whether one’s own or that of a loved one
Mix in the different angles of how MAiD provisions can/might affect the elderly (with varying degrees of mental competence), the mentally ill, the disabled, those with terminal illness or incurable degenerative conditions, minors, and people who live in small or remote communities, and it’s amazing we can talk about it at all without coming to blows.
Anyway, first the analysis, then the passion. Both articles are worth reading in full if you have access to the National Post site. If not, the excerpts below will give you an idea of the range of commentary and approaches.
Continue reading →
Posted: 26 Feb
