Dear Editor:
There are several things in the on going discussion of euthanasia. How does one define a slippery slope?
When medical assistance in dying (MAID) was first enacted, one had to be facing imminent death and competent to make a decision.
Now imminent death will not be required but you can request MAID for the future if in the future you’re not able to make the decision. Quebec doctors are now requesting that infants in their first year of life can be euthanized if it is forecast that they will suffer a poor quality of life. The infants don’t get a say in this.
Evidently some people think this extension of MAID is not a slippery slope. How would they define a slippery slope?
Making a decision under duress is not a free choice. Choosing death to relieve extreme pain that could be relieved but isn’t because you cannot afford the treatment is choosing between the torturer and the executioner. This situation is not uncommon.
A soldier being asked if he wished to die is not an isolated case. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition can provide number of cases if one wished to check their facts. The Euthanasia Prevention Collation can also provide cases of those being euthanized against their will.
Periodic depression is part of life. Just ask jilted teenager at the end of his/her first love or a person who has just lost a loved one. Clinical and periodic depression are different yet both people could request MAID. Imminent death is not part of either form of depression as people get over it.
Everyone is not going to agree on MAID and most are not going to change their mind. Is MAID a free choice? If you are an island free from all forms of personal engagement, free from duress, suggestion and influence then perhaps it is. Does this make it right? According to the criminal code MAID is a natural death. Most religions would differ.
Chris Woode,
Fergus