Dear Editor:
In some of the past issues of the Advertiser I read letters in defense of medical assistance in dying (MAID). One of the arguments in favour of MAID seems to be that those who are suffering ought to have the right to choose to die. However, is the right to choose an inalienable right?
We’re not free to choose to drive as fast as we think we can. The reason is the public good, to protect others. The same principle applies to MAID. I read in a number of letters that choosing assisted death is purely a private, personal matter. It is not. It is not a private matter because it affects the doctors and nurses who are supposed to perform MAID irrespective of their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.
MAID is not a private matter because it endangers the dignity of people with disabilities or dementia, which is why the disabled community largely opposes it.
MAID is not a private, personal matter because whatever the safeguards, the elderly will experience spoken or unspoken pressure confirming the thought that they are a drain on health and family resources and energy.
MAID is a very slippery slope, as shown by advocates who now argue that it is discriminatory to deny assisted suicide to patients with mental illnesses.
My hope is that our civil leaders will see that enhancement of palliative, disability and elderly support systems is a much more compassionate approach.
Jack Moesker,
Fergus