First published November 19, 2009
As many of you know, the Canadian Parliament is currently considering a bill to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Bill C-384, proposed by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, would alter the criminal code to allow doctors to cause quick and painless death if a patient “appears lucid,” is aware of other treatment options and has made two written requests. As a private member’s bill, C-384 already received one hour of debate on October 2 and is scheduled for a second debate on December 2 with a vote the following day. I’ve already written a bit about this and why we should be concerned. I promised to write a bit more about it to help clarify some of the issues and to explain why I am concerned.
Four years ago, while we were producing the documentary Turning the Tide, I read a book titled Final Exit by Derek Humphry. I found the book to be completely shocking and even today am amazed at the fact that it is real.
In 2006, almost to reassure myself that these people are not fictional, I walked around the display tables at the Right to Die conference in Toronto. What I saw and learned gave me the chills. Let me explain. The book’s subtitle is “The practicalities of self-deliverance and assisted suicide for the dying.” In case you’re new to this, “self-deliverance” means, killing yourself.
So there you have it.
This is the “how-to” book on killing yourself. And to emphasise to you how sick and confused our society is, this book is on the New York Time’s Best-Seller list.
Derek Humphry is the founder of the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization — ERGO — and the founder of the National Hemlock Society, an organisation that has redefined itself as “Compassion & Choices”. The Hemlock Society was an end-of-life care organisation for those suffering from incurable illnesses. In 2003 they changed their name to End of Life Choices. In 2005 they joined forces with the Compassion in Dying Organisation to become what they are now: Compassion & Choices. Their vision is to help build a society where everyone receives state-of-the-art care at the end of life, and a full range of choices for dying in comfort, dignity and control. What this means, of course is that if it is your choice to end your life, because you can’t deal with the pain, suffering and the “indignity” of disease and dying, you should be able to. Of course, that is compassion and that is choice. It also means that if you don’t want to kill yourself, if you believe in quality palliative and hospice care, they can’t help you. Not sure how that is going to build a society where everyone receives state-of-the-art care at the end of life, and a full range of choices for dying in comfort, dignity and control (well, I can see the control part).
And we live in a society where we have come to believe that freedom means choice. That’s why I have access to 1000 TV channels, why I can go to a food court and choose between 20 or 30 different fast-food options. Pretty soon, someone is going to get sued (in the States, of course) because someone else didn’t offer them enough “choice”. And someone will decide that it is a basic human right to have “choices.”
Back to the book: Mr. Humphry’s first book is called Jean’s Way, where he tells the compelling (I’m not being sarcastic, it is very compelling) story of his first wife Jean’s debilitating illness and subsequent assisted death… by him. Since then, he’s assisted his father-in-law and made the call to disconnect his brother from life support (but despite what he says, this isn’t euthanasia or assisted death- simply the removal of extra-ordinary care, without which his brother died a natural death — not at all the same thing). Mr. Humphry is also the author of Let Me Die Before I Wake and now has several editions of Final Exit. He lives in Oregon (where else would he live? I guess, Holland) He’s British. So… this book is the how-to book. It is very complete. It even includes a checklist. It explains how to handle your financial affairs, how to make sure you don’t hurt (too much) your loved ones, what pill combinations to take, which ones not to take – what their effects are. There is even a diagram showing step-by-step how to kill yourself using a helium tank and a bag covering your head (this, it seems, in combination with non-prescription sleeping pills is the best way to go). And he includes the address of where you can order this “exit bag” kit: for $50. It’s an address in Victoria, BC. At the conference, I saw a presentation on a new device that can be attached to the helium tank in order to regulate the rate that the helium is being released. Normal helium tanks don’t come with this. But someone in Australia has come up with the solution to our problems!
Now — to be fair, Mr. Humphry does make it very clear that this book is not for everyone. He is very clear to warn us that if we believe in God, or any higher power, or if we believe that we don’t have a choice or that death is bearable no matter what, or if you are depressed, then this book is not for you. This book is for competent people who are enduring hopeless physical suffering, who are in a hopeless medical condition, whose illness is unbearable and who wish to have control over their death, so as to do so with dignity and comfort. The Australian Right-To-Die group’s motto is, “I have a right to a peaceful death.” The aim of the book is, in Humphry’s words, to “allow terminally ill persons painlessly and legally to end their suffering.” This is a book for (rational) people looking for options.
Shopping… let’s say.
He says that he doesn’t advocate the killing of the disabled or what the Nazis did. He also says that many depressed people, some teen-agers even, have used his book to assist them in committing suicide. He says this is unfortunate, but that he cannot be responsible for those people. I guess he has his disclaimer. It’s interesting to note that when this book first came to Canada, it was banned, the ban was challenged in court and the challengers won. I guess the winning argument was that we have an “intrinsic human right to choose the manner, form and time in which we are to die.”
I must admit, the book is very compelling. Mr. Humphry makes a very good case for his arguments. However, if you read carefully, you will note some flaws in his arguments. You will also note some red-flags. Tune in for my blog installment next week, and I’ll tell you all about them.
Until then, check out our Turning the Tide page for more resources on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, or visit the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, or the Catholic Organization for Life and Family site.
Pedro
First published November 9, 2009
MP Steve Fletcher
Last week Canadian Member of Parliament for the Winnipeg-area riding of Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia, Steven Fletcher, who is a Quadriplegic has stated he will abstain from voting on the right-to-die bill, C-384, which is currently going to its second reading in the House of Commons. This bill would allow people with terminal illness and those in severe untreatable physical or mental pain, to qualify for medical assistance to hasten their deaths. Even though the bill — which was tabled for the first time in 2005 by Bloq Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde of the riding of La Pointe-de-l’Île — states that the patient would have to be over 18 years-old, have to be lucid, have to request death on two occasions, and the doctor would have to get a second physicians opinion, critics say it is too broad and any such law would lead to the “slippery slope” that would make certain people more vulnerable. This is not new information – and it is exactly the disabled community that feels most threatened by euthanasia and assisted suicide. This is why Mr. Fletcher’s comments on the matter carry special weight.
Mr. Fletcher has said that he supports euthanasia, but believes people should be helped to choose life.
I don’t get it.
Does he not understand that once the law says that killing is OK under certain circumstances, people’s attitudes will begin to change: the law says it’s OK, then it must be OK– and that’s where the slippery slope begins. We can predict a future where killing will be acceptable as an appropriate response to pain or whenever anyone feels inconvenienced.
Mr. Fletcher was left paralyzed from the neck down after his car collided with a moose in a Manitoba highway, when he was 23-years old. He has admitted that had he had a choice, because the pain was so unbearable, he would have ended his life. But it was the support of his family and community that carried him through and gave him the hope he needed to continue. His successful career as a Federal Cabinet Minister is proof that all people are valuable and despite physical barriers, can lead a productive life. He is a symbol of hope for the disabled community.
Mr. Fletcher says that he is abstaining from the vote in order to encourage dialogue.
I see it as a cop-out.
If he believes people should be helped to choose life, and that the bill is too broad, then he should vote against it. And be glad that Euthanasia was not legal at the time of his accident or he would not be here today to be having this conversation.
If you want to know more about this issue, I encourage you to get your hands on our production Turning the Tide, which looks at all these issues and clearly shows the fears expressed by many in the disabled community, and to read what I wrote on this topic a few years ago click HERE and HERE.
If you really want to stay informed, visit the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for the most up-to-date news and information.
As we approach the voting day for Bill C-384 (the date of the vote keeps changing, so we don’t know when it will be, as of today it’s scheduled for Nov 19th), I will be posting a three-part article I wrote in 2007, which also will help you understand these issues better. Stay tuned.
Pedro
First published June 26, 2009
Yesterday at S+L TV, my time was divided between three editing assignments. In one room, I am working on the promotional video for the permanent diaconate formation program for the Archdiocese of Toronto. The permanent diaconate is one of three orders within the Catholic Church (the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate). The deacons are ordained ministers who are active in the ministry of service. They visit hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons, and work with the most marginalized of our society. One of the particular ministries we are focusing in the video is a ministry to ex-offenders and, in particular, to men who have done time for sexually assaulting children. It has been the topic of many conversations in the office: to what extent are we called, as Christians, to minister to these people? Where do we draw the line?
The second project I was editing was this week’s Salt + Light Radio program. The main interview on this show is with Harry Nigh, a Mennonite minister who is also the Community Chaplain for the Central Ontario Parole Sector for Correctional Services Canada. Our interview for the radio program centres around his “circle of support” ministry that is part of the restorative justice movement whereby ex-offenders are welcomed into a circle of friendship meant to support him (or her) so that they do not re-offend. This program has been met with a great deal of success, namely in reducing the number of victims. The first man Harry’s group supported was a high-profile pedophile named Charlie. The group called itself “Charlie’s Angels”. Charlie lived the rest of his life without re-offending.
The third program we were editing is an episode of Catholic Focus titled “Making Movies that Count”, featuring an interview I did with Steve McEveety last November when I was in Houston. Steve McEveety is the C.E.O. of MPower Pictures, responsible for movies such as “Bella”, “Star of Bethlehem”, “An American Carol”, and “The Stoning of Soraya M.”, which will be coming to theatres at the end of this week. Before MPower Pictures, Steve was a producer with Mel Gibson’s ICON Productions and was the executive producer of many Gibson films including “A Man Without a Face”, “What Women Want”, “Braveheart”, and “The Passion of the Christ”. (This episode will air next Thursday, July 2nd.)
After a full day of this, an event happened that seemed to bring everything together: I heard reports that Michael Jackson had died. My initial reaction was that he had been an icon. Whether we liked him or not, liked his music or not, or his seemingly bizarre lifestyle, or whatever, we cannot deny that this was the death of a legend – he was the King of Pop. I also thought that it had been the end of a tragic and sad life–but that is me judging a man I know not.
On the poster of the film “Braveheart” reads the caption: “Every man dies; not every man really lives.” I wondered if Michael Jackson really lived. He certainly accomplished a lot. You could say that by the time he was 10 years old he had accomplished a lot, but did he really live? Was it all worth it?
Soon afterwards, I heard Farrah Fawcett had also died. This news made me a little sad. I was too young to have been a faithful “Charlie’s Angels” fan, but young or not, who could not have noticed Farrah Fawcett in the early 70’s? She too was an icon. The native of Corpus Christi, Texas, died after a long battle with anal cancer, a battle she documented in the NBC documentary “Farrah’s Story”. It was hard not to compare her struggle with Jackson’s.
Allegations about Jackson’s sexual abuse of minors have always remained just that–allegations. Still, people will judge. The same judgments can be made about someone who chooses to take her battle with cancer to the small screen. Making suffering public is not something many people are comfortable with.
But you see, just as those deacons in that promo video, we are all called to service, but a service that means not judging–a service that means welcoming all. The work Harry Nigh is doing may be difficult for many to stomach, but it is not rocket science. When Jesus said to visit those in prison he didn’t just mean those who’ve been imprisoned unjustly, he meant all prisoners. He meant pedophiles too. We are all from Corpus Christi: the Body of Christ.
As I walked out of the office and I was thinking about all of this, it began to rain. The sun was still shining and, in the distance, I saw a rainbow. Still, I was feeling a little sad. A bit sad for when the pop idols of your childhood begin to die, it says something about your own age. But mostly I was sad because I was reminded of those who struggle with painful kinds of cancer and who struggle to find meaning through it all. I was sad for those who throughout their whole lives struggle to find meaning. I was reminded of the many who feel like strangers in their own skin. But most of all, that rainbow reminded me of the work that we all must do to welcome and be friendly to all–the call to love without judgment and without condition. And then, perhaps, when I die, those left behind can truly say that I really lived.
First published June 11, 2009
Before I begin to untangle myself out of this noodle soup I’ve cooked, can I draw your attention to a comment that came from Jason Gennaro — Jason makes an excellent comment that every definition about Marriage has to include God in it. So true. In my defense (and Jason has indeed humbled me), I must say that my hope is always to bring the Good News to those outside of the Church, those for whom the word God means nothing and so when explaining some of these things, I try to do so from a secular point of view – sometimes using religious language alienates people more – plus, it is my belief that if something is truly from God, then it should make sense from a natural perspective as well. Nevertheless, Jason definitely gets the “best-comment-of-the-week” award.
Another comment came that made me realize that, in my attempt to be interesting, I’ve been more successful at confusion than anything else. It was a personal message I received from a friend who wished to remain anonymous. He writes:
I’m trying to figure out what you are saying about marriage in your post on the S+L blog. I’m seriously lost… on one hand you seem to be implying that gay people having sex implies… disease, heartache etc. On the other hand you seem to imply that straight marriage is a guarantee against all those things, and that marriage is identified primarily as sex. Am I missing something? I hope you’re not saying either those things. I would appreciate some help understanding.
Here’s my response:
First of all, can I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not dismissing my muddled ideas as some crazy quack?
Second, I think it’s important to remember that I am talking about ideas here and ideas are always clear – even if I am not clear with them – it’s when we try to apply them to the real world that things get muddy and, while I do think the practical application is important, I want to stay in the realm of ideas for now.
I am not talking about homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Let’s leave all of that aside. I am trying to define marriage, or rather, trying to determine what the true nature of marriage is.
We may find that the true nature of marriage does not have a practical application – but again, I am talking about ideas here. So – I would like to argue that the nature of marriage, God’s design for marriage, if you will, is a relationship within which sex is guaranteed to not cause any complications.
That doesn’t mean that heterosexual marriage is a guarantee against problems – no… it means that in a “true” marriage, sexual intercourse is guaranteed not to lead to any problems because as soon as you encounter problems, it’s because the sex has been used against its true nature.”
There was also a comment after my last entry challenging this whole exercise of trying to define Marriage. Let me just say in response that we are not trying to re-define Marriage. I am merely trying to be able to explain why the Church teaches that a Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why can’t it be between two people of the same sex? If it’s about love, why not? That’s what this exercise is about. But I want you to think about it, not just blindly learn what the Church teaches. So here we go: What is the true nature of marriage? Let’s find out using Natural Law.
All Catholic Moral Teaching is based on Natural Law. The whole universe is guided and ruled by laws: the laws of physics (like gravity) and mathematical laws (2+2 always will equal 4), for example. This is the universe God created.
Natural Law is the law that says that all things work best or yield the best results when used according to their nature. So that means that if I want to grow tomatoes I have to plant them outside, in the sun, water them every day, etc. That is their nature. If I put them in the closet and forget about them I won’t get any tomatoes because that is against their nature. The same applies to everything, not just things of nature. If I want my car to run, I have to put gas in the tank. If I put peanut butter in the tank, the car is not going to run – in fact, I will probably have to get a new car. So, my car will work best or yield the best results when used according to its nature, which includes putting gas in the tank. Incidentally, my car with its over 326,000KM is no longer working very well – chances are that is because it’s not its nature to last so long.
The reverse is also true: in order to find out the true nature of something, we need to see how it works best and/or yields the best results. If I want to know what the nature of the human body is, I have to see what makes the body work best. For example, drinking 8 glasses of water a day, eating well-balanced meals, exercising, sleeping 8-9 hours every night (I wish!), having a balance between work, rest, prayer and play – those things have proven to help the body work best – so it tells us something about the nature of the human body.
In order to find out the true nature of sex, for example, by using the Natural Law, we have to see what makes (or in what circumstances does) sex work best or yield the best results. Are you with me?
Therefore, what makes sex not lead to any problems, heartaches, disease, issues, or pain? (Remember we are talking about ideas here – the practical application may be slightly different.) If there is a perfect design by God, of sex, then it is a sex that doesn’t lead to any complications, heartaches, disease, issues or pain of any kind. I would say that we can agree that is the true nature of sex.
Can we imagine for a minute a relationship within which sex is used according to its true nature, its true design? A relationship where there is no abuse, no infidelity, no conditions, no manipulation, nothing held back, complete freedom, consent and understanding, and total self-giving? I would like to think that is a relationship within which sex does not lead to any complications of any kind.
Does that relationship exist? Sure. We call it Marriage.
I firmly believe that if you go down the list: infidelity, teen-age or immature marriages, forced marriages, marital rape, spousal abuse, anal or oral intercourse, masturbation, contraceptive mentality, friends-with-benefits, pre-marital sex, having too much sex (the list can go on); and you apply the rule of Natural Law, you will find that none of these situations offer the guarantee of no complications. Therefore, they do not belong within the relationship that we call Marriage.
Let me say it in a slightly different way: I am not defining Marriage in terms of sex – I am simply saying that the true nature of sex (where it is guaranteed not to lead to any complications) can only exist within Marriage, as defined by the Church, based on Natural Law (and supported by Sacred Scripture and Tradition).
Now let me just be clear: I am not trying to qualify any marriages or judge marriages. We all struggle in marriage and mine is no better than most (remember we are talking about ideas here). I am merely trying to understand WHY the Church teaches what she teaches about Marriage. There are countless married couples that have struggled through lies, cheating, infidelity, STDs, abortion, sexual disorders, abuse, manipulation and who knows what else, and that are still fairly healthy marriages, because in the end love, forgiveness and repentance have triumphed. But I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that including these practices in your marriage will not guarantee you a healthy marriage or a healthy sexual relationship within that marriage.
The key word here is “guarantee.” If you stick to the true nature of sex (as defined above through Natural Law), which is God’s design for sex, you will be guaranteed to not have any problems, heartaches, disease, issues or pain.
So, back to our original question: What is a true Marriage? According to JPII’s Theology of the Body, it is a love-relationship that is free, faithful, fruitful and total between two consenting adults of the opposite sex who are open to life. But let me add this: Marriage is also the institution created by God to safeguard the true nature of sex. Why? Because in a “true” marriage, sexual intercourse is guaranteed not to lead to any problems, because as soon as you encounter problems, it’s because the sex has been used against its true nature.
Am I defining Marriage in terms of sex? Perhaps – that seems to be the only factor that separates marriage from any other love-relationship (sure you can have sex outside of marriage, but like I said, that won’t offer a “no complications guarantee”). If we define Marriage purely in terms of love, that doesn’t explain why it needs to be between two adults, or between two people of the opposite sex, or why two siblings shouldn’t be married, or why 3 people can’t be married to each other.
All human relationships must include love. All friendly relationships must be faithful, free and must yield good fruit (otherwise they are not loving, and therefore will not work best or yield the best results). Once a relationship becomes a sexual one, the only guarantee that there will be no complications is if it is within a love-relationship that is free, faithful, fruitful and total, between two consenting, mature adults of the opposite sex, who are open to life. That relationship is what the Church calls Marriage. So, yes, while Marriage is not defined based on sex alone, the true nature of Marriage is directly related to the true nature of sex.
Next time someone challenges your belief that Marriage can only be between a man and a woman, explain them this. I’m sure it’ll help.
Happy to write more on this. Even happier to read your comments.
Read Comments
deacon pedro 