MAID: Why the Government Wants You to Kill Yourself - Kelsi Sheren

[Deca]

 

[Deca]

 

[Hegel Schmegel]

Once again we come to yet another polarizing debate, and yet I suspect there are many levelheaded folks also who have thought long and hard about it, who generally remain on the fence as a whole, and who, instead of seeing this controversial issue in black and white terms, understand the gray areas involved and the need to examine medical assistance in dying not in absolute but in situational terms.

 

What I've observed in my following the alt- and independent media is a lot of fear-mongering in recent years, on the part of various outlets and commentators outright opposed to the very idea of MAiD, and this I simply do not understand.

 

No doubt much of this opposition to MAiD is rooted in an intense dislike for what these ones perceive as being a strictly left-wing position, when at its core, as I see it, is a fundamentally ethical or even theological issue, far deeper and more intellectually nuanced compared to the realm of this-or-that/either-or partisan politics.

 

For me, this is not about siding with an entire party platform simply because one is pro-MAiD. Here in Canada, it just so happens that the government in power in support of MAiD are liberals, but were they conservatives, it needn't change an individual's position on the matter.

 

Personally, I am in total support of Canada's euthanasia program and yet on many other issues am strongly opposed to Liberal Party policies. Call me a maverick, but I do not take party sides, just as some Christians adhere to no set of dogmas exclusive to a single denomination.

 

Incidentally, and somewhat paradoxically some might think, I side with the pro-life community on the abortion issue, but here I reason that another life aside from the mother is clearly involved and thus ought to be considered. By contrast, in countries where it's been legalized, MAiD concerns only one being, a free and moral agent, and as such is, or ought to be, a pro-choice matter, being it concerns the God-given right to individual sovereignty.

 

And yet what I've observed is a strict toeing of the party line on the part of pro-life social conservatives who fail to make this glaring distinction between dependent fetus and thinking, consenting adult; the latter, whose right it has been for quite some time to decline by way of a Living Will life-sustaining measures (passive euthanasia in action), if he or she so chooses.

 

Most definitely, there is always the potential for MAiD being weaponized by the state but simply to legalize it, as some countries have done, does not make it a war against the people, as the fear-mongers outrageously make it out to be. In the government's own words, this is about the "autonomy and freedom of choice of individuals," as it should be. This we did not see when it came to the Covid 'vaccines,' which makes this particular instance of respect for individual rights so extraordinary to witness. We ought to be very pleased that the Canadian government has taken it upon itself to respect the rights of the individual in this case, but instead what we find are some rather vocal Canadians opposed to this very freedom! Go figure.

 

Interestingly, the early 20th-century English author, H.G. Wells once wrote: "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual, is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved." As stated above, in very rare and extreme instances, MAiD does have the potential of becoming weaponized, and we must always be on the alert for this, but as it stands here in Canada and in other countries in support of MAiD, to argue against medical assistance in dying by way of said tactic amounts to fanatical rhetoric -- it is neither rational nor persuasive, bur rather is an extremely weak argument.

 

If military veterans and those with disabilities are opposed to MAiD, fine, that is their choice, but at the same time they should also respect the individual freedoms and personal judgments of their fellow countrymen, enough to refrain from lobbying government to change its laws on their behalf, just as socially conservative media outlets and commentators ought to refrain from using disingenuous scare tactics in a pathetic attempt to paint MAiD out to be somehow associated with or echoing Nazi criminality/propaganda.

 

For every military veteran or disabled person opposed to MAiD there is someone suffering from a painful, terminal illness who would be in support of it. Suppose you were to awaken to find yourself the lead character in Johnny Got His Gun, would you be for or against medical assistance in dying?

 

As a cinephile, I have seen several excellent films that have dealt honestly and compassionately with this sensitive topic. Among them, the following titles I highly recommend to anyone interested in considering the sufferer's point of view: An Act of Murder (1948), Right of Way (1983), The Sea Inside (2004), and Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981), to name but a few fictional narratives. As for documentary films, How to Die in Oregon (2011) is a must-see, as well.

 

With regard to reading material, by far the best book on the subject is Final Exit by Derek Humphry. The late Mr. Humphry was best known for his having founded the Hemlock Society and in his lifetime had contributed greatly to our understanding of the right-to-die movement. I raise two goblets: One in toast of Derek and the other in tribute to that admirable renegade and humanitarian, Jack Kevorkian.

Edited January 25 by Hegel Schmegel