NOTE: This is the English translation of a French article that was published in the Huffington Post (link to the article here >>)
Since the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec, we are seeing an outcry of injustice in the media. Gone are the days when positions were justified in favor of euthanasia on the basis of legal judgments serving as our moral authority. It seems now that authority is granted only to institutions that think a certain way.
What is particularly shocking in this public process is that this decision was also denounced as an attack on democracy, whereas in the democratic landscape, aside from a few notable exceptions, we only see one side of the coin. “The debate is over" is the reply given as dialogue. Yet there remain enough critical questions that we could certainly write articles on the subject twice a day until February 6, 2016.
So, why attack the federal government which only reminds us of the rules that govern the country, which Quebec has always been a part of, and not rebel against a National Assembly that has endorsed a law knowing, as recalled in the AGC judgment, that this law is incompatible with the Criminal Code? Why cry foul before the due date, and not address the temerity of a government that seeks at all costs to stay ahead of the implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court on which it relies to advocate in favor of its choice?
Why accuse all doctors who refuse this medical aid in dying calling them all sorts of names (again), never asking them for professional reasons being the experts they are on the front line? Why write long articles about only two palliative care hospices (i.e. exceptions to the consensus of palliative care providers), and not give a calm voice to each hospice which did not want this deliberate killing of its patients?
Why not question the concern of the Attorney General of Canada “regarding the provisions of Article 31 of the Law which requires doctors who would not grant a physician-assisted dying request to participate, despite their objection”, and take the opportunity to raise this incredible inconsistency with the principle of freedom of choice referred to by advocates of euthanasia?
Why be surprised at the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec who dares to finally set the record straight by stating that medical aid in dying is euthanasia (blatantly obvious) and not criticize the total lack of transparency Quebec Government which, unlike all the other countries of the world who treat their population like adults, uses subterfuge to diffuse the effects that would disadvantage its position?
Why start saying, anyway, that the Carter decision will soon legalize physician-assisted dying, when there was never a question about the wording in the Supreme Court judgement and it may well be that federal law does allow exceptions to the Criminal Code for assisted suicide but not euthanasia?
And finally, why not applaud the entry into force of all other articles of the Act Concerning End-of-Life Care that relate to palliative care and continuous palliative sedation, which are supposed to give real relief and bring an initial response to the eternal question of end-of-life suffering?