The title for this blog is taken from Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet. Juliet, the speaker, is saying that names of things do not matter, only what these things "are."

This is pertinent to the current discussion about Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care" tabled by the Quebec government this past June 12, 2013. 

Bill 52 is not about the sweet smell of roses but rather euthanasia or as the Quebec government prefers to call it, "medical aid in dying," or MAD to use an acronym coined by Margaret Somerville.

Ambiguity in language is one example that Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill Univeristy, noted in her commentary on Bill 52 which appeared in The Globe and Mail this past June 19, 2013.

Somerville's commentary about this dangerous bill (her descriptor) is "intended simply to identify some of the arguments, reasoning and strategies that it manifests and issues it raises."

 Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," was tabled this past June 12, 2013, in the National Assembly, days prior to the end of the legislative session.

In today's opinion section of the Gazette, two professionals speak out against this legislation, arguing that its goal is nothing other than active euthanasia.

A couple points which Dr. Marc Beauchamp and Me. Michel Racicot make about the bill include:

1. its use of misleading language 

 [T]he government terminology is not based on any semantic recognition in known literature, or in our country's case law. (...)

Bill 52 introduces the concept of "terminal palliative sedation" a concept not defined in the bill, and one that causes a lot of confusion. Inasmuch as the goal of such sedation is to cause death, not to relive pain, it is also another form of active euthanasia.

It therefore appears clear that the bill essentially aims, using this newly invented terminology, to eliminate a prohibition ... on a physician voluntarily ending a patient's life.

2. mistaken notion of compassionate

[The government argues that not permitting] euthanasia would be a sign of a lack of compassion on the part of medical staff. Such an affirmation, false and otherwise improper, undermines the recognition of all those who provide care, with humanity and dedication, to suffering patients in Quebec, and who believe the medical staff should not offer euthanasia to end-of-life patients, or cause their death.

The writers, one representing the Physicians' Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia and the other a board member of Living with Dignity Citizens' Network, make several more points before urging elected officials to "share the responsibility for protecting the population" and vote against this law.

Dr. Frank Humphrey may play an important role in discussions about Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care."

In a previous blog, I noted that on Wednesday, June 12, 2013, days prior to the Summer recess, the Quebec provincial government introduced Bill 52, a bill if passed will permit euthanasia.

Section 26 of the 20-page bill presents four criteria authorizing euthanasia. These are:

1. be of full age, be capable of giving consent to care and be an insured person within themeaning of the Health Insurance Act;
2. suffer from an incurable serious illness;
3. suffer from an advanced state of irreversible decline n capability; and
4. suffer from constant and unbearable physical or pyschological pain which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable.

Dr. Humphrey, a quadriplegic, may play an important part in the discussions because he fulfills all four of these criteria.

Dr. Humphrey has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gerig's disease).

ALS is a neurodegenerative disease, akin to muscular dystrophy. In Dr. Humphrey's case it has progressed over the past eight years.

Further after a recent six-month stay in a hospital dealing with pneumonia, his wife Daria was told by a number of physicans that maybe it was time for her husband to die.

Yet, Dr. Humphrey, until recently pastor with the Peoples Church of Montreal, is an accomplished author. He has recently published a text on origins of the universe, melding science with faith.

Bill 52 is a failure for it ignores the giftedness of the person as manifested not only by those who have published works of science but also by simply being a member of the human family.

For a couple of stories about Dr. Humphrey and issues related to the proposed legislation, see Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice and the Suburban newspaper.

This past Wednesday, June 12, 2013, the Quebec government tabled Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," legislation aimed at permitting euthanasia.

Not a law yet, it will debated this Fall for the purpose of becoming law.

In an effort to bring clarity to the discussion, within my own mind at least, I've come across a couple of good commentaries.

(To view the 20-page proposed legislation, learn about the stages of consideration, and leave a comment about the bill, visit the provincial website.) 

First, the following points come from Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, appearing in a letter and then in a subsequent blog.

• Contrary to the comments by many media outlets and some media releases from prolife groups, Bill 52 does not authorize assisted suicide (Section 241 of the Criminal Code).
• Bill 52 legalizes euthanasia under the euphemism medical aid in dying. Euthanasia is a form of homicide. The difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is: Euthanasia is an act whereby the physician or someone else causes your death (homicide) and Assisted suicide is an act whereby the physician or someone else provides the means (lethal dose) and you take it yourself (assisting a suicide).
• The bill is clear, the doctor administers, that means euthanasia. Assisted suicide is when the doctor prescribes.
• The supposed safeguards that the Quebec government have chosen are nearly identical to the current Belgian model.
• The Belgium model differs from the Netherlands model in the way it is administered and paid for. The Belgian model administers and pays for the act of euthanasia through its palliative care system. The Belgian model only authorizes euthanasia by physicians, but assisted suicide does occur sometimes.
• The Quebec government is defining euthanasia as a medical act, within the continuum of palliative care.
• The palliative care system may or may not accept euthanasia within Quebec, but it is being defined in that manner.

In the blog, his introductory note on why we should oppose the practice of euthanasia is well worth repeating. These are:

1. No person, institution or government agency should be given the right or power to take the life of a human person.
2. The power of one person, to cause the death of another person, will be abused. Human interaction often includes some level of abuse. In this circumstance the abuse results in the death of a human person.
3. Discrimination exists towards identified groups of people or individuals. Legalizing euthanasia, for instance, threatens the lives of people with disabilities.

Regarding the second of these three points, Schadenberg cites in this blog several studies indicating as much in Belgium.

A second writer who provides commentary on different sections of the bill ist into the nitty-gritty of Bill 52 is Wesley Smith. He has written two pieces found here and here. In these two articles he examines sections - 3, 8, 26, and 29.

Once again, Bill 52 - "An Act respecting end-of-life care," may be viewed here.

While attending this past Saturday's Springtime March protesting the Quebec government's plan to permit euthanasia, I eerily felt I had been transported to Holland.

First, the lanscape was awashed with tulips. Among the more than 1500 gathered on this sunny day to march from the Plains of Abraham to the National Assembly, I arrived at the legislature to be greeted by beds of tulips.

The walkways along the font lawn leading to the provincial building had been decorated with several beds as had the fountain with a ring of red tulips circling it.

Could there be a better symbol for this European country?

Well, yes, there happens to be a better, though more infamous, symbol of that country of 6+ million souls. It is its euthanasia policy.

Since 2002, when the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act"  came into effect, Holland has gained the infamous distinction of being one of a few principalities worldwide permitting the legal killing of its citizenry.

Yet, on this day, I was not in Holland but in Quebec and yet our elected officials are determined to imitate its European ally in more ways than one.

I'm fond of tulips, despite its characteristic of wilting too quickly.

I'm not fond of "medical aid in dying," as the authors of the impending law have euphemistically referred to euthanasia. It amounts to the deliberate ending of a human life.

The Quebec Life Coalition was present on Saturday to lend its voice with the many other groups and individuals present against the plans of the current government. One such group is the physician outfit called "Total Refusal of Euthanasia." They have drafted a declaration found here, which I encourage all to read and sign.

For more photos and a story, click here.

Photo albums may be seen here and here.

THE SPRINGTIME MARCH:

Euthanasia, in our province, NO THANKS!

Quebec City, Saturday, May 18, 2013

Chartered Bus leaving Montreal

The Springtime March against the government legislation permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide will be held this coming Saturday, May 18, 2013, in Quebec City.

Would like to join us for this event? The Quebec Life Coalition is chartering a bus to permit you to participate.

The price per round-trip ticket is $35. Family discounts are available.

Our schedule reads as follows:

• Departures – 7 a.m. 895, De la Gauchetière West
• 9 a.m. Mass at Our Lady of the Cape – Trois-Rivières (French)
• Noon Gathering on Plains of Abraham – Québec City
• 1:45 p.m. Walk to the National Assembly
• 2:45 p.m. Arrival at National Assembly – speeches.
• 4:30 p.m. Closing Prayer
• 6:00 p.m. Board buses and return to Montreal

Cost: $35 per person, round-trip. Family discounts available.

Registering: Before May 17 at (438) 930-8643 or (514) 344-2686. Or email us at [email protected].

Also, bring a lunch! (There will also be a canteen on-site.)

A fortnight ago, Quebec's junior health minister Véronique Hivon announced that the provincial government is moving ahead with legislation aimed at permitting “dying with dignity.”

In the ensuing days, reaction was swift, both for and against this physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia bill that the government wishes to have in place before the summer break.

The following is a collection of articles and opinion appearing In Montreal's The Gazette - a daily publication, offering both a summary and links to each, where possible.

January 16: “End-of-life rules to be set out in new law,” Kevin Dougherty, A2.

This article treats the legislative and judiciary angles to Quebec’s proposed legislation for assisted suicide. After citing previous Canadian cases, the article presents the provincial government’s goal, based on a recently released study indicating what course to go. Also discussed is how the federal criminal code will be circumvented to permit.

Jan 16: “Not everyone agrees with panel’s controversial findings,” Katherine Wilton, A2.

The author presents several perspectives on physician-assisted suicide. First she summarizes the context as set by the provincial government for pursuing physician-assisted suicide program. From here she moves to treat the importance expanding palliative care services. A first physician is quoted acknowledging that the patient and no one else ought to decide. Next, a legal point is made about proper wording the legislation as not euthanasia nor assisted suicide but “dying with dignity.” Finally, a second palliative doctor is claimed to be an advocate as siding with euthanasia.

Jan 17: “Physician-assisted death will have tight rules,” Katherine Wilton, A8.

This article considers who the clients will be that benefit from the proposed legislation on physician-assisted suicide. It begins by citing a case in Oregon where the patient, a physician makes the decision for physician-assisted suicide. A second case concerns two Belgian twins who opted for death upon learning that they are going blind. Finally, the article ends by profiling the rules in the Quebec proposed legislation.

Jan 17: “A choice the terminally ill should be able to make,” The Gazette’s View, A18.

The Gazette’s editorial board describes as «sensible» the plans of the Quebec government to permit “people with debilitating terminal maladies the right to choose when and how to die.” The editorial rests its case on the report by a panel of “eminent legal experts” Furthermore, it claims that this course of action is endorsed by Quebecers, both in general and the professional ranks.

Jan 18: “A creeping culture of death,” Sherif Emil MD, Opinion, A15.

In this opinion piece, pediatric surgeon, Dr. Emil argues against the provincial government’s plan to enact legislation permitting physician-assisted suicide. The crux of his argument rests on his several decade experience of practicing in Quebec – from a student to working in the Montreal Children’s Hospital. In this period he has seen a degradation of the provincial health care network and that placing the patient in the position to decide his own fate is unfair particularly as it applies to children. Additional comments are made about the adverse moral stance of physicians and the ill-begotten Belgian model on which the Quebec one is based.

Jan 19: “Your Views” presents five letters with varying opinions on the proposed legislative course of the provincial government.

• William Raillant-Clark (re jan18)

Addressing the Emil article, the writer argues that individual rights trump whatever state the health care network is performing at.

• Dr. J.C .Pecknold… loss of dignity, intrinsic value of human life (re jan17)

The writer, a physician, argues against the proposed legislation as it would place members of his profession in an unethical position. Other comments about the importance of palliative care and the intrinsic value of human life are made.

• Robert Marcogliese (re jan17)

The author focuses on semantics, stating that “assisted-suicide” in not the same as “dying with dignity.”

• Shalom Spira (re jan17)

Mr. Spira questions under what authority can the government proceed with its stated course of action.

• Helene Bolduc, President, Association Quebecoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignite (re jan15)

Ms. Bolduc takes up the individual rights argument in end-of-life matters. Further, she appears to wish to enlarge the scope of who could avail of the proposed legislaltion.

Jan 22: “No role for palliative care in euthanasia,” Dr. Manuel Borod, A16.

Addressing the article written by Mr. Dougherty (Jan16), Dr. Borod writes so as to clarify points that are confusing, misleading, and false. First, he states that the only new matter in the proposed legislation is the “right to have medical assistance in dying.” Second he notes that the end of palliative sedation is not the death of the patient as the article states but care that not “necessarily hastens death.” Finally, he states as Director of the division of Supportive and Palliative Care that the current objective “that all our patients die with dignity” and that the proposed legislation is a smokescreen for allowing “an act that directly causes death.”

Jan 23: “Euthanasia would be better than how my mother died,” Dianne Laheurte, Opinion, A17.

Dianne Laheurte writes in favour of euthanasia. She describes the death of her mother over a four year period, one characterized by gradual deterioration and adverse emotional impact on her and both of her parents.

Commentary

I find Mr. Spina’s observation interesting - what authority does the provincial government have to proceed with this legislative initiative. For example, the briefs presented at the “Dying with Dignity” provincial tour overwhelming favoured a course toward improved palliative care to the exclusion of both euthanasia or assisted suicide, many of whom were from the medical profession.

On the topic of dignity, it seems that dignity already exists in the care for those who are terminally ill. Drs. Emil and Borod write about this and both are well placed to know.

Also, it seems that if life lacks a certain quality about it, then it is not worth living. Hence individuals do want to be hindered in ending their lives.

Under the guise of promoting our rights and freedoms, the Barreau du Québec is endorsing the culture of death.

The video by the body responsible for overseeing professional legal practice in the province - Le Barreau du Québec, shows a young woman upset with the positive results of a pregnancy test. The words "abortion rights" appear at the end of the segment.

Later on in the thirty second clip destined for television audiences, the video shows a bedroom setting in which an elderly weakened man and his family grieving over his diminishing health. The caption "dying with dignity" fades in.

As an astute commentator wondered whether (and how many of) the Barreau's membership was consulted about the views aired in this add.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is launching a project aimed responsible health care - Declaration of Hope.

EPC Executive Director Alex Schadenberg writes that "... the Declaration of HOPE (is) to convince political leaders that Canadians want positive responses to difficult life conditions, not euthanasia or assisted suicide."

Please sign the Declaration of HOPE and forward the link to the Declaration of HOPE to all of your friends and contacts.

An open letter to all Canadian Parliamentarians written by the EPC may be found here.

The following interview comes from the Zenit news service. Written originally in Italian by H. Sergio Mora, it was translated by Oceane Le Gall into French and from French into English by Google Translator; I tweeked the final version.

ROME, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 (ZENIT.org) - Human embryo based cosmetics, rampant euthanasia that ever gradually instills itself by "way of omission," rather than by the rule of law, and the cultural tendency to consider the patient like an oil well: all of these topics solicit the attention of the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC).

And among all these questions, one must not be forgotten, that relating to the problems of life from conception, says the president of the FIAMC, Mr. Jose Maria Simon, to the readers of Zenit during a break at the meeting of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, the European Congress of Catholic Doctors (AMCI - FEAMC), the Italian Catholic Doctors Association (AMCI) and participants of the International Conference of Catholic hospitals, which took place last Saturday, November 17, in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican.

Zenit - Dr. Simon, first tell us what is the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations?

Jose Maria Simon - This is an old institution of Pontifical Law, that forms doctors on ethical issues,  doctors as well as students and medical personnel. We also cooperate on issues related to maternity. Our work extends to the largest possible number of countries and international organizations, so that our Christian vision of medicine can be better understood and accepted.

Are there new challenges for today's medicine?

Yes, there are, but still around the same issues: not seeing his neighbor as a source of income; the defense of life from conception until natural death, and the transmission of life; respect for the dead or embryo death, which nonetheless still remains a symbol of the deceased and can not be used as we see fit.

What most worries Catholic doctors today?

To see embryonic tissue from fetuses used to make cosmetics, worries us considerably. This is a very serious thing, but that happens, and costs a lot to get evidence. When you accuse a company, it knows well how to defend itself, through lawyers and journalists. It is therefore very difficult to make specific charges; yet the facts are there, these worry us, and they must be fought.

Is there any real hope?

We expect a lot of this Charter for the medical profession, which for us is like a new Code of Ethics, the second version of which is in the process of being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The first was already rich in points, while the second will be updated to reflect medical changes.

We just talked about natural death and respect for life. What can you say about it?

There is first the problem of euthanasia which seems to be progressing, not so much in legislations but rather in practice. Currently, in many countries, we practice euthanasia by omission. Someone decides for you: family, an oncologist and so on, they determine that your life is over, it is not worth the trouble to live, so the person is sedated and dies.

So, death is induced?

Yes, and sometimes unnecessarily. It is important to understand that the mission of the physician is to eliminate the pain, the anguish, the suffering, and this must of course be done with all possible means, but without precipitating death, as it is very well stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, about euthanasia - prohibited is every action taken to avoid suffering, procures death.

Alas, this practice is gaining ground and progresses as the culture of death progresses in various areas: judicial, legislative, media, culture, including art, and so on ...

So the question is not only religious in nature?

There are many doctors in the world who respect human life, Catholic or otherwise, who need the support  and arguments on which to build.

And where do we find these arguments?

We have a lot of resources on our website - links, public statements, taken from our conference where we work with scientific publications, present progresses, science, and social studies, and interface with the media.

With Catholic doctors, we pray. We provide an ecumenical space and ethical training in medical problems. Congresses are very useful, even the free time during which it is possible to consult a colleague so as to understand how thinking on a particular issue varies from one country to another.

How are aggressive therapies lived out today?

This is something that must be fought. Any medicine, whether offical or lay, Catholic or other churches agree that abuses exist. In fact, sometimes, certain diagnoses or therapies are disproportionate to the results that may be expected.

And what of the transmission of life?

We are worried about that too. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae presents a very good doctrine in the sense that it solves a lot of the problems. Who respects it, respects his wife, and is faithful, does not kill his children via abortion, does not beget them in vitro, but procreates them naturally, and respects the fact that the embryo may die naturally.

The Humanae Vitae is the way to go?

Absolutely, it is prophetic. It may be found on the FIAMC website. Also, we are currently preparing a second document which can help a Lutheran for example. I hope that next year, on the anniversary date of the propagation of the Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem, it is possible to spread this scientific paper that supports the encyclical.

What has the FIAMC brought to the synod?

FIAMC has received more than it has given. We were able to attend the meeting of the Synod of Bishops, speak with each as well as with auditors. We met with the Catholic Medical Associations of different countries and made ourselves known. Not to mention the honor of being in contact with the Holy Father. Yet what we mainly did at the Synod was pray and in itself this was very helpful.

About abortion, today there is a lot more information and matters are clearer, yet the practice is still widespread ...

Abortion is a topic that we studied extensively. Unfortunately when the devil enters something, it is difficult to resolve it by laws or arguments; we need help from on High.

Today science clearly shows that human life can be supressed...

Today more than ever we know that from the first moment of conception, the life is a separate being, distinct from father and mother, developing in a coordinated manner, progressive, who needs "fuel" and that implanting in the mother's womb, so as to take this fuel and grow to become one of us.

Concerning embryos, is there less public awareness ...

Yes, awareness is less, although we have a visible human form. I think conscience is hindered by evil.

The cryopreserved also have human form?

Genetically, they have a human form; their DNA says: this is a human being. Here, too, conscience is blinded by evil; everyone can understand that this embryo is a human being, microscopically.

In conclusion, what is key to properly treating a patient?

I believe that good professional competence consists much more in treating patients as brothers, as children, and parents, rather than as oil wells.