Editorial

By Paul Schratz

The stench of death creeps closer to British Columbia as Washington State residents prepare to render a verdict on euthanasia.

Washington's Initiative 1000 isn't attracting huge interest on this side of the border, but it should be, now that the euthanasia movement that began two states away in Oregon may soon be one state away.

The relevance of a state initiative in another country may not be immediately apparent, but these things have ways of spreading their tentacles in unpredictable ways, just as Canada's forays into same-sex unions earned mention in American jurisprudence.

Although the legalization of euthanasia legislation would require the federal government's support, the provinces are typically involved in a variety of ways. In the case of Tracy Latimer, it fell on the provincial attorney general to appeal the case, which eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The high-profile deaths of Tracy Latimer and Sue Rodriguez sparked a Canadian euthanasia effort that hasn't died out many years later. Those two killings have had a profound impact on our sensibilities. Indeed, a session of Parliament wouldn't be complete without some MP introducing pro-euthanasia legislation.

As a result, euthanasia is yet another of those populist topics that don't remain still for long. Between word of mouth and local initiatives, pro-lifers are left constantly trying to stomp out smouldering embers before they flare into a wildfire, like the same-sex union campaign.

Unfortunately the embers were allowed to smoke too long in Oregon, and euthanasia could soon be just across the line, in the same state where British Columbians fill up their cars and buy groceries. Once that happens, don't be surprised when British Columbians start demanding access to the same "death services" their neighbours have.

As usual, the forces working against the culture of life have some commanding advantages, such as:

a. Money: they're outspending the pro-life side two to one.
b. Easy emotional appeals: they're happy to exploit those who have not been able to control the manner of their death.
c. The secularism card: they've been quick to argue that the religious values of Catholics and other faith groups have no place in the debate.

The Washington initiative, if successful, would introduce a shockingly cynical version of "death with dignity." Among other things, it would allow:

a. Administering of lethal drugs without spouses or family members being advised.
b. Euthanization of people suffering from depression without their receiving psychological counselling or treatment.
c. Health insurers to provide funding for lethal drugs while denying end-of-life medical care, practically ordering the dying to jump or be pushed.

Pressuring the dying to end it all rather than to consume precious financial resources is not only a prerogative of insurance companies. Patients' heirs who will benefit from a will or estate will similarly be in a conflict of interest when it comes to making end-of-life decisions for a relative. For some, the temptation to push for an early demise will be overwhelming.

No matter what happens in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, we need to watch with concern what happens in Washington state. It could serve as a useful preview for the next euthanasia debate in Canada.