As expected, our June 10 MAiD edition generated reader response, including from readers who didn’t like the content. We want to hear all perspectives, even those we disagree with, so a selection is printed here. Because their views are so contrary to Catholic belief in the sanctity of life, our response is provided. The writers’ names have been removed.
It was all I could do to tolerate the total co-opting of the June 10 issue of the paper with MAiD articles in order to reach the crossword puzzle! In the past the paper has provided space for differing views on a topic. This was not the case in this issue.
Every article displayed blatant expressions of selfish imposition of the personal views of the writers, superseding anything felt by the people suffering from whatever unfortunate events in their lives led them to pursue MAiD. Everyone working in health care in any capacity knows very well that the boundaries between maintaining a patient’s comfort in their declining time, and “killing” such patients, as was repeatedly referred to in the articles, is blurry at best.
Having had a family member journey through a vicious fight with cancer, ultimately losing the battle, and subsequently choosing MAiD with its accompanying stringent criteria, I would not ever argue against such a decision!
I look forward to content in this paper demonstrating a more patient-centred approach to end-of-life issues!
•
To characterize ending someone’s life due to chronic and hopeless outlook as a killing tells me you are engaging in religious dogma. Jesus was said to be compassionate.
People end up with chronic conditions and for longer periods. They may not be able to look after themselves, they may be bedridden, depending entirely on others. Palliative care can go only so far.
Government help in assisted dying or dying with dignity has strict rules. You will not get help if you are simply tired of living. You need to make a decision for it yourself while of sound mind.
You had a letter which characterized the procedure as an execution. That shows complete ignorance of the rules and indeed an agenda.
•
The readers are encouraged to read Terry O’Neill’s report on Pages 2 and 3 to see how the Catholic response to suffering is the truly compassionate one. As pro-life advocate Stephanie Gray Connors says, “When someone feels useless, we need to help them find their value.” Those who want MAiD list the inability to engage in meaningful activities (86.3 per cent) as main suffering they want to avoid. The Catholic response is to not abandon people in their suffering, whether it’s physical, emotional, or spiritual. As for the “strict rules” on accessing MAiD, The B.C. Catholic has been documenting for years the abuse that sees patients routinely being pressured toward euthanasia. Some of it is documented at bccatholic.ca/maid. — Editor
Regarding Terry O’Neill’s June 10 article, “MAiD and the Catholic hospital,” the point I wanted to make about the “lesser of two evils” may have been misunderstood due to my entire comment not being used to provide proper context.
I do not believe that the “lesser of two evils” argument applies in this situation, which I hope becomes clear when the full paragraph (below) is read:
I cannot fathom that those who govern Providence Health co-operate with this killing because they eagerly choose to do so. I have learned enough to know that “the lesser of two evils” is a very large factor in their decision. What doesn’t leave me when I consider this matter is the rationale of Caiaphas, who argued, “You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (Jn 11:50).
Mary Wagner
Vancouver Island
Once again, St. Paul’s Hospital is being pilloried in the secular media because it will have no part in disobeying the 5th commandment, Thou shalt not kill.
Let’s drop the euphemisms. Killing yourself is suicide. Helping to cause death is homicide. Governments may choose not to stand against these acts under certain situations, but that does not change the nature of the suicide or homicide involved. That’s bad. But it is worse if government seeks to compel anyone to be a party to causing death. No euphemism or professional designation - or political office - can justify forcing someone to be a party to taking a life.
I was a military officer for eight years, and though not called on to kill while I served, we were volunteers. Even during the war, only volunteers served at the front when conscription was initiated. But now we are faced with a call to have people forced to facilitate suicide and commit homicide in medical settings.
Think very carefully before being deceived by the euphemisms and claims of compassion that surround an apparent compulsory call to kill.
Gerry Hunter
Burnaby
In the June 24 article “New mace symbolizes advancing together,” Dr. Gerry Turcotte say “the Church established the very first universities in the world from Bologna to Oxford.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but Bologna was established in 1088 and Oxford in 1096. However Nalada University in India was established by Buddhist monks in the year 500. Perhaps you should clarify this for your readers.
Norbert Papali
Vancouver
Re Father Ho’s June 17 column “Eat to live, don’t live to eat”:
Would a modern version of gluttony be our tremendous waste of food? Yes, many people do eat too much, occasionally or even often. But a more widespread form of gluttony seems to be common in rich countries: too much food on the plate or in the shopping cart. Food that cannot be eaten and gets thrown into the garbage.
Children are not taught to only put small amounts of food on their plates and eat it all before going for a second helping, and adults are setting bad examples.
Marianne Werner
Vancouver
Your voice matters! Join the conversation by submitting a Letter to the Editor here.