“Expert commissions” to advise on contentious issues of public policy are usually political tools designed to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to pave the way for a desired policy changes. Remember that as we take a look at a new commission being appointed by the Royal Society of Canada to look into end of life issues. From the story:
Queen’s Philosophy professor Udo Schuklenk has been selected to head a prestigious new international panel on “End-of-Life Decision Making” in Canada. Appointed by the Royal Society of Canada, the expert panel will investigate key aspects of this critical issue – including voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide – and prepare a public report.
Stories such as this never seem to look deeper than the job titles of the panelists, as if they come to their work with no preexisting positions. So, I decide to check, starting with Udo Schuklenk. What a surprise: He’s a pro euthanasia philosopher. How do I know? He’s said so. For example, in an essay explaining why he is an atheist, he wrote:
No matter how unbearably patients suffer due to illness or injury toward the end of their lives, the world’s monotheistic religions stand as one in their rejection of many dying patients’ requests to end their lives in dignity. That we may well be of sound mind, and that there is no prospect of our condition improving, makes no difference to their stance. Our own considered judgment that life is not worth living any longer counts for nothing to organized monotheistic religions. According to them, we are not ethically entitled to ask for physician assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. This is surprising, given that at the end of our natural lives churches have promised us that we would be going to heaven – or hell, as the case might be. If at the end of a decently lived life we would go to heaven and enjoy eternal life, why are they fighting our earthly death so vigorously? None of this makes any sense at all if we take religious beliefs about our afterlife seriously. Once again substantial, avoidable human suffering is a direct consequence of religious interference with our end-of-life decision-making.
I don’t care about his religious views, but to chair a panel with such a clear view in favor of assisted suicide, indicates the direction in which the commission’s recommendations are expected (designed) to go.
But perhaps I am being too cynical. Let’s see who else is on the commission: Ah, Scot philosophy professor Sheila McClean who wrote The Case for Assisted Suicide, a book described as arguing fervently in favor of legalization. Hmm, I wonder how she will vote?
Another commissioner is a Dutch euthanasia researcher. Cute.
Then there’s Jocelyn Downie , author of Dying Justice, a book urging the decriminalization of both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The bias isn’t even subtle.
I spent some time researching the views of the two remaining members, but neither seemed to be particularly involved in the issue. So let’s count them, at least for now, as neutrals. No matter: Even assuming both are as adamantly opposed to assisted suicide as their co panelists appear to be for it, the deck is stacked, the fix is in, 4-2 for permitting assisted suicide in at least some cases.
The next step in this Kibuki Theater will be for the media to trip over themselves to report breathlessly that “the experts” have deeply pondered, and determined–after much hand wringing, there is always hand wringing–that assisted suicide should be allowed. It is all so scripted and predictable.
October 28th, 2009 | 6:34 pm
Thank you Wesley for letting people know that we’re far from being perfect here in Canada when “IT” comes to choosing life instead of death.
I have a LOT of things to say but my knowledge in reality is very limited and I’m afraid that I might tend to do more harm then good in voicing my opinion so between you and me, I’ll simply pray that the gods of Halloween and Death will give these so called Euthaniasianist supporters something to think about and the knowledge to smarten UP before “IT”s spiritually too late for a LOT of U>S usual sinners.
If you don’t mind here’s a site below about some people who are trying to choose life instead of death in Canada.
http://www.colf.ca/mamboshop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=119
Keep Up the good words.
God Bless,
Peace
October 28th, 2009 | 8:00 pm
So much for non-bias at the Royal Society of Canada! At least we can be thankful that it’s the Royal Society of Canada that is undertaking this. I have no recollection of any study or “commission” of their’s ever being paid any attention to. I think it is important to note that this panel of the Royal Society of Canada is not in any way shape or form a “Royal Commission”, which would be a governmental commission. It may also be of interest to your readers that the Canadian Medical Association has come out against any type of assisted suicide in Canada.
October 28th, 2009 | 9:17 pm
All life is sacred from conception to natural death.
October 28th, 2009 | 9:50 pm
Canadians definitely need prayers on this issue. There is one bright spot, though. Royal Commissions are famous for creating comprehensive, far reaching reports that tend largely towards two outcomes:
(1) Being quietly shelved
(2) Being declared so important and insightful that it warrants another Royal Commission.
Let’s hope that nothing ever comes from this report.
October 29th, 2009 | 7:04 am
“a prestigious new international panel on “End-of-Life Decision Making””- sounds like a “death panel” to me . Of course this is Canada so that’s not even controversial.
October 29th, 2009 | 7:07 pm
Minor correction: the highly stylized Japanese drama is Kabuki, not Kibuki.
October 30th, 2009 | 3:23 pm
Why do we not look at Holland where they have had this for years? There was a Dutch medical doctor that decided to compassionately kill 17 senior citezens. (without any permission from his victims) He went to trial on 5 of the cases and was convicted of 2 or 3 I forget now the exact figure. He was a convicted multiple killer. The judge sentenced him to a small fine and told him to follow the government proceedures in the future.
This did result in many Dutch seniors refusing to see a doctor for fear of being murdered by the physician even though they had normal treatable medical issues. What a slippery slope we will start on with this one if we go ahead with this.!!
God bless
Boris Missiuna
October 30th, 2009 | 9:36 pm
I wonder who is funding this Society…the “undertakers Association ?, or the Canadian senior support programs funded by the Government?. We should look to Switzerland who legalized assisted suicide in 1940 and are now consisderig changing the guidlines or making it illegal. There was a time when we made sure our seniors were protected. What’s happening to our society? We kill our babies through abortion and now we are conseidering killing our seniors for some perceived “notion what is good for them” or is it for some selfish financial reason?.
May God Bless us All.
November 14th, 2009 | 10:30 am
[...] Euthanasia Doctor-Assisted Suicide Unethical Is euthanasia doctor-assisted suicide unethical? Appointed by the Royal Society of Canada, the expert panel will investigate key aspects of this critical issue – including voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide – and prepare a public report. [...]
December 19th, 2009 | 4:26 pm
How Bizarre that Canada started off as a Christian Country, its Anthem still asks Gods blessing on this country but when we want to make life and death decisions we suddenly allow ourselves to be guided ,even ruled by people who are either self-proclaimed atheists or want to take over God’s job when it comes to life and death. So now we crown the king of abortionists and this group of pro-death proponents. Wake up Canada, God may not want to bless us while we spit in His face!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact