My comments will be bracketed in the story all emphasis mine:

Martinuk: Your right to die impacts everyone’s right to live

Another Canadian has travelled to Europe to be put to death on, what she believes, are her own terms. To most of us, those terms are better known as euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Seventy-two-year-old Susan Griffiths of Winnipeg suffered from multiple systems atrophy. She had lobbied for the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada and, last week, just prior to her death, she sent a letter with this request to Parliament. Fortunately, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has denied the request, yet a friend claims that Griffiths’ lobbying efforts will now be her legacy to this world.

Several months ago, Ruth Goodman, a Vancouver social activist, chose to end her life at the age of 91. Not because she was ill, but because she was tired and her friends were dying. She made an emotional public plea for legalizing the right to die in a posthumous letter sent to the media. She wanted people to have the right to “choose how and when to end their lives.”

Thursday’s Globe and Mail seemed all too eager to focus on these emotional stories, rather than report the unbiased facts of their deaths as one would expect of a newspaper. Perhaps by way of justification, it cited a growing trend in the number of Canadians who want to share their end-of-life stories as part of a grassroots movement to change the laws against assisted suicide. The Globe seems only too happy to oblige in such cases, choosing to glamorize those who take their own lives, rather than balancing its coverage with stories that encourage people to continue to live.

The Globe even reminded Canadians of Sue Rodriquez, the original “suicide story” that clawed at our national emotions, and her poignant plea for assisted suicide: “If I cannot give consent to my own death, then whose body is this? Who owns my life?”

In the article, former MP Svend Robinson, who had lobbied Canadians on behalf of Rodriquez, says Canadians admired her because “she put her life right out there and that’s what grabbed people — the courage she showed.”

So there it is — the classic left-wing argument against almost everything. Not based on facts or statistics, or what has happened in other countries, but on emotional narratives that are loaded with words like compassion, “I feel,” and claims of “my body, “my choice” and the ignorant and naive assumption that this “will only affect me.”

(Ok, so the right wing isn't emotional in their debates against abortion or in their sermons on their religion? Their zealous defense of a narrative that came from folklore isn't emotional? Sure. Compassion shouldn't be part of any "judgement" meted out to a person who wants to end their life? Is it purely selfishness and the human condition fearing death even though the right believes in some winged ascent into paradise? Or, is compassion part of decision making when measures are taken to extend a life or is that all based on some religious hocus-pocus about will and their diety even if it involves suffering? )

So does legalizing the so-called right to die provide any assurance that anyone will die “on our own terms?” Not likely.

Instead, if legalized, the individual right to die will have huge implications on my and everyone else’s right to live.

Don’t be fooled — euthanasia has nothing to do with “my individual choice” or “my right to die.” It’s a very slippery slope that affects all members of society.


(So, there you have it. The GD sippery slope argument that the right uses to argue any changes they don't approve. See? we have idiots up here too!)

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/co ... story.html

Unscientific CBC poll: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside- ... n-243.html

CONservatives are on the wrong side of the argument, as usual.

i do not like "slippery slope" arguments--they are based on "ifs"and instill fear of the "ifs" when in fact the "ifs" are not very likely to even surface....

Every person should have the right to choose how they live their life (within legal limits of course--thou shall not support theyself through robbery! etc ) and by the same token a person should have the right to choose how they will end their life barring mental defect...

My loved one and I had an agreement "no heroics" but as it came down, he ended up with all the heroics...later I apologized to him "for putting him through all that"--he patted the bed and said "sit down honey"--as we talked, I realized he was sedated during all the "heroics' and had little recall of it but I was the one who had "suffered"...he then proceeded to tell me that we had to play the game as it was dealt to us with as much courage as we could muster and if a doctor came to me and said "it's his only chance" then I had to play the card (which of course totally negated our previous agreement of no heroics!)

Three wks later, when a doctor came out of the procedure room with his request to do another heart pump and I was arguing against it the doctor looked at me and said "It's his only chance" and I played the card--knowing he wouldn't make it....but he chose to play it all the way--he didn't make it but it was his choice. Before he had gone into the procedure room I'd kissed him saying "See you in a little while!" and he looked at me with such sadness...he knew (I was in denial)...in the middle of the procedure I knew and was hitting at the door to let me in....at the same moment his heart stopped...we played it to the best of our ability--his choice.

For sure not gonna be my choice--I don't have that courage!

I'm thinking as we age, our opinions on "death" change ~ some of us fear it, some of us welcome it ~ I don't think I fear death so much as I know I'm not ready yet ~ I do not believe anyone should be kept alive artificially, most especially when there is no hope of ever reclaiming "life" ~ having said that, I do believe that this ultimately personal decision often affects others ~ but so does sitting by the bedside of a loved one, knowing there is no hope for any kind of measurable recovery ~

Personal experience: I lived in a different building before I bought this condo ~ I was friendly with a couple who lived down the hall ~ her parents also lived in the same building ~ they were a very reserved, soft-spoken, elderly couple who had both survived death camps during the Holocaust ~ one day, the usual "good morning" phone call went unanswered ~ Margie gave it an hour or so, and then went upstairs to make sure everything was okay ~ what she found was her parents lying in bed, fully dressed, arms around each other ~ they had commited suicide ~ Margie was grief-stricken, but explained that her parents were supporting members in the Hemlock Society and had prepared their family for this day ~ she took comfort that they died as they chose to die, together ~ her parents loved them enough to explain their personal choice beforehand ~ and Margie loved her parents enough to accept their decision ~ that was an enormous lesson in death-with-dignity and personal character for me ~

Sooz

Wow...to survive the indignities of death camps and to embrace their death together later at their choosing within their own dignity. That is how it should be. A powerful example of living and dying with courage and dignity and love. Awesome.