Author: Doug Rutherford

Two events this week have called the right to die question before the public. First, Gloria Taylor, a BC resident with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig ’s disease), and four others have filed suit before the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide. Taylor said her condition is deteriorating and she wants the ability to say when she dies.

If you are unfamiliar with ALS, it “is a rapidly progressive, invariably fatal neurological disease that attacks the nerve cells (neurons) responsible for controlling voluntary muscles. “ It results in the loss of the ability to move your arms, legs and body and causes the muscles in the chest and diaphragm to loss their ability to move, making it impossible to breathe without a ventilator. Most patients die from respiratory failure and the normal life expectancy of someone suffering from the disease is three to five years (for a description of ALS, its symptoms and treatments, see the National Institutes of Health web page).

This morning, a report by a Royal Society of Canada panel of six Canadian experts in bioethics, clinical medicine, health law and policy, and philosophy released a two year study on euthanasia in Canada. The panel recommended that Canadians should have the right to choose assisted suicide without legal penalty. This was based on a variety of factors, including the fact that several other jurisdictions have had euthanasia laws on the books without leading to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. The recommendations stated that “Canada should have a permissive yet carefully regulated and monitored system with respect to assisted death” and that doctors and patients should have the rights as individuals to choose whether to participate in assisted suicide based on their moral beliefs. They also considered palliative care in Canada and made several recommendations on the current palliative care system.

This is the second time the question has been placed to Canadians with such national prominence. In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, also suffering from ALS, lost her case in the Supreme Court to have the assisted suicide laws overthrown in a 5-4 decision. She, with the help of an anonymous doctor, ended her own life in 1994. No charges were filed in her case.

This is a contentious issue with organizations dedicated to both the pro and con sides of the argument. Any discussion that reaches parliament probably will be heated and emotive.

My opinion on this manner is easiest expressed in terms of what treatment I would like in these circumstances. I would like the choice to say when I have decided that my time is over. I have absolutely no desire to burden my family and friends with a lingering death and leave them in a situation where their lives are on hold for the sole reason that mine is. Guess what. The world will not end because I’m not here. At some point after my passing, people will eventually move on and speeding this is a good thing. And, I would like to have a number of options available should that time come, above and beyond saying, “I’m going skiing and may not be back for a while.”

The arguments against assisted suicide have largely concerned moral standards and the potential that people may be forced to involuntarily commit suicide by doctors or relatives. Washington and Oregon states both have good laws and regulations that prevent this and the Royal Society panel found no evidence that this has occurred. Any new law permitting assisted suicide in Canada could easily incorporate the Washington and Oregon provisions.

This leaves the moral question. If, as recommended by the Royal Society, this becomes an individual decision of patient and doctor, then their moral viewpoint on the issue is the only one that should matter. My morals incorporate the belief that I should be able to choose an alternative to a long, painful death from a debilitating disease. Others feel differently. They should have the right to choose otherwise for themselves; however, there are many groups that feel that I should not have that choice for myself and I resent the arrogance, and that is exactly what it is, of those who would inflict their moral viewpoint on others.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Canada finds in favour of Taylor et al. If not, with the current discussion once again in the news, it is past time that parliament consider this question with an open and objective mind. I’m placing my hopes in the hands of the Supreme Court, since “parliament” and “open and objective minds” lately seem to be two concepts too far apart…

I’m beginning to understand why the voting rate has declined to the extent that it has. It’s not that hard to realise why people can be so disillusioned with politics and politicians in light of recent events.

Thursday’s news is a perfect point to highlight this state of affairs. After several years of deliberation over campaign funding irregularities, the Conservative Party of Canada and their fundraising arm plead guilty in a plea bargain to overspending their allotted amount of advertising. As part of the plea bargain, the related charges against four individual members of the party were dropped. The party was fined a total of $52,000. To most, this would represent an action that we should, at least, express some embarrassment for. Absolute contrition would be an even better response.

So, imagine my disgust to hear the response of Fred DeLorey, the Conservative Party’s director of communications, who said in a written statement quoted by the CBC, “This is a big victory for the Conservative Party of Canada… Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today.” A second response quoted on CTV news was equally astounding. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said. “We acknowledge there were some administrative mistakes and we are paying for those through a modest fine.” But, he said, “the practice in which we engaged in was legal and ethical.”

This is not the response one expects after you have been caught cheating in an election, admitted it in a formal statement of fact agreed to as part of the plea, and fined the maximum amount for the offence. Being caught and fined is a huge victory? And, bluntly, how the hell is something that you are willing to plead guilty for either legal or ethical? Last, but not least, no one was “cleared.” The charges were dropped to save a trial for all of the offences with the plea of guilty on the biggest offence.

Is it any wonder people can’t get excited over politics? If this is the standard for what we’re electing, why bother? We should expect better, and we should be getting it…

Here we go again. CBC North is reporting today that a newly minted MLA was convicted of falsifying documents to obtain a wilderness tourism license. Yesterday, Kluane Yukon Party MLA Wade Istchenko called a press conference to confirm that he had been convicted for misreporting his credentials to obtain the license in 2008 and was fined for the offence. He stated that it was a “lapse in judgement.” Premier-elect Darrell Pasloski is quoted as saying he did not have prior knowledge about the conviction but that it would not affect his place in government. Pasloski reportedly stated that, “by coming forward, Istchenko is demonstrating a commitment to openness and honesty.”

Openness and honesty? Time out, here. I have questions regarding the timing involved. If Mr. Istchenko felt that he should disclose this for transparency’s sake, why did he not do this as part of his campaign rather than after being elected? Failure to present this during the election is a bit misleading. Or, did he release this disclosure now before another source, such as the press, threatened to do so? If this is the case, I’d be curious to know whether or not he intended at all to bring this up or to just let it stay hidden. Neither of these possibilities imply “openness” and the failure to disclose this to the party as part of the candidacy procedure does nothing to improve the appearance of this. After all, it would be difficult to say that failing to disclose a three-year-old conviction to your own party was an oversight.

I agree that this situation rarely arises. There has been some similar history of this when Dennis Fentie’s criminal record for drug trafficking was put forward as a hint of a minor brush with the law for selling marijuana, when it turned out later that he had been convicted and imprisoned for selling heroin. This fact did not impede Mr. Fentie’s being re-elected in another majority government in the next election. However, this certainly casts a somewhat distasteful appearance to his political career.

Maybe, it’s time to amend the Yukon Elections Act to require a disclosure of convictions as part of the candidacy selection process. How this is done is probably up for some discussion. For example, should there be a time limit on convictions before disclosure is required? Should this only apply to Criminal Code convictions or should territorial offences also be included? And, the big question is: should the disclosure be a public document or one only made to the party involved or the riding association?

To be honest, I think that, someone who has been convicted of an offence and has not re-offended has paid for their indiscretion. People make mistakes, people change, and none of us are perfect. However, we do expect a high standard of conduct for those in public office. And, to be honest, hiding such a conviction during an election campaign probably speaks more to a candidate’s character than the actual offence committed itself…