Now in Polish at Racjonalista. Thanks, Malgorzata!
_____________________________
First of all, the press release from the EFC:
OTTAWA – Counsel for The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) will appear before the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday, December 10, 2012 on the Cuthbertson v.Rasouli case. The case will determine whether physicians are required to obtain consent from a patient, or their substitute decision maker if they are incapacitated, before withdrawing life support.
“This decision will impact not only how we treat seriously ill Canadians, but also whether we as a society value their wishes and their sincerely held religious beliefs,” explains EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson.
The case is about an Ontario man who became comatose following complications with minor brain surgery. While his condition has reportedly since improved, at the time the legal proceedings began, his physicians determined that he was in a persistent vegetative state, had no hope of recovery and should be withdrawn from life support. His family, including his wife who is a physician, disagreed with the diagnosis and sought an injunction to prevent the physicians from unilaterally removing Mr. Rasouli from life support. The Ontario courts ruled that doctors must obtain consent, either from the patient or his substitute decision makers, prior to withdrawing medical treatment. If consent is not obtained, the physicians’ option under current Ontario law would be to continue treatment and proceed to the Consent and Capacity Board for a ruling. The Board is required to hear from both sides and consider the patient’s wishes and beliefs, including religious beliefs, in the process of making a decision.
“Patient wishes must be considered in regard to their medical care,” continues Hutchinson. “In this case, Mr. Rasouli and his family also hold religious beliefs about life, and believe that life should be respected until all signs of life are gone. The family wants Mr. Rasouli’s beliefs considered and are satisfied that the matter be heard by the Consent and Capacity Board.”
EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier adds, “This is not a family versus doctor tension. This is about recognizing the right of the patient to decide to accept or reject medical treatment based on a decision made from the perspective of his worldview or framework of reference about life. Physicians are not equipped to consider non-medical factors such as sincerely held religious beliefs and philosophical values of patients. When disagreement arises, the Consent and Capacity Board is the legislated venue to consider these factors and make these decisions.”
“The role of religious beliefs in this case must be a point of concern for all Canadians who may find their beliefs – or those of their family members – under-valued or even dismissed as they attempt to make critical end-of-life decisions in a culture where the value of life or a life worth living is evolving,” states Hutchinson.
My comment on this will be brief, and will address itself to one part of the press release.
At the end, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson is quoted as saying:
The role of religious beliefs in this case must be a point of concern for all Canadians who may find their beliefs – or those of their family members – under-valued or even dismissed as they attempt to make critical end-of-life decisions in a culture where the value of life or a life worth living is evolving.
In view of the EFC’s stated opposition to assisted dying in any form, this is a telling contradiction. For if religious believers are worried that their beliefs will be undervalued or dismissed at the end of life, just consider that, by law, the beliefs of those who make other end-of-life decisions are not accommodated in any way. Why should religious believers’ beliefs be taken seriously, if those believers constantly oppose taking the beliefs of others, who wish to receive assistance in dying, seriously? No doubt the EFC would say: Because that is against the law. But the reasons for it being against the law are almost entirely based in the religious history of the law itself. Now, people are saying that they no longer wish to be governed by religious prescriptions and proscriptions that are a part of our history. Now, we want to be treated as adults who can legitimately ask for assistance in dying when life has reached the stage of being intolerable. The EFC would remain opposed, although they want to demand that the law take their religious beliefs into account in situations — such as the one in question — where the medically indicated course of action is to acknowledge that life has come to an end. Thus do Christians speak with forked tongue. Why should we pay attention to religious beliefs, if those religious believers will not pay attention to the beliefs of others who do not share the Christian or Muslim beliefs in the sanctity of life, which is opposed to their request for assistance in dying? When Christians are consistent in this matter, then, perhaps, it will be time to talk about respecting the beliefs of all at the end of life. But the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada should recognise that it cannot have its cake and eat it too, as it so obviously wishes to do.
At some level I think the opposition to assisted dying knows which arguments are more valid. Why else would they so quickly jump to use the secular arguments when they actually support the position they want? To be consistent, they would have to argue that the opinion of the doctor and family are irrelevant and all patients must always be preserved at all costs. That they do not make this argument shows them to be poor thinkers or dishonest, and not just the victims of religious ways of thinking. Clearly they can think past their dogma if they choose to.
John K. Indeed! In fact, though, what makes them such poor thinkers (or dishonest — take your pick!) is the religious ways of thinking that has a tendency to hijack rationality. Yes, I think they do see the point, but what makes them impervious to its validity are the religious concerns that tend to bury it in gobble-de-gook.
Before anyone anywhere misrepresent the Cuthbertson v.Rasouli case please understand clearly that the “case will determine whether physicians are required to obtain consent from a patient, or their substitute decision maker if they are incapacitated, before withdrawing life support.” It is not about terminating the life of someone who requests this.
It deals with DNR (Do Not Resusitate) orders such as CBC’s Dr. Brian Goldman will discuss in tomorrow’s “White Coat Black Arts” show. It does not deal with requests for medically-assisted dying, the prime focus of this website.
To John K.: Concerning the EFC brief Monday, you say, “To be consistent, they would have to argue that the opinion of the doctor and family are irrelevant and all patients must always be preserved at all costs. That they do not make this argument shows them to be poor thinkers or dishonest, and not just the victims of religious ways of thinking.” So are you recognizing that this is not what the EFC brief argues?
Sorry, I fail to see the “poor think[ing] or dishonest[y]” you allege in the EFC brief. Instead, you morph one discussion (re DNR orders) into another (re medically-assisted dying) and then castigate EFC comments on the first as applying to the second, while beating the drum in favor of the second.
Note that the Cuthbertson v.Rasouli case involves contradictory opinions among the doctors of whether the patient Mr. Rasouli is indeed “in a persistent vegetative state.” Note also that “a persistent vegetative state” is not a fact, it’s an opinion. From Eric’s description of the EFC statement Monday, I understand that EFC urges everyone involved in the case ought to take into account the religious beliefs of the patient Mr. Rasouli. Now I can understand that all mentions of “religious beliefs” tend to be toxic to atheists, hence responses like “poor think[ing] or dishonest[y]” and Eric’s “a tendency to hijack rationality” and “impervious to its validity are the religious concerns that tend to bury it in gobble-de-gook.”
Sorry, folks, the Cuthbertson v.Rasouli case is about DNR orders; it’s not about medically-assisted dying. So where is the “poor think[ing]” happening? I fear McBeth, someone protesteth too loudly.
Al H. As usual you miss the point. I did not say that the C v Rasouli case was about assisted dying. It is, however, about the value of life and its termination, and religious beliefs associated with this. However, while the EFC wants strictly held conscientious religious beliefs about the value of life to be upheld, it does not notice that this conflicts with its staunch refusal to recognise that others have an equal right regarding the value placed on their lives, when they reach the point where their lives are no longer, in their view, of value to them. And C v R is, whether you want to recognise this or not, about with-holding or withdrawing treatment, and so is as positive an act as giving someone a medication to hasten death. Whether there is a disagreement about persistent vegetative state or not, the underlying reason for refusing the DNR order is religious. That’s why the EFC is involved in the case. If it were a strictly medical decision, then it would be for medicine to decide, not the courts. The primary focus of the EFC’s intervention is religious in origin, not medical, and it is dishonest of you to ignore this.
As the press release says, just to amplify this point: “In this case, Mr. Rasouli and his family also hold religious beliefs about life, and believe that life should be respected until all signs of life are gone. The family wants Mr. Rasouli’s beliefs considered and are satisfied that the matter be heard by the Consent and Capacity Board.”
Eric, do you agree that the case before the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday, December 10, 2012 on the Cuthbertson v.Rasouli case “will determine whether physicians are required to obtain consent from a patient, or their substitute decision maker if they are incapacitated, before withdrawing life support”? If so, then you and I agree that it is not about physician-assisted suicide.
Yet your rants against the EFC brief argue in support of physician-assisted suicide because some Canadians wish it to be legal — as some “equal rights” issue (yes, Eric, I get your point and don’t agree). To me that is as logical as arguing that though slavery is currently illegal in Canada, because some Canadians wish it to be legal (as some “equal rights” issue) our laws ought to be changed to recognize the diversity of views in our multi-cultural society. Do you get my point?
No, Al, I do not agree. It is certainly not about suicide, since suicide requires not only the consent, but the agency of the person dying. But it is still about termination of life, and whether, in this case, physicians are required to give pointless care to a person in a vegetative state. So, the issue of religion enters into this case in a crucial way, even though the body is being kept alive artificially. If, in fact, the religious belief is that all life is valuable, then it is conceivable that a body can be kept alive, as in the Terry Schaivo and other cases, for years, with pointless and wasteful uses of resources. The question that should be being addressed is whether a person who is dying — and is not already effectively dead, as in this case — the medical disagreement is due to the husband’s wife being a doctor herself, not to general disagreement amongst the hospital staff, or so it seems — should be able to have life support withdrawn without the same kinds of checks that would govern positive assisted dying, were it to be legalised. Keeping bodies alive seems to be a pointless activity, and only religion could think this a valuable or appropriate use of medical resources.
However, if you dare to speak again about my “rants”, you can say goodbye to your right to comment here. I did not rant, although you have been given the liberty of doing quite a fair bit of it yourself.
As to the second paragraph of your last comment, it is clearly pointless to argue with you. I am simply saying that, if the EFC wants to have its religious beliefs regarding the value of life respected at the end of life, then there is no reason that a person’s beliefs regarding the disvalue of life should not also be respected. The EFC wants to have it both ways. It wants us to respect religious beliefs concerning the value of life, but is not prepared to respect the beliefs of others who reasonably claim that their lives are no longer of value, and that continued life would be a harm to them. This is as valid a belief as the Christian belief in the sanctity of life, and is not at all like slavery. The right to die is a liberty interest. Slavery, clearly, is a denial of liberty interest altogether.
Be warned, however, I am patient, but not infinitely patient, and I will not permit you to speak of me as you have done. One more outburst like this last and you will be history. You have deliberately misrepresented me and others on this blog. You have to start paying attention, and stop pretending that your views are obviously correct. You must present argument, not dogmatic opinion.
Al H. I have deleted your last. Opinions do not count as arguments, nor have you any right to mention Elizabeth’s name in this context. In addition, I did expect an apology.
Banhammer time, Eric. Al H persists in willfully missing the point, so he is not contributing to meaningful discussion in any way. I respectfully suggest that you don’t waste any more of your (or our) time and energy on someone who cannot be bothered to read what is actually written, even when it is repeated multiple times.
Yes, TPP, I’m afraid that time has come. It is clearly hopeless trying to get another point of view through that narrow mental bandwidth. I thought for a while that he was rational, but it seems not. For example, in the deleted post, he said, with slight redaction:
He seems not to be aware that Elizabeth went to Switzerland where she had the right to assisted dying which was unavailable here — that was the redaction. And to speak in that dismissive way about assisted dying, as though it is a matter of “putting people down” just shows how little attention Al has been paying. That we do not accept the Supremes decision is simply because the decision was couched in such a way that it must be revisited. It was, additionally a split decision 5-4, with well reasoned dissenting opinions. For the Supremes to have invoked the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms shows how thin the ice was upon which they were skating. And it is not by rejecting religions that atheists seek a right to assisted dying. It is based on reasoned argument, such as that produced by the Royal Society of Canada’s report on End of Life Decision Making. Religious believers seem blissfully unaware that any point of view exists except their own. It’s a sad comment on the effect of religion on the human mind. They value dead bodies kept “alive” on “life” support to the reasonably expressed requests of those who are suffering. May their God damn the lot of them for their cruelty! Over at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition they are still speaking of the withdrawal of life support from Terri Schaivo as murder! The mind reels!
So, Al, unless you have something new and reasonable to add to the discussion, you might like it better talking to your fellow believers, who will no doubt console you for being so badly done by here.
Pingback: On Letting Nature Take Its Course. Letting the Religious Justify Assisted Dying! « Choice in Dying