Wesley J. Smith is a well-known American sophist and “fellow” of the sophistical Discovery Institute. When my wife Elizabeth died in Switzerland — indeed, only a few days after her death — without having ever met her, he made statements that were not only inaccurate, but quite straightforward lies. He lied, because only lies will, in the last analysis, support opposition to assisted dying. I pull no punches on this, because I found his statements then, and find them still, libelous and abusive. The post is entitled “Another Swiss ‘Suicide Tourist’ Proves that the Euthanasia Debate is not about Terminal Illness.” (The link is now corrected, and will take you to the post in question!) It was published on 25th June 2007, two days exactly following the memorial service held for Elizabeth in Middleton, Nova Soctia, where I had been Rector for fourteen years of the Anglican parish, and Elizabeth had had a printing and design business. Mark this carefully: only two days following the memorial service! In that blog post, Smith wrote:
Elizabeth McDonald, age 38, was not terminally ill. She was disabled and depressed. (Depression is caused by MS in some cases.)
Since Smith had never met Elizabeth, and did not know whether or not she was depressed (she wasn’t, although, no doubt, depression is caused by MS in some cases), this is an out and out lie. Not just a misrepresentation, mind, but a lie, for he might have sought the truth and did not bother. Of course, he may believe that no one responsibly seeks death unless they are depressed, but his too is untrue. Then, at the end of his post he writes:
The new attitude seems to be, “If you want to die, go ahead and die. It’s none of my business,” which masks as respect for “choice” but is actually a form of abandonment.
Since his post is about “another ‘suicide tourist’,” namely, my wife Elizabeth, who was offended by the term ‘suicide tourist’, Smith is not only attacking my wife’s good name, he is directly accusing me of abandonment, or what the Anglican Church of Canada calls a “failure of human community.” The suggestion is that I had not only abandoned Elizabeth, but that I had washed my hands of concern for her: “If you want to die, go ahead and die. It’s none of my business.” This is so far from the truth that it is hard to justify this as other than a slanderous and untrue accusation directed to me and my part in Elizabeth’s determination to end her suffering. (I have asked Smith to remove this slanderous post, but to no effect.)
Let’s be very clear about this. No, assisted dying is not (and should not be) only about terminal illness. This is a complete misrepresentation of what assisted dying should concern itself with, and the laws which so limit assisted dying are a standing affront to those, like Tony Nicklinson or Diane Pretty in England, and Sue Rodriguez or Goria Taylor in Canada, and my wife Elizabeth, who were not (or may not have been) terminally ill within the meaning of the law in Oregon, Washington, etc., and would have been left to suffer regardless of the degree of their suffering. I have coined the term “terminal suffering” for those whose suffering is such that only death can bring it to an end. That is why I was opposed to Lord Falconer’s (England and Wales) and Margo Macdonald’s (Scotland) and Francine Lalonde’s (Canada) assisted dying bills. It seems that legislators can’t get it through their heads that years and years of suffering are, if anything, far worse than a few days of intense pain at the end of life. Not only can they not get this through their heads, they set themselves up for the inevitable slippery slope that will arise as soon as people justly point out that assisted dying for the terminally ill is not sufficient to cope with the human suffering caused by the refusal to legalise assisted dying for those whose suffering is terminal (as defined above). This means that the reasonable next step, to allow assisted dying for the terminally suffering, will be construed (as Smith does in the blog post linked here) as a slide down what such people believe is the inevitable slippery slope that will be created by the legalisation of assisted dying.
Veronica Abbass asked me to write something about Margaret Somerville’s recent complaint column, in which she urged people to respond to her ideas instead of criticising her religion. (See “Judge me by my ideas, not my religion.”) So, I did so, and you can access that post here, over at Canadian Atheist. Since I have in effect opened up the blog again, it seemed worthwhile to recapitulate here what I said over at Canadian Atheist, with a few modifications. (I should warn you that this is, at this point, only a one-off post. My main reason for releasing a few older posts was to help Jerry Coyne with his book. Though I have kept the domain name, I do not, for the time being, intend to return to regular blogging.)
The funny part is that Somerville should only just now have recognised that many people regard her as a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Church. She knew, she says, that there were a few activists who so regarded her, but she was completely oblivious that this was a widely shared view. Either she is living in a cocoon, or she shows less interest in her public image than she leads us to believe, since she has become something of a darling to Canadian news media, who consult her repeatedly on issues of bioethics.
While I find it hard to believe that this is something that she did not know before, she is very lucky to have been spared for so long the dismay that this realisation has caused her. The strange thing is that she gives, in her latest contribution to the Globe and Mail, no reason at all for supposing that she is not, as it is imagined, a mouthpiece for the Roman Catholic Church. She says that she has “never argued from a religious base in presenting ethical and legal analyses of the issues with which I deal.” But this is really a bit of window dressing, since she must know that the Roman Catholic voice in the public sphere seldom puts on religious vestments; instead, it purports to speak in terms that are applicable to everybody. Indeed, it is hard to see the difference between the official Roman Catholic public voice on issues like assisted dying, homosexual marriage, AID (artificial insemination by donor), abortion, and other bioethical questions, as they impinge on law, and Margaret Somerville’s show of studied objectivity. On each of these questions she comes to conclusions which differ not at all from the teachings of her church on these matters, and uses identical types of argumentation.
This post was first published on 30 March 2012. I have placed it here to give Jerry Coyne a URL for this post, which he may use in his new book.
Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, a Canadian Roman Catholic pressure group opposing assisted dying of any kind — holding even that the death of the brain-dead Terry Schaivo was murder! – and takes every possible opportunity to oppose the right to assistance in dying on the basis of Roman Catholic “pro-life” dogma (but what I choose to call the Roman Catholic death cult). He and his tiresome organisation intrudes in people’s lives even when such intervention is not only unwelcome but insulting and demeaning, and despite the fact that he has no special qualifications in bioethics, has managed to get his tendentious nonsense published in the National Post. In an article entitled “Legalizing euthanasia would leave the vulnerable unprotected,” he drags the old chestnut once again out of the fire, dusts off the burnt bits, and presents it as newly minted, hot-off-the-press, information that is vital for our society. I have (for the sake of full disclosure) a focused animus against this presumptuous and despicable man who speaks with such suffocating self-righteousness, for it was he who reported me to the police after I had returned from accompanying my wife Elizabeth to the Dignitas Clinic in Zürich, where she was helped to die before what she feared — being trapped in her body by MS — would prevent her from acting as she chose. It was a fate which, in her view, would have been far worse than death itself. It is people like Schadenberg who make sure that people like Elizabeth die before they really want to, for fear of being trapped and unable to receive the help in dying which they seek.
At the time (June 2007), a physician spokesman for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition claimed that it was important to have reported me to the police, in order to protect those who in future might be “bundled onto an airplane” (obviously implying that this was the case with my wife Elizabeth), and taken away to be killed against their will. And, the EPC said, it would do the same again, putting others on notice that if they should seek the release that only death would bring, they would make life as uncomfortable as possible for their loved ones. (At one point I sent an email to Schadenberg objecting to something which he had published in his newsletter, and he complained, of all things, of being harassed!) When the EPC received a great deal of unsympathetic coverage, in which it was suggested that it and its officers should mind their own damn business, Alex Schadenberg wrote a long, explanatory letter to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, trying to convince people that there were very serious social issues at stake here which people routinely ignore, issues that need to be emphasised against what he considered widespread ignorance of the real significance of support for assisted dying (a term, of course, which neither Schadenberg nor other EPC officers will deign to use, preferring to see aid in dying as simply another permutation of murder), a significance expressed by Pope John Paul II (Pope Karol Józef Wojtyła) by the words “culture of death.” At the same time, the EPC lawyer, Hugh Scher, in a TV appearance, suggested that I had been guilty of the crime of assisted suicide, and at least some of the more extreme of those who heard him at the time rubbed their hands together in glee at the prospect of someone so dastardly and evil as me being locked up for a very long time indeed.
So, of course, it is not surprising to see Alex Schadenberg serving up his by now rather tiresome litany of abuses that he believes will immediately follow on any form of legalisation of assisted dying in Canada, abuses which he continues to allege to be rampant in jurisdictions in which assisted dying has already been legalised. His immediate target, of course, is the recent report by the special commission in Québec on the right to die with dignity, in which the legalisation of assisted dying is straightforwardly recommended. One of the important aspects of the Québec recommendations is that legalisation of assisted dying is not limited only to those with terminal illness. Of course, this is something that Schadenberg takes great exception to, since he believes, wrongly, as it turns out, that this would put the generic “vulnerable” at risk — which of course is the main burden of his National Post piece. Yet there is simply no evidence, in any jurisdiction where assisted dying has been legalised, that the so-called “vulnerable” are put at risk. This, as I have pointed out before, is a gratuitous bit of scare-mongering by those who oppose assisted dying on completely different grounds, usually religious ones. However, this does not stop Schadenberg. Not at all. He just serves up his scary confection once again, with practically no variation or attention to the actual detail of the reports and articles that he refers to. Referring to studies is meant to provide credibility, because he does not expect people actually to read anything which he cites in defence of his position. The scary scenario is what counts with Schadenberg, even if there is no reason to be afraid.
Besides, Schadenberg, by repeatedly speaking of the so-called “vulnerable” who will be put at risk by assisted dying legislation, seems to be unaware that these so-called “vulnerable” are quite as able as other people to campaign for their rights, and that some of them, who reported to the Carter trial before the BC Supreme Court, argue that they have as much right as other Canadians to seek the remedy of assisted dying should their suffering become too great to bear; and that to use the so-called “vulnerable” as those who will be put at risk by assisted dying legislation is to infantilise them, and to suggest that they are unable to stand up for themselves, or to turn away the blandishments, as we are to suppose, of those who think they ought to be dead. (For testimony before the Carter trial, I have depended on summaries provided on the Farewell Foundation website, of which this is the first. The rest are accessible by clicking on the link at the top right hand of the page.) An Ad Hoc Coalition of People with Disabilities Who are Supportive of Physician-assisted Dying was an intervener in the Carter Trial, and it was argued on their behalf that they
… support freedom of choice in end-of-life decisions, including the freedom to choose physician-assisted dying for qualifying adults of sound mind, as a step forward for the disability rights movement that is consistent with the principles of autonomy and self-determination.
In other words, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has no right to speak on behalf of the disabled and other supposedly “vulnerable” people, and their claim to speak for them is an empty one.
Moreover, as the Ad Hoc Coalition argued, unregulated assisted dying is already taking place. It would be safer to bring this out into the open, rather than keeping it behind closed doors where no one has any idea how extensive the practice is, and on what grounds assistance is provided. Indeed, on one occasion during the trial, Professor Luc Deliens, who testified from Belgium by video conference, said that, while reporting of assisted dying in Belgium was not 100%, this did not help the government’s argument that assisted dying is a risk, because, as he pointed out,
Canada has very little information on the success of its prohibition law and has not taken steps to find out.
This argument is pretty decisive against Alex Schadenberg’s article as well, for he takes almost as unquestionable the reported rate of depression amongst those receiving assisted dying in the Netherlands, as though this were a decisive argument against assisted dying, when it is simply not known to what extent — in Canada – depression and withdrawal of treatment or even assistance in dying are linked, because Canada merely has a legal prohibition, and has never enquired as to the extent to which the prohibition is respected.
Schadenberg refers to an article which he says was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in 2005, which perhaps refers to one in the same journal in 2004, entitled “In the Terminally Ill, a Wish to Die is a Manifestation of Depression and Should be Treated Accordingly.” (Clinical Oncology (2004) 16: 319-320) Yet two things should be mentioned here. Depression, or some degree of existential angst, is no doubt normal in those who are dying in miserable circumstances; and, second, even if a patient is manifesting symptoms of depression, it does not follow (a) that the patient should be required to undergo treatment (since treatment is optional and can be refused under common law); and (b) there is no evidence that depression impairs judgement. There is, in addition, no evidence whatever that depression affects people in the ways suggested by Schadenberg, making those who are depressed by the circumstances of their dying especially vulnerable to being abused. This is simply an unsubstantiated assumption.
Schadenberg, along with many other opponents of assisted dying, continue to claim that the statistics out of the Netherlands and Belgium show that laws governing assisted dying are being abused, because, in some cases, especially in those cases where people are very near death, and the trajectory of their disease turns suddenly and unexpectedly for the worse, people who are in misery are being helped to die without their explicit consent at the time that assistance is given. However, it is important to notice a number of things. In many of these cases, large doses of opiates are used to relieve pain and distress. There is some question whether or not these are cases of euthanasia, although they are apparently considered to be euthanasia for the purposes of the studies that have been conducted. In most cases, doctors had earlier consulted patients about their desire to be helped in such circumstances; in other cases, family members were consulted; and in still other cases (there being some overlap between these different scenarios) other physicians were independently consulted. And still we have no knowledge whatever about the number of patients in Canada who are being helped to die, notwithstanding the law which criminalises such assistance. Schadenberg’s claims are empty, and without substance. All that is necessary for Schadenberg is the appearance of dubious practice, and he thinks he has an ironclad case against assisted dying, but, in general, all he has shown is that, while some cases are not reported in the Netherlands and Belgium, in many of these cases there are good explanations why they are not reported (because they were not thought of as euthanasia by the doctors who used opiates to control pain whose secondary effect may have been to hasten death), and when they are studied there is no evidence of negligence or of putting patients unnecessarily at risk, and no evidence at all that the so-called “vulnerable” are chiefly at risk.
This post was original published on 15 January 2011
Today I’m going to get right up close and personal, and say some things that I’ve wanted to say for several years. After I had come back from Switzerland, where my wife Elizabeth was helped to die, and her ashes had been buried amidst a wonderful celebration of her life, the news media and the so-called “pro-life” movement got wind of what she had done. At the behest of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (an arm of the Roman Catholic death culture), I was investigated by the RCMP Major Crimes Unsit, and then the most rabid of the “pro-life” commentators got to work to dissect what they thought it all meant. And of course, they saw devils everywhere.
One of these commentators was Wesley J. Smith, described by Wikepedia as a “Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute”. His report, still available on his blog “Second-hand Smoke”, as I discovered recently (the blog in the meantime having been moved to the conservative Catholic journal First Things), was published two days after we had buried Elizabeth’s ashes, and had remembered her big heart, her courage and her joy in life, dismisses Elizabeth as a “Suicide Tourist.” In truth, she was an exile, not a tourist, exiled to die in a foreign land, because of religious fanatics just like Smith, whose stock in trade is fear-mongering and lies.
We’ll come to the lies in a moment, but it is worthwhile mentioning that, had Elizabeth known, from the start, that, at the end, when life had become unbearable to her, she would have been able to receive assistance in dying, she might have lived much longer. She would not have had to worry about how it would end, whether she would have the courage to take her own life, furtively, all alone, whether it would work, whether she would involve anyone else in an act which she had had in mind from very early on in the course of her illness. She had known others with very severe primary progressive MS, so she knew, almost from the start, what was in store for her. Who knows how much the stress of knowing that she would eventually be completely paralysed and unable to speak, and knowing that she was not entirely free to choose, contributed to the severity of her MS? And then, of course, being forced to flee, as she saw it, into exile in order to die, she had to leave when she was still able to travel, and so she died before she would have done had she been free to die in her own home, in her own country.
The Roman Catholic death cult simply doesn’t understand. Here’s an example. Margaret Somerville is a bioethicist (at least she pretends to be) at McGill University in Montreal, and a stern opponent of assisted dying. A phone-in CBC radio programme shortly after Elizabeth died took as a topic whether the refusal to allow assisted dying forced people to die earlier than they would if assisted dying were legalised. The conversation wandered aimlessly for awhile until someone phoned in and said, “Aren’t you missing the point? Mrs. MacDonald died earlier than she would have, if she had been able to do here what she could do legally in Switzerland.” Margaret Somerville’s response was immediate and uncomprehending. “Well,” she said, “if she wanted to die, I don’t know why she would wait!” This is the problem when we allow people to make choices for others, especially religious fanatics like Somerville. They simply do not understand. Why should someone whose understanding of what people seeking assisted dying really want is limited to a few catch phrases and predigested dogmas, get to make decisions for such people?
This post was first published 4 December 2010 – once again, for Jerry Coyne’s convenience.
Deep within religious opposition to assistance in dying — which the religious almost always persist in calling, simply, killing — is the fear of chaos. This is, I believe, the chief reason for religious opposition to assisted dying, but it is never, or almost never, used as a public argument against assisted dying. However, it is always lurking in the background, as, in a sense, the ground upon which all the arguments that are used come to rest.
Chaos plays a crucial role in biblical understandings of the world. In Genesis God is said to bring order out of chaos. In the first chapter the spirit of God hovers over the deep chaos at the beginning, and then begins to assign everything a place. But later we are told that God regretted having created the earth, and was determined to make an end of all flesh, because the earth is filled with violence because of them (Gen 6.13)
The description of the great flood that follows shows the chaos returning again as the waters above and below the earth, instead of staying in their assigned places, break through into the ordered creation that God had made. It is often forgotten in retelling the story how horribly vicious it really is. Popular pictures of the flood and the ark show cute giraffes and other animals sticking their heads out, almost as though it were a holiday outing. Very few pictures show the carnage that would have resulted. Of course, Noah and the animals in their ark float above the chaos, a small fragile hope of the order that will return if God relents, and restores order upon the chaos once again.
(Note here that God uses chaos as punishment. This being the case, it should occasion no surprise that, in response to Adam and Eve’s disobedience, by eating of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, God punishes them with suffering and death. Both suffering and death, in the Bible, are close analogs of chaos itself. Jesus shows this, for example, by walking on water. Conquering the chaos of the deep is the same as surviving death, which — at any rate in the story — he goes on to do.)
One might well think that, as the cause of this chaos, by withholding his sustaining power from the order of creation, God is not entirely to be trusted. And if God was distressed by the violence into which his creation had degenerated, is it not strange to think that violence should be the answer? Is it not contradictory to show God raging with such fierce anger and destruction? Of course, the outcome is foreordained, just like in the movies, and, indeed, later, after all the brutal carnage and destruction, we know that the storied God will restore creation to order once again. He must, because we’re here, after all, aren’t we? We know the canons of storytelling too well, so we scarcely notice the horrendous cruelty and savagery of God’s condemnation, and the horrors and atrocities that ensued. We already know about God’s promises. There’s no point to the story otherwise. So, we already know that, after the cataclysm of the flood, God must make things right again. God does this by making a covenant with his creation that such disaster will never befall the earth again. In a saccharine moment God even places a rainbow in the sky as a sign of the “… everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” (Gen 9.16)