Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
OtherDebates

Is physician-assisted death in anyone’s best interest?

No

Edward (Ted) St Godard
Canadian Family Physician April 2015, 61 (4) 316-318;
Edward (Ted) St Godard
Consulting physician for Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Palliative Care in Manitoba.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tedstgodard@me.com
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The issue of physician-assisted death is complex and emotional, and we must not allow truth to become a casualty. Medical professionals and laypersons alike struggle to understand distinctions between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and many more fail to distinguish either act from simple refusal or authorized withdrawal of treatment.1 We must demand and demonstrate a courageous and respectful clarity.

The expression physician-assisted death is what is kindly known as a euphemism. Euphemism is defined as “the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.”2 Writing recently in The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik noted: [E]uphemism is a moral problem, not a cognitive one. When Dick Cheney calls torture “enhanced interrogation,” it doesn’t make us understand torture in a different way; it’s just a means for those who know they’re doing something wrong to find a phrase that doesn’t immediately acknowledge the wrongdoing.3

The substitution of physician-assisted death, or the ubiquitous medical aid in dying (something I provide daily), for the more accurate if somehow distasteful euthanasia (itself a euphemism) or physician-assisted suicide, represents at best a misplaced attempt at decorum or delicacy,4 and often a deliberate obfuscation. That our journal, like the Canadian Medical Association, has stooped to using this language is regrettable and, frankly, embarrassing. It is not just semantics.

Compassion

The question with which Canadians must grapple is whether it is in everyone’s best interests that the Supreme Court of Canada appears to have legally sanctioned doctors, under loosely and ambiguously defined circumstances, to kill, or assist with the suicide of, a small number (so far) of consenting (for now) patients.

I strongly believe it is not.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr James Downar when he states that “there are types of suffering that we do not have the ability to treat”5; it would be hubris to suggest otherwise. Suffering, sadness, and pain are part of the human condition.

However, as Margaret Somerville eloquently notes, the issue at hand concerns not only our rightful, profound sympathy for people experiencing serious suffering …, but also whether allowing physicians to intervene with a primary intention of inflicting death is inherently acceptable as a foundational principle and basic value.1

I strongly believe it is not.

Before cure eclipsed care, at the heart of medicine was a relationship between a doctor and her patient. The possessive pronoun is important: my doctor, my patient. Caring for patients is a compassionate endeavour. Compassion is derived from the Latin compati6: to suffer together. The current obstacles to compassionate physician-patient relationships are immense: an aging population; increased medical specialization; overcrowded hospitals and care facilities; and health care providers who often appear strained and distracted.

But surely we should not offer to kill patients to compensate for the fact that we have become too busy to care? As subspecialists too often appear to abandon patients once there is “nothing left to be done,” so does a society that legalizes and normalizes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide risk abandoning its most vulnerable members.

Medicalization

The “death with dignity” movement, for all its well-intentioned and laudable passion, is at once a logical reaction to and a pathologic extension of what Ivan Illich referred to 50 years ago as medicalization. Simply put, medicalization is the process whereby life’s multiple complex processes, dysfunctions, and idiosyncrasies come to be defined as medical problems. Bad breath becomes halitosis; impotence, erectile dysfunction; and senility, dementia.

Death and dying have become medical problems. With its scandalously naïve misunderstanding of anything that might lead to human death as an enemy, medical research, the leading edge of medicalization, has enabled whole generations to outlive their independence. The spectre of the “nursing home” now haunts us all. The banal, if not always benign, loss of function and control formerly known as dying is now considered undignified, and even worse somehow if it will soon be over. (“Since she will soon die anyway, how can we let this continue?”) Some dread the perceived indignities that accompany slow, natural dying, while others fear a medicalized death, ensnared in the tentacles of a medicine that cannot seem to let go.

Patients have long had the right to refuse treatment, but with the rise of patient autonomy, and the commodification of medicine, patients (now “clients”) increasingly feel entitled to demand treatment. Must we now further medicalize their deaths by offering physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia as the ultimate procedure, a soothing if paradoxical final solution to medicine’s broken promises and too-deep incursion into our lives?

No.

The solution to our medicalized lives and deaths is not another syringe, and not more pills. We must talk openly about the end of life, and be less squeamish about the alarmingly ordinary sights, sounds, and smells of normal dying. Although we must not welcome or glorify suffering, neither should we strive for an artificial, sanitized, and idealized death.

In a cogent criticism of medicine, and of palliative care in particular, Marcia Angell suggests that there now exists in the minds of many a naïve and idealized picture of a “good death.”7 Proponents of euthanasia, like some overzealous advocates of palliative care, are chasing a chimeric dream, one that is as constraining as it is illusory. And yet most of us privileged to care for the gravely ill and dying attest to a boundless resilience in our patients and their families. People die as they have lived. Some lean on relationships, others on faith, and most on reserves of previously unknown inner strength.

Some might consider these matters private and personal, especially if we grant them the status of medical procedures. Conversations between physicians and patients are, indeed, sacrosanct. But the collectively agreed-upon social and legal conventions outlining their respective obligations, what they may and may not do with and to each other (irrespective of consent), are not solely private matters. They concern us all, and are thus everyone’s business.

Profound implications

Like war, self-defence, and state-sanctioned executions—the usual exceptions to the prohibition of the deliberate killing of humans—physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have profound implications not only for active participants, but for loved ones left behind, and for entire communities (especially the disabled and disenfranchised).

Legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, far from respecting private interactions between patients and doctors, would require bureaucratic transparency, safeguards, and oversight. With prescient irony Margaret Somerville notes a “logical discrepancy between arguing for what appears to be an absolute right to autonomy in choosing the manner, time, and place of one’s death and then limiting access to euthanasia to ‘carefully regulated circumstances.’”1 Charter challenges and calls for liberalized access are inevitable and will succeed. (Belgium’s 2002 law, which prohibited euthanasia under a certain age, recently was amended to decriminalize the mercy killing of children without age restriction.8)

British journalist Kevin Yuill, describing what he laments to be substantial momentum in the pro-legalization camp, notes that “[t]he fact that so many have joined movements dedicated to the freedom of so very few should alert us to the fact that the need is not practical but psychological.”4 Although we must be merciful, we appear poised to change laws and norms, less to ameliorate the genuine suffering of dying Canadians than to diminish the frustrating but profoundly human impotence of their loved ones and to assuage the angst of a population not fully informed—people dreading a future that might never come, and that once arrived might, as the disabled and dying continue to remind us, be less undignified than predicted.

In late August 2014, as I wrote this paper, British Columbia octogenarian Gillian Bennett swallowed poison rather than face the “indignity” threatened by her progressing dementia. A retired psychotherapist, who presumably had for years coached and challenged people coping with difficulty, she chose suicide. Her posthumously public act demonstrated the ease with which even a frail and failing person can kill herself. No laws need be changed, no guidelines developed, no panels struck. Tragically, it has never been easier.

Notes

CLOSING ARGUMENTS — NO

Edward (Ted) St Godard ma md ccfp

  • The current obstacles to compassionate physician-patient relationships are immense. We should not offer to kill patients to compensate for the fact that we have become too busy to care. As subspecialists too often appear to abandon patients once there is “nothing left to be done,” so does a society that legalizes and normalizes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide risk abandoning its most vulnerable members.

  • Death and dying have become medical problems. The loss of function and control formerly known as dying is now considered undignified. We must talk openly about the end of life, and be less squeamish about the alarmingly ordinary sights, sounds, and smells of normal dying. Although we must not welcome or glorify suffering, neither should we strive for an artificial, sanitized, and idealized death.

  • Legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, far from respecting private interactions between patients and doctors, would require bureaucratic transparency, safeguards, and oversight. We appear poised to change laws and norms, less to ameliorate the genuine suffering of dying Canadians than to diminish the frustrating but profoundly human impotence of their loved ones and to assuage the angst of people dreading a future that might never come, and that once arrived might be less undignified than predicted.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • The parties in these debates refute each other’s arguments in rebuttals available at www.cfp.ca. Join the discussion by clicking on Rapid Responses at www.cfp.ca.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Somerville M
    . Death talk: the case against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. 2nd ed. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2014.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dictionary.com [website]
    . Euphemism. Available from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euphemism. Accessed 2015 Feb 12.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gopnik A
    . Word magic. How much really gets lost in translation? The New Yorker. 2014 May 26. Available from: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/word-magic. Accessed 2015 Feb 12.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Yuill K
    . Assisted suicide: the liberal, humanist case against euthanasia. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Milne V,
    2. Konkin J,
    3. Sullivan T
    . Physician-assisted death and euthanasia in Canada: should it be legal or banned? Healthy Debate. 2014 Aug 7. Available from: http://healthydebate.ca/2014/08/topic/euthanasia-assisted-death. Accessed 2015 Feb 12.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Etymonline.com [website]
    . Compassion. Douglas Harper; 2014. Available from: www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=compassion. Accessed 2015 Feb 12.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Angell M
    . The quality of mercy. In: Quill TE, Battin MP, editors. Physician-assisted dying. The case for palliative care and patient choice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. p. 22.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Friedel M
    . Does the Belgian law legalizing euthanasia for minors really address the needs of life-limited children? Int J Palliat Nurs 2014;20(6):265-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 61 (4)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 61, Issue 4
1 Apr 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is physician-assisted death in anyone’s best interest?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is physician-assisted death in anyone’s best interest?
Edward (Ted) St Godard
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2015, 61 (4) 316-318;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Is physician-assisted death in anyone’s best interest?
Edward (Ted) St Godard
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2015, 61 (4) 316-318;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Compassion
    • Medicalization
    • Profound implications
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Improving the quality of primary care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Value of the periodic health examination
  • L'aide medicale a mourir est-elle dans le meilleur interet de qui que ce soit?: Oui
  • Rebuttal: Is physician-assisted death in anyone's best interest?: Yes
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Should peanut be allowed in schools?
Show more Debates

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire