Wrapping up 2008

We are now 5 days into the new year, and I have returned to the land of high speed. Before moving into new issues for 2009, I thought I'd update and wrap up a few issues I posted on in 2008.

Snowflake Children

Shortly after I wrote this post the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released Dignitas Personae which answers several vexing bioethical questions. One of those questions is the issue of embryo adoption. I stated in the post that until we had a clear answer from the Vatican, we were free to make a decision based on an informed conscience. Well, we now have an answer from the Vatican.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of "prenatal adoption". This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an "appeal to the conscience of the world's scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of 'frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons".39

As you might remember, my opinion was that snowflake adoption was a beautiful option that should be pursued. Obviously that position conflicts with the Church, and is therefore an untenable position to hold for any Catholic. As St. Augustine said "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" (Rome has spoken, the case is closed). It bothers me that there is a situation of injustice that can't be resolved. I am a problem solver; I like answers, but apparently this situation is a Catch-22. I certainly acknowledge that the theologians and bio-ethicists whose research and teachings have lead to this decision are far wiser than I, and I acknowledge their authority.

As a Catholic, it is my duty and my joy to accept the teachings of the church- all of them, whether or not I fully understand them. As the document acknowledges, I took my position with the intent to respect and defend human life. However, that position has serious moral problems, as the document articulates. I can understand those problems, and in all honesty, and recognized them before. However, my zeal to protect life meant I ignored the moral problems. I don't like that those children will be left in limbo, but we have to trust that God, in His infinite wisdom, will have mercy on them.

Euthanasia and Luxembourg

This post talks about Grand Duke Henri's courageous stance against euthanasia in his country. As a result of this stance, his constitutional right of veto has been stripped from him, leaving him a monarchical figurehead. It doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me. However, I am very proud of the Duke for standing up for his beliefs. His example is one we should follow. Fighting for life is not an easy task, and we may all lose a lot. While the rest of us may not lose a country, we may face the loss of our jobs, the anger of our families and potentially lawsuits. But that doesn't mean that we should give up the fight. Quite the contrary.

If you remember you Catholic Teachings, the church is divided into three groups- the Church Penitent (those in purgatory) the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Church Militant (those on earth). We are the Church Militant, and we have a duty to courageously defend life against all who would threaten it no matter the cost. Grand Duke Henri has reminded us, in a very poignant way that we are the Church Militant and we must fight. God Bless him for that stand.

While the law has not yet been enacted, by taking away the right of veto, it seems that Luxembourg is poised to become the 3^rd country to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Petition to the UN against Abortion

In October I asked you all to sign the petition that asks the UN to interpret the Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child. In December I noted that they had received 330,000 signatures. Well, it turns out that by the time they presented it to the UN, they had over 450,000 signatures. The petition asking the Declaration to be interpreted to guarantee abortion rights only had a few hundred signatures. C-FAM (who sponsored the petition) hopes to raise that total to one million signatures by next year. So, if you haven't signed, or if you know others who would sign it, you can do so here.

That's all for the updates. Beginning tomorrow the posts should all be on new issues in the legal and life spheres. God Bless and I hope you all had a holy Christmas season, and I hope you have a blessed New Year. Keep praying, because that's what we need to save the lives of the unborn, the disabled, the elderly and you and me!

Fighting for the lives of our children

As many of you know, I first became interested in researching euthanasia and assisted suicide as a result of my Disability and the Law class; specifically the paper I wrote on the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands that allows doctors to euthanize infants because of their disability. At the time, the Netherlands was the only country to allow the euthanization of children.

There is now disturbing news from Scotland that they want to join in the fun by allowing children the right to choose assisted suicide. Read the story here. Obviously they are not targeting directly, but the MSP (equivalent to a Canadian MP) proposing the assisted suicide legislation feels that since we allow children (at 12 years of age) in family law a say in which parent they want to live with after a divorce, children should also be allowed to choose assisted suicide.

What?

Yeah, that analogy made no sense to me either.

And, she goes further; since children with capacity who are under 12 are allowed a say in which parent they live with, we should extend the right to assisted suicide to those younger than 12 as well, if they are mentally competent to make that decision.

The bill begins by allowing terminally ill people the right to assisted suicide, but it goes farther by saying that "Assisted suicide would also be possible for patients who unexpectedly became incapacitated to an "intolerable" degree, or who simply find their life "intolerable" - although the latter case would require the doctor to seek a second opinion from another health professional."

Wait a minute.

You mean the terminally ill don't have to get a second opinion? As soon as they say "kill me" (with a mandatory 15 day cooling down period, but we've seen how well that's worked in other countries) they can die? No, no, no! Studies prove there is a link between depression and requesting/committing suicide. EVERYONE who requests suicide should not just get another medical opinion, but also psychiatric help to see if a) they are depressed and b) help them with their depression. Anything else is laziness on the part of medical professionals.

Scotland is a beautiful country (ranks at #1 for me) with a proud history and deserves much better than this from its politicians. (Much like every other country that has or is contemplating assisted suicide) The people of Scotland are wonderful, generous people who have bravely fought off evil doers in the past. I hope and pray there are still some brave souls in that country who will fight this new evil with the same courage that their ancestors fought off every invading force from the Romans to the British.

And I will leave you with a thought, from the Declaration of Abroath signed in 1320, which acted as a Declaration of Independence for the Scottish people in their fight against the British. It states "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." Yes my friends, that is what we are still fighting for; the freedom to live our lives.

Royalty I approve of

I want to commend Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg on his stand against euthanasia. His country is trying to follow the example of its neighbors Belgium and the Netherlands by legalizing euthanasia. The Grand Duke has the constitutional power to veto laws, and he has pledged to use his veto to prevent the law from coming into force. The veto has not been used since 1912.

To get around this, the Luxembourg Parliament is going to strip him of his veto power, which will render him a complete figurehead. While they may have the power to do this, the Grand Duke is following his conscience, and will not allow himself to be complicit in the murder of his people. This is a very principle stand, and I applaud him and ask that God bless him abundantly, and I pray that this stand will change the hearts and minds of his people so they withdraw their support for euthanasia.

Thank-you Grand Duke for demonstrating the courage of convictions we all need to have in this fight. It might cost us our jobs, or our prestige, but what does that matter compared to saving lives? We cannot be silent. God Bless!

UPDATE (Fri 12:07pm): While I doubt the Grand Duke has facebook, there is a facebook group supporting his actions. Please join it at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37870554817

Further Movements on the Pro-Death Front

A few weeks ago, I wrote the Call to Arms post about euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS), and I pointed out that the pro-death advocates are doing everything they can to make EAS legal in Canada. They are a slick, sophisticated machine, and the next part of their plan is marching on smoothly. They are either manipulating, or have taken over the media, and are using the media to show EAS in a positive light. Case in point is the coverage of an upcoming criminal trial in Quebec.

Stephane Dufour's trial begins tomorrow in Quebec. He is charged under s .241 of the Criminal Code with helping his uncle to commit suicide- by hanging. That's right, the charge is assisted suicide, and he assisted in the hanging. His uncle was unable to kill himself, so dear sweet nephew Stephane helped him to hang himself. The media coverage is turning this into a debate about whether EAS should be legal in Canada, but the legal question to be answered at trial is if Mr. Dufour assisted in the suicide or not- there is no great public policy question to be answered here- it was answered in R. v. Rodriguez when the Supreme Court found that s. 241 is constitutional. But that doesn't matter to the media. They are reporting that this case is all about the "right to die".

Yahoo's poll of the day today was "Should Canada legalize assisted suicide" and when I voted, it was 59% yes, 41% no. While the poll is not scientific, it does show that we have a lot of work to do. The pro-death movement, assisted by the media has made great strides in changing public opinion by relabeling the terms of the debate.

Read the Lifesite News version of the story here.

Read the Canadian Press version here.

Note the way each group uses language to make their point.

And be very, very worried about the mainstream media's coverage of the issue. In the Call to Arms post I encouraged everyone to contact their MP's about their feelings on EAS. I forgot to mention the HUGE role that the media plays in presenting and covering the issue. So, the task now, if we are to win in the court of public opinion (which of course the politicians listen to) is to make sure the media presents both sides of the story. The way to do that is by writing to your papers, TV stations and news websites. Give them feedback- let them know what you think about both the issue and their coverage of it. If a columnist writes a piece you disagree with, respond- e-mail addresses can invariably be found at the bottom of the column. If it is an online piece, leave a comment in the comment section. It doesn't take much time, and you might not think it will do anything, but it does. It lets the media know what its readers/viewers are thinking.

The time for passivity is gone. We need to speak now, before it is too late. Read and watch the news attentively, and whenever life issues come up, address them- discuss the news at work or school or with friends the next day, and, for the sake of LIFE, let the media outlet know how you feel. Our power comes from our voice, so let's use it!

A Call to Arms

In recent days I've blogged a lot about euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) - specifically the Washington I-1000 Initiative, and the troubling response of my legal classmates to the issue. It's also the part of the issue I'm writing my paper on, so it's something I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading about.

And I've come to the realization that we, as Catholics and as pro-lifers need to get our act together on this issue. I've spoken to pro-lifers who think that dealing with abortion is more immediate because 2000 babies are dying every week from abortion in Canada (and 3000 in the US) and a million every week worldwide, and that is a genocide. We are losing millions of children to this and we have to fight with every fiber of our being against it. However, the forces of the culture of death have begun to marshal around the issue of EAS, and we also have to do something about that.

In some ways, we are in a better position to prevent EAS than we are to prevent abortions right now, and we need to keep it that way. Currently, those of us fighting against EAS are in the same position pro-lifers were in before Roe v. Wade (US) and before R v. Morgantaler (Canada). Right now, the law in Canada doesn't allow for either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is prosecutable as murder, and assisted suicide has its own charge in s. 241 of the Criminal Code. We need to keep it that way! But the only way for us to do that is to be vocal about it. We need to speak about the issue, and we need to create strong arguments against it. Because, as abortion has shown us, once it's legal it's really hard to change the law, and trying to put in "protections" haven't been all that successful.

Right now, we are in a position to launch an offensive battle against EAS. If we don't launch it, we will end up playing a catch-up, reactive, defensive action against the forces of death, just like we are with abortion. So, you ask, how do we fight this battle?

The battle is going to be won in the halls of Parliament, the courtrooms of our nation and in the media. That's where we need to fight this.

In 2004, Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde introduced a private members bill that would allow EAS. This bill was defeated, not by a vote in Parliament, but by the 2006 election being called. Again in 2006, she introduced another EAS bill. It again was only defeated by dying on the order paper when the 2008 election was called. You can read the 2004 bill here and the 2006 bill here. We don't know how Parliament will vote on this issue. However, she has said that she will reintroduce the same bill in the current Parliament at her earliest opportunity. There is now a group in BC, in the wake of the Washington decision, pushing for EAS to be legalized in Canada.

If they go the legislative route, the only people who can stop EAS are the MP's. I encourage everyone to contact their MP frequently about this issue, and all life issues. Whenever you hear a story in the news, forward it to them, with your opinions about it. MP's represent YOU and have a duty to do what the majority of their constituents want. The only way they know what their constituents want is if they hear from them, so please contact your MP. You can find your MP's name and contact information here.

If this battle is fought in the courts- and there is a good chance that it will be, because I think Parliament will be afraid to deal with this issue because it's a political hot potato (just like the same-sex marriage issue) it will be a long expensive battle. The only way to help the fight here is to make sure the organizations that fight this with intervener status, like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition have the funding to do it. (Intervener status means they have a right to make submissions before the court deciding the issue.)

The final, and perhaps most important battleground is the media, because it is the media that Parliament and the courts will look to when making "public policy" decisions, which is what these are. They are looking for consensus among Canadians about what they want. We need to fight this battle against death in the forefront of public opinion. We need to challenge the terms that the pro-death crowd uses- terms like "dying with dignity" and "unbearable pain and suffering." A public battle is fought and won by gaining the hearts and minds of the population. The population is very busy and likes catchy phrases that sound good that they can repeat without really learning anything about it. We need to challenge the meaning of those terms- ask them to be defined. We need to redefine them for our benefit. If you want a good example of where this has been done before- look at the pro-choice movement. Pro-lifer's have science on their side, but the pro-choicers won because they had the language. We need to make sure that the terms the media uses are terms we want them using. That can only be done by having a public dialogue on the issue.

Consider this a call to arms.

Rally the troops.

Get ready to fight, because this is going to be a long hard fight.

Those of you who are prayer warriors; start praying.

And let's win this battle without losing the legalization fight. We can if we start fighting now.

We don't need compromise and appeasement, we need to save lives.

Health Care Directive

In Health Law, we've been working on advanced directives- the things you sign to talk about the medical decisions you want made on your behalf if you become unable to consent to treatments, or lose capacity to give instructions, and we had to draft our own. It was very tough- trying to put Church teachings on end of life care into words- I don't know that I succeeded in mine- I'm not signing it until I think about it some more, but it's really important. (Once I figure out how to draft mine, I will post it)

The first thing I want to say is be very, very, very careful as to how you word these. The second thing I want to say is make sure you ask your lawyer (if you are using one) what he uses to make them up. If he says the firm uses a precedent, you need to be very careful in the instructions you give, and ensure that you read over it and ask LOTS of questions about what it entails. Why? Because many directives do not follow the teachings of the Church regarding end of life care.

When you are coming up with your instructions, take time to think it through. Talk to a priest you trust. Do not let anyone (the lawyer, the home care facility, the hospital) rush you, because it is important. The following are my thoughts on what you should include, but please don't consider this exhaustive advice- it is merely information you need to consider. If you already have an advanced directive (also known as a health care directive) please review it.

As Catholics, we need to ensure that we don't allow our health care directives to permit passive assisted suicide (which is legal in most countries, including Canada and the US). Passive assisted suicide is removing or withholding treatments and allowing someone to die. Those treatments can include basic things like food and water. If that is removed, you starve/dehydrate to death. This is an inhumane practice, but is allowed.

For women, you want to include a clause regarding what you want done if you are pregnant.

When you appoint a proxy (a person who will make decisions in the event you cannot), make sure you choose someone who will make decisions in line with church teachings. If you want, you can explicitly state that they have to make decisions based on Church teachings.

Do you want to donate your tissues for therapeutic purposes? For medical research?

This is not a long list, but just some of the things I am considering for mine. As a final plug, I want to advise everyone to ensure they have a will, power of attorney and a healthcare directive, and advise you to get them drafted by a lawyer to ensure they meet all the legal requirements. Don't think that just because you are young, you don't need one. None of us know when we will be called home to God, and I ask you prepare your affairs so your family (who will be grieving) doesn't have to think about these things.

In the case of all of them, if you don't plan ahead, the courts can make the decisions for you, and that should scare you more than anything else I can say. J Also- please discuss these issues with your family- they NEED to know what your wishes are in advance.

Finally, if you envision you health care directive being needed sooner rather than later (or you have family who might need it) let them know that EMS personal are trained to look on the fridge for a plastic pouch containing the directive. If you've got questions, don't hesitate to ask.

The Positives of the Election

I decided to look at the election results from a new perspective this morning and be positive about them. However, after looking at them all day, I'm afraid I can't be positive. The cause of life lost yesterday. Not only in the presidential, senate and congress races, but also in the ballot measures. (Aside for the 4 family victories, there's not much to be positive about.) Americans seem to have soundly rejected life.

Washington passed I-1000 which legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Supposedly only for those with a terminal illness and less than 6 months to live, but if Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland are any indication it won't remain that way.) The truly scary thing about I-1000 that goes further than Oregon and actually requires the doctor who prescribes assisted suicide to state the underlying illness was the cause of death. Read it here yourself. Washington State now has the dubious distinction of becoming the 4^th place in the world to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. Washington is no longer a safe place to be elderly, disabled, have a terminal illness or suffer a serious accident.

Michigan approved Prop 2 which allows the unrestricted and unregulated destruction of human embryos for experimental purposes. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, 50 million humans have been aborted. How many more have died as lab experiments or in the In-Vitro process, let alone by the pill? How many more will now die in Michigan?

In California, Sarah's Law (Prop 2) which would have required parents to be notified 48h before their underage daughter had an abortion failed. The purpose of this law was to catch predators that were using abortions to cover up the rape of young girls.

In South Dakota, a measure to ban abortion failed.

In Colorado, an attempt to define personhood beginning at conception failed.

Not only that, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has a 0% pro-life record.

And to top it all off, Catholics helped Obama to win.

Chilling Class

In reading about euthanasia, especially the Latimer decision, what has always stuck out to me is how quickly people sympathize with Robert Latimer and ignore Tracy Latimer. (For anyone not familiar with the case, Tracy was Robert's 12 year old daughter who suffered from cerebral palsy. He killed her to "end her suffering" by piping carbon monoxide into the cab of his truck, and was convicted of 2^nd degree murder). See here to read the case. However, I have never really discussed the case with anyone who wasn't anti-euthanasia.

Until today.

In Disability and the Law.

With 18 law students.

Who will eventually be in the position to shape policy and legislation and maybe even interpret the law.

And all I can say is that I was chilled by the absolute callousness of the discussion. Nobody wanted to judge what Robert Latimer did. One said that he couldn't begin to imagine how hard the decision must have been, and that he was sure Latimer only did it out of love. Another said that the case left out an essential fact; that "Tracy was suffering unbearably and her parents tried to get help for her, but no one would give it." This is a law student, who presumably read the case, and the article we were discussing. In that, it was quite clear that Tracey's parents viewed further surgeries, which would have eased her pain, to be mutilations they couldn't support. But yeah, the essential fact that there was nothing anyone could do to ease her suffering was left out. Grrr! Selective reading anyone?

And no one wanted to talk about it from Tracey's perspective. I find that interesting, because in the very first class of the year, the professor mentioned that one of the things that hurts people with disabilities the most is the fact that they suffer from "benign neglect." That is, we make policies and decisions based on able-bodied persons without thinking of the impacts on persons with disabilities. And he encouraged us always consider what the impact of a decision is on people with disabilities. But apparently we don't have to do that when we are talking about euthanizing persons with disabilities because they aren't autonomous and able to consent. I'm not making this up!

One of the things we are taught in law school is that we need to open our minds to consider all elements of the issue, right from the basics, but in this class, everyone just assumed that there is such a thing as a "life unworthy of living." In fact, several people used that exact phrase to discuss the Latimer and Rodriguez cases, and the euthanasia/assisted suicide debate in general. And yet, doesn't that phrase implicitly assume its premise; the very thing we are taught not to do?

These are the same people who dismissed the Hendin and Foley (106 Mich. L. Rev. 1613 2007-2008) report on Assisted Suicide in Oregon as "completely biased." Apparently Hendin and Foley are wrong to advocate for palliative care because that assumes everyone wants palliative care, and don't really want to die.

These are the same people who spent 15 minutes discussing whether suicide can actually be the "logical, reasoned and rational choice." We had to ask this because, as lawyers we have to start from the basics and question everything. They analogized choosing suicide to choosing to refuse treatment.

These are the same people who agreed the Supreme Court of Canada is a conservative institution because of the elites who are appointed to it, and believe that the courts judgments reflect how society used to be, not how it is today.

I could go on about this, but you get the idea. I was absolutely horrified by the entire discussion, even more so when I remembered that these are the people who will help you draft your will, power of attorney and advanced health directive. These are the people who will run for and win political office at all levels of government. These are the people who will become civil servants and draft legislation. These are the people who will be appointed to the bench to interpret the law.

Is anyone else chilled by this?

Fallacy of the Living Tree

I spent today working on my major paper (in Law and Disability) on the topic of euthanasia of disabled infants and children, and I can't help but feel depressed by the relativism our society has embraced. I've read chilling journal articles that argue infants with disabilities should not live because their lives are not worth living. They are "damaged" and "different" and "not normal." The children's doctors and parents are choosing to "end the suffering" by actively or passively euthanizing these children. That is murder- infanticide, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Instead, some countries, like the Netherlands, have passed, or are considering passing laws, that allow for children to be euthanized because their lives will be full of pain and suffering. These types of laws generally follow after euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized.

Thankfully, Canada has not legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide. In the Rodriguez [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 decision, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, denied the right to assisted suicide to Sue Rodriguez. The majority's main concern was the public policy issues it raised, and the slippery slope arguments. However, that was 15 years ago. The composition of the court has changed, and I fear that if the right test case was brought before the court, that decision would be reversed, and euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada would be legalized. Jocelyn Downey, the Canada Research Chair on Health Law, has stated publicly that she is looking for the next Rodriguez to attempt to overturn the criminal code provisions against assisted suicide.

This brings me to the point of this entry. I find it incredibly frustrating that once an issue is decided, our legal system allows it to be continually looked at, and the Supreme Court has the power to overturn previous decisions on essentially a whim. What gives them that power? Our constitution apparently. The court claims they have the right to interpret the laws passed by our elected Parliament. This is to prevent antiquated laws, which violated modern social mores and norms, from holding Canada back. This is referred to as the living tree doctrine, and the court uses it regularly to overturn the common law, and laws crafted by Parliament. The idea is that the constitution should be read in a purposive way, allowing it to change with the times.

This means that no matter how many times an issue comes before the court, it is always open to them to redefine the issue so it fits in with what they see as the modern understanding. So, notwithstanding that precedent set in Rodriguez, a Supreme Court today could rule in the opposite direction. No matter how many precedents there are, the court is free to overturn the current law. Can anyone say relativism??? It also depresses me. We can work hard to prevent the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in case after case, but even if we defeat it 100 times, the 101st time, it's open to the court to look at the constitutional question and say we should use the living tree doctrine.

And yet, even if that's true, we have a duty to fight the good fight in every case, and to put forward the best possible argument no matter what, because if nothing else, history shows us that once something becomes legal, it becomes even harder to root out. Funny how the court never uses the living tree doctrine for then.