TORONTO, March 16, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent debate on euthanasia at Upper Canada College in Toronto showed the students were open to life. Natalie Hudson of Toronto Right to Life squared off against Ruth VonFuchs of the Toronto chapter of the Right to Die Society of Canada.
While Hudson’s presentation was well received, VonFuchs’ found herself challenged by students in the audience. One student admitted that her own life was nearly lost when her parents were counseled to not go through with surgery when she was a baby. The doctors had predicted that her condition would make her “quality of life” so poor that it would be better if she were allowed to die. Her parents fought for her life. She stated that she had the surgery and is a perfectly healthy young women today. Near the end of the debate, a teacher, noticeably moved, stood up and shared his experience with the audience. He had been part of an effort to keep a newly injured and disabled friend from despair and suicide. He admitted that they had “forced” him to continue through that period of his life. Ten years later, shortly before he died of natural causes, he thanked all of those who had fought for his life and claimed that the last ten years had been happier and more fulfilling than all of the fifty prior to his accident. Mrs. Von Fuchs apologized to the teacher, claiming that she did not intend to make any blanket statements on euthanasia. In response, Miss Hudson stated that she would definitely like to make a blanket statement. “Human life is an absolute good and always worth fighting for. Nothing is greater than life and we must encourage and support it at every opportunity”. In the afternoon Natalie Hudson debated Professor Wayne Sumner, a Princeton graduate and professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. Hudson was successful in pointing out the holes in his line of reasoning. His strongest point was an argument for autonomy. People must be given the ability to control the time and manner of their deaths, he suggested. This, he proposed, would mitigate both the physical and emotional suffering of death.
Hudson retorted that, on the contrary “One persons choice becomes another person’s duty.” She said, “When we open up the laws of society and allow individuals to determine their death, we place the same responsibility of that decision on all others who are in a similar state. Without the protection of the law, many, many patients would feel the burden of making a life and death decision foisted upon them in their time of need. Doctors would be forced to compromise their commitment to life, and patients, feeling that they are a burden on society, would opt for death as the most ‘unselfish’ choice.”