OTTAWA, March 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Most Canadians want to restrict assisted suicide and euthanasia just to people who are “terminally or irremediably ill,” according to a new poll done for LifeCanada, vetoing it for teenagers and the mentally ill, and they also don’t want Christian institutions or doctors to be forced to euthanize.
“Public support does not correspond with recent recommendations by Parliament’s Special Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying,” said Natalie Sonnen, LifeCanada’s executive director. A parliamentary committee dominated by Liberals and New Democrats recently recommended assisted suicide be available to “mature” children and to those experiencing “psychological suffering that is enduring and intolerable.”
The survey of 950 Canadians found 50 percent approved assisted suicide only in “grievous and irremediable circumstances” while 10 percent disapproved in all circumstances. On the other hand 31 percent approved it “in various circumstances” and 9 percent “whenever it is requested.” 48 percent wanted it restricted to the terminally ill.
Only about 20 percent wanted assisted suicide to be available for disabled or chronically depressed adults or teenagers, or seniors with dementia (who had asked for it before becoming incapacitated). Only about 10 percent believed it was appropriate for “disabled or chronically ill teenagers” and for adults who “recently suffered a catastrophic loss” or catastrophic injury. Only 16 percent thought mentally ill adults should be allowed assisted suicide.
On one issue of particular interest to disabled rights groups, the survey question did not provide a clear cut answer. In terms of oversight, 67 percent of Canadians said “two or more medical professionals” or “an independent committee” should sign off on the fatal decision. But a committee of disabled persons and lawyers and medical personnel who work with the disabled has just produced a “Vulnerable Persons Standard” that calls for two doctors plus a judge to decide not only on the medical condition of the applicant for assisted suicide, but his or her vulnerability to coercion.
Another highly controversial issue is whether doctors should be required to either perform euthanasia when approved or, in the case of doctors who object in good conscience, to at least refer patients to colleagues they know will perform the deed.
The parliamentary committee recommended that doctors with conscientious objections be required to provide effective referrals but not to actually commit the fatal act.
The survey showed that two thirds of Canadians believed doctors should not be compelled to deliver assisted suicide, but it did not ask whether they should be forced to refer. Several doctors groups have argued that when doctors refer, it means they approve and recommend the procedure, which they never could in good conscience, since it means killing the patient.
Given choices, Canadians said protecting the vulnerable should be emphasized over access to assisted suicide by a 50 to 31 percent margin. And by a 54 to 22 percent margin, they wanted access to palliative care stressed over access to assisted suicide.
Though the Liberal government has indicated it will require MPs to vote for whatever legislation it tables to regulate euthanasia, only 9 percent of Canadians wanted MPs to be “whipped” to follow their party line.
Alex Schadenberg, head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews the poll showed “Canadians do not support the extreme position of the parliamentary committee,” noting the rejection of the recommendations for assisted suicide to be open to children and the mentally incapacitated.
“It also shows,” he said, “that Canadians do not really want euthanasia and assisted suicide. But they are afraid of suffering. What they really want is better palliative care.”
“Canadians are concerned about the vulnerable and they have a right to be concerned,” added Schadenberg. “The committee recommends what is in place in other jurisdictions and it is inadequate: one doctor does the deed and reports to someone else. That’s not oversight. True oversight provides an independent person or body who approves beforehand.”
Amy Hasbrouck, spokesperson for the disabled persons’ rights group Not Dead Yet, agreed. “People with disabilities are the most vulnerable to euthanasia. They need independent oversight before the fact, not after. A judge or someone independent has to rule on whether they are being induced to ask for PAD because of their disability.”
Find the full LifeCanada report here.