Medical Assistance in Dying - Participatory Democracy in Canada

I have, I think,  discussed within this blog my complete agreement with the thesis that people have the right, when they decide it is time - to die and that it is appropriate that they receive assistance from trained professionals to do so.  Canada has such a law, but it may be inconsistent in some areas and a Quebec court has instructed the government to fill in some of the blank spots. Specifically, the court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for such service to be provided only to people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable while not allowing individuals who have degenerative medical conditions that will result in death but not quite just yet to ask to die. Amongst other issues, up to now individuals with Alzheimer disease but who are still competent have not been able to request assistance to die in spite of the fact that the disease's prognosis is clear and by the time the individual can "naturally expect to die" they are no longer competent to make the request.

Because of the court ruling, Canada must make changes to the law. They have taken a rather unusual step to collect as many opinions as possible. There will be, of course, long discussions with medical professions, some involved community members and probable a few lawyers. The government, however, has added an additional consultation procedure.

While in a perfect world (and in a much smaller country) we would all have the right and the ability to be in front of the lawmakers and have our 15 minutes of fame to state what we think. Clearly, that is not practical. I would be long dead before the government heard from just the people of Vancouver Island. The government has opened a web site with just a few questions and lots of room to add comments. It is a way of hearing from hundreds if not thousands of Canadians.

I am not sure if the questions they have asked will generate the range of answers they need. I am not even sure if they have asked the right questions. But they have tried and for that - I give them points.

My primary concern is that it does not feel as if the government has sufficiently publicized the fact that Canadians can participate in the discussion. I only found out about it because I read the CBC online news every morning.

There is still a week left - if you have some thoughts - go to https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/ad-am/index.html and get involved.

Hereditary Rulers - I am Confused - Again

In almost every opinion poll that I have read in the past ten years, somewhere between 40% and 45% of Canadians would do away with the monarchy (https://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2774/ monarchy-august-2017/). When Queen Elizabeth dies I suspect that there will be even less reason for Canadians to want any connection to the British throne. The role the queen has is purely ceremonial and irrelevant. In Canada, there is little acceptance that because one's grandparents or great-great-grandparents were in charge - that one should automatically have the same power.  Canadians would never accept any political interference from someone who had hereditary power - even when it might be useful. Even the British do not tolerate interference -else surely they would demand that the Queen stop the Brexit fiasco.  

The above paragraph might provide a somewhat clumsy entry into a discussion about Prince Harry's decision to separate himself and his wife from the traditional royal family's roles. It is just as useful entry into my confusion about some Canadians' overwhelming support for the voices of hereditary Indigenous leaders over elected band officers.

The issue has once again become an important issue as Costal GasLink's building of a pipeline for natural gas is being disrupted over who has the right to grant permission. GasLink believes it did everything right by getting approval from all 20 of the Band Councils along the proposed route. However, the 13 hereditary leaders within the five clans that comprise the Wet’suwet’en nation, through which part of the proposed pipeline route lies, were not consulted and everyone from the UN to university students are up in arms.

I understand that the present system of elected band councils is offensive to many Indigenous communities. It is an imposed system that lacks any historical or cultural ties to those communities. Because elections are held every two years - members of councils, in the words of one of my drivers from somewhere around Merritt B.C., "are always running for re-election". It is an absurd and inefficient system for running a community. While not every Indigenous community would agree - something needs to change. The issue becomes even more complex as many of the communities have responsibilities for supporting their members even when they do not live within the traditional lands.

It is tempting to suggest that all of the hereditary leaders and the elected leaders should gather in one room and let them decide who gets to decide what. Because quite frankly, I don't care. I should have absolutely no say in that decision. Those individuals know what their community needs and they should decide what mechanism needs to be in place so that effective decisions can be made. But someone does need to clarify who decides what and when. Unfortunately, because different communities have different traditions, in all likelihood, no consensus would ever be reached and we would continue to have a patchwork of rules and agreements.

In the interim, companies such as Costal GasLink are forced to negotiate with a number of different political entities including the highly politicalized traditional leadership - all of whom have different agendas and different allegiances.  I wonder if in the foreseeable future if any activity that comes close to touching some First Nation community will ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction. I wonder if any of the protesters have bothered to understand the differences between traditional leadership and elected. I seriously doubt if any of them in their personal lives would accept an individual who inherited a position of power the right to control any part of their life. 

Furthermore, I would be a lot more comfortable with the dialogue as to who gets to decide what if I was sure that those non-involved people, the students, the UN, and various environmentalists were really on the side of the Indigenous communities and/or their hereditary leaders. My cynical side wonders if those who are protesting would support anyone who was opposed to natural resource development.

No War for me

Growing up in the 50s and the early 60s with all of the talk of war with Russia as well as having a father who had spent almost five years in the army during WWII, it seemed almost normal possible that I would be conscripted into the army.  When I was in my very early teens, I felt as if my family or at least people that I knew had been involved in fighting some war since just after the turn of the last century. It was with a certain sense of relief and a dash of national pride when I realized that unlike my peers who lived in the USA, I would never be conscripted to fight a war.  

I can remember, in my early 30s, thinking that I had dodged the bullet and that no matter what - I would never face the pressure to fight. I had wondered for years what I would do if I was requested/ordered to fight on behalf of my country. I now knew that that would never be an issue. However, then my son was born and I wondered every once in a while if he would ever be in a position where he would have to make that decision. It wasn't a constant worry, just an occasional whisper of almost curiosity would drift across my mind when reading or watching the news. When my son reached his mid-30s -  I stopped thinking about it. He too was safe.

I stopped thinking about it, in part, because while there were still numerous armed conflicts around the world and Canada as a member of the UN and NATO has done its share of intervening in some of those conflicts, it just did not seem likely that any of them would evolve into major international conflicts. All of the major world powers seemed to have understood that escalation would only lead to more deaths.

But now I have three grandsons - and I occasionally worry about what they might be expected to do. I worry about the consequences of the actions of world leaders who are so full of their own egos and of such limited intelligence and capacity to see reality (e.g. Trump or Kim Jong-un) that they will start something with profound consequences for thousands if not millions of young people. I worry if the rich elites of the world who are protected by their wealth and privilege will not care if someone else's child dies in a war that they have created. I worry if my grandsons and the world that they live in will be sucked into a vortex of ever-increasing tensions where the only solutions are escalated sabre rattling until someone shoots someone, until the missiles are fired.

Of course, this all may be the mindless wanderings of a man who is getting old and who has far too much time on his hands. Maybe we are not that much closer to war; it may be that the USA's murder of an Iranian general will have no long term consequences. It may be that Iran, in spite of the fact that the USA's reneging on the signed, multi-national nuclear treaty has isolated them and has left them with few choices, will back down and agree to all of the USA's demands. But that just not seem likely.

So now I worry again. Not a lot - just a little twinge of concern as I read the news of the day. There is not a damn thing I can do about it. Any arrogance I may have had about living in a country that does not force its young people to carry guns is somehow slightly dissipated by the knowledge that there are foolish people in charge and they don't really care about me or mine.

Killing One's Neighbours

Killing One's Neighbours

If a neighbour, a few doors down from me was abusing his wife and children I would be morally obligated to call the police. If I knew that he was threatening them with serious harm or perhaps even death, I would need to intervene if I could be sure that I would not make the situation worse. If other neighbours were feeling threatened I would need to do what I could to protect them including offering them shelter. BUT if I went out and bought a state-of-the-art sniper rifle, planned how I could ensure that I knew where he was and then fired at him, not caring how many others I killed - I would be charged and convicted of first-degree murder. In some parts of the western world, including various states in the USA, I would face execution. In our civil society, no matter what the justification is - an individual cannot decide to execute someone.

In my younger years, it used to be a popular past time at parties to debate whether or not, if one could travel back in time, to do so to assassinate Hitler before he authorized the murder of six million people of the Jewish faith. It has always seemed to me that perhaps the answer is yes - but only if the time-traveller came back and was prepared to stand trial for murder and only if there was proof that there was no other way to stop Hitler or that senseless slaughter.

When Trump ordered the assignation of Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, he did so because he had been told that he was a "bad" man. Trump ordered the death of a person citing wrongdoings in the past and possible risks in the future. All of those who carried out the assignation would say that they were just following orders.
Soleimani may have been a terrible man, he may have been the devil incarnate. I don't know. It is clear that he may have been the key architect of many of the disruptive conflicts in the region. He may have been directly responsible for the deaths of countless Iranians. However, it is perhaps just as likely that he thought that what he had done was morally right - that he was only ensuring his country remained safe, protected from the interference of other countries. He might have even argued that he was only carrying out the orders of his leaders. We just do not know - and we never will. He was never tried or convicted in a world court for any of his crimes.

The west has for well over a hundred years interfered and manipulated the affairs of the Middle East. It has created countries, over-thrown legitimate rulers, robbed it of its resources and supported armed conflict on all sides in a relentless pursuit of the oil so desperately needed to maintain its capitalist growth. To suggest that the west is the illegitimate parents of the sorts of activities that Soleimani undertook would not be an exaggeration.

When there is retaliation - and how can there not be - the US will cry foul. They will say that any attempt on the part of Iran to "payback" is further proof as to how bad, how dangerous the Iranian government is. Any sneak attack on American lives or property will just be proof that "they" are all terrorists.

In a world where one power is allowed to use high tech weapons to kill those he does not agree with while no other country has the right to defend itself against the US's interest - we should all be afraid.