Physician Assisted Suicide

Sometimes as I read my morning news - a potential blog topic just pops up. The first few sentences are there in my mind before I am even aware that I am thinking about  writing. But for most topics I need to think about them longer than that - sometimes for a day or two, sometimes for a week before I start to write.  But every once in awhile a topic that I had discarded as not being interesting enough to write or to read about starts (unknown to my conscious mind) to simmer, germinate - some might even say fester in the deep recesses of my brain. Then some morning I wake up and realize that I do have something I want to say about that topic. Physician assisted suicide was a topic that I thought I was done with. I have been clear in the past that I believe that we should all have the right to say" I am ready to go". There was not much else for me to say. But.......

In my mind any law governing my right to die needed to be as simple as possible given society's need to ensure that there is capacity and consent. I was surprised therefore when the Parliamentary committee' report wandered (I thought) somewhat off track and made the conversation needlessly more complicated. They proposed that minors and people living with a significant mental illness should also have the right to say that they were ready to die. Whenever I had thought about  physician assisted suicide, I thought it would apply to those individuals who had some sort of terminal condition that was causing them pain or anguish.  To "allow" those with a mental illness - surely by definition people who do not have the capacity to make such a decision, to decide to request assistance would be absurd and open to allegations of abuse.

But I have thought about it and it now seems to me that there are clearly times when living with a mental illness, specifically those conditions  that are related to a chemical imbalance and living with a physical ailment are perhaps more analogous than I originally thought. It is well documented that while the effects of such mental illnesses as schizophrenia or clinical depression can be ameliorated with medications, individuals frequently complain that the side effects are so uncomfortable that they would rather not take them. The medications can cause a deadening  of emotions and a lessening  awareness of the world around the individual. They can make it impossible for the individual to participate  effectively in their environment . For some the medications are only effective when their emotions are so deadened that it feels as if they are living in a cotton batten lined cocoon.  The choices as to whether or not to take medication is not really a choice.  The individual can either live with the symptoms of the mental illness - a lifelong condition that will limit their effectiveness and participation, caused them great anguish and at the very least will keep them marginalize from much of society, or they can take medication that will limit their effectiveness and participation, caused them great frustration and at the very least will keep them marginalize from much of society. It doesn't seem to be much of a choice. Is being in great physical pain the only reason as to why we, as a society would allow physician assisted suicide?

I am not in any way suggesting that those individuals who live with a profound, incurable mental illness should have easy access to physician assisted death. But I am wondering, for the first time, if we need to have a conversation about it. I think for example that the issue of capacity and consent is far more complex than when talking about terminal physical ailments. We may need to change the definitions of those terms.  I think that we need to have a conversation about what  is suffering and when is it too much, I think we need to have a discussion as to when is the patient in control of their treatment. For example if I decide that I will not have treatment (with all of it side effects)  for a cancer - am I a suitable candidate for physician assisted suicide? If so, why can't an individual living with a lifelong and debilitating mental illness reject treatment and all of its side effects and request physician assisted suicide?

So perhaps the parliamentary committee did not get off track.......perhaps they went exactly where they needed to go.

Let Us Speaks Of Dog And Cat Fur

As reported on CTV's Vancouver News, a MP is proposing legislation to prevent the importation of dog and cat fur. Good for him! It is important to keep one's priorities straight. There are millions of refuges wandering around Europe and the Middle East- desperate to find a safe place to exist, in developing countries an even larger number of children do not have access to even the most basic levels of education and in more countries than I can count, women are denied the right to make choices. Closer to home - women still have to fight to gain equal access to all opportunities, in some regions of the country women don't have access to the full complement of health care needed that will allow them to remain in full control of their bodies, thousands of Canadian children go to bed hungry every night, our mental health system is woefully inadequate in the south and even more so in the north, and our economy in some parts of the country is in serious trouble. But yes - let us protect the dogs and cats of the world.

Forgive me if I sound harsh but the hypocritical, sanctimonious  and disingenuous attitude around animals and their rights is more than a little bit irritating. I understand that people who are cat and dog lovers (or know someone who is) feel that some cute little things should be treated differently than other animals. North Americans also think that eating horse meat or cute little Bambi (a fawn for those not up on old Walt Disney cartoons) is proof that such a person must be something just the other side of a barbarian. Of course it is okay to eat a calf (veal) or to wear fur coats made from animals either painfully trapped or raised on what are called farms but are really just out door factories. As a general rule we have no problem eating eggs that come from chickens who are raised in either cages that isolate the hens from each other or in such crowded conditions that they can barely move. It is perfectly acceptable to eat bacon that comes from pigs that have been raised in crates that fairly mimic anyone's worse definition of hell  or to munch away on some fish stick manufactured from whatever species was dragged from the ocean floor, potentially destroying coral reefs and fish habitat as well as killing and throwing away fish that are caught up in the drag lines or huge nets and are not wanted. 

I fully understand that the thought of some animal that one can relate to (e.g. a dog or cat) being hurt, confined or abused is offensive. It should be.  We need to have laws in place in our country that ensure that these animals are protected from people who seem to take some delight from either inflicting pain or having an overwhelming need to being in control of something. If  people need to eat meat or to wear fur - that is up to them. It is none of my business . However if they choose to do so, and knowingly ignore the suffering their desires cause then I wish they would explain to me how their moral stance as to the sanctity of animal life is any better than those who kill dogs and cats for their fur or their meat.

For those who argue that they only eat ethically raised meat and are therefore free to criticize others, let me just say that their argument reminds me of some slave owners from the American South (or for that matter British, Dutch, or Spanish slave owners). Those owners would argue that they were "good" slave owners because they avoided punishing their slaves too much. They also would praise themselves for providing adequate accommodation, clothing  and food before sending them out the fields to work. I am not too sure if there is an ethical continuum.  You can't be a little bit ethical around an issue.

We need to stop judging others before we judge ourselves. If you want to stop the importation of items that use cat and dog fur - just stop buying it.

Dual Citizenship

Last week one of the big Canadian news stories (as decided by the major media outlets and their respective talking heads) was the decision of the Canadian government to do away with legislation that allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of Canadians convicted of terrorism and other serious offences.  Canadian citizens that is, who hold dual citizenship.   The Liberal government has argued with some validity that once a Canadian - always a Canadian. The government does not have right to strip someone of their nationality - perhaps especially if that same government has awarded that nationality. Taking away someone's right to be a Canadian only means that the criminal will, after serving their sentence, get deported to their country of origin. This process is problematic on a number of levels. It just dumps the problem onto another country. It treats the individual as someone unique rather than the criminal they are and  it in the language of the government creates two levels of citizenship. One for those who were born here and cannot have a dual citizenship and one for those who were born elsewhere.

While I agree with the government's direction, there is something that I do not understand about the whole discussion. I don't understand dual citizenship. I don't understand why someone who decided to leave their country of birth and move to Canada would want  to retain their previous citizenship. It quite frankly feels as if that person wants the best of both worlds. They want to have all of the advantages of being Canadian - health care, educational opportunities and  a vibrant, beautiful country relatively free of strife etc. I also suspect that there is some security in carrying a Canadian passport in terms belonging to a country that will, at least on paper protect your rights, while traveling abroad. At the same time that holder of a dual citizenship gets to use their other passport while traveling if it is advantageous to them. I also suspect that it enables that person to reap whatever economic or social advantages of still appearing to be a citizen of their country of birth. That feels unfair. I don't think one can have it both ways.

Canada needs immigrants. We need to continually improve our capacity to welcome to our country people who want to live here. Canada has historically had a very high percentage of people who come here, becoming Canadian citizens. But we need to do more to ensure that those recent Canadians become full and active participants in what John Ralston Saul has referred to as an "old experiment, complex, and in worldly terms, largely successful " (one of my favourite quotes as given by his wife the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson  Governor General of Canada - it goes on to say "Stumbling through darkness and racing through light, we have persisted in the creation of a Canadian civilization) .  However, in spite of my enthusiasm for Canada to become a place where people want to live, I remain unconvinced that we need to encourage people to come here by offering the right to dual citizenship.

It seems to me that being a Canadian citizen should require everyone (not just new immigrants) to make an unconditional commitment to the our country. Dual citizenship does not suggest to me such a commitment but rather an attempt to hedge one's bets.

The government at the same time also suggested that rather than people waiting six years to become a Canadian citizen (and only having to be in Canada for four of those six years) that the waiting time be reduced to five years - but only actually being in Canada for three years. Again I don't understand. While of course people might need to travel to visit family etc, why, if they want to make Canada the permanent home ,would they be out of the country for up to two years during the process of becoming Canadian?

Perhaps it is far too easy for all of us to be Canadians. Perhaps we all need to demonstrate both some knowledge of our country, its history and laws as well as the capacity to be engaged in our communities. Perhaps we should all stop taking our citizenship for granted. Then perhaps we would be able to demand more from those who want to live here.

Pre-Election Buffoonery

I had promised myself that I was going to avoid all mention of the American presidential primaries. In part because the whole process just drags on and on, and in part because it is none of my business. Furthermore nothing I could possibly say would influence anyone. I could as well have used the argument that I really don't understand the American system of electing a president except that in my conversations with numerous Americans - they don't either. My resolve to not write about the process was made in spite of the obvious temptation to pass comment on Donald Trump and what appeared to be his buffoonery. Recent events in various Republican primaries suggest that at least the assumption that no one could take him serious was, at best, seriously flawed.

Of more concern is the rise of Canada's own version of Trump. Kevin O'Leary is a former participant on CBC's The Dragon's Den and a commenter on economics  with various news programs. He has started to publically muse about his ability to be elected as the leader of whatever party he chooses and then to be elected Prime Minister. In the meantime he has promised/threatened to be a thorn in the side of any Canadian government that proposes to run a deficit. This is from a man who has never been elected to any public office or to the best of my knowledge ever served as a consultant to any government. His absurd statements blaming the Albertan government for the crash of oil prices in Canada only serve to demonstrate either his profound lack of understanding as to how the international oil market works or his willingness to be wrong simply to get attention. His public suggestions/threats that he would ignore the constitution and any negotiations with First Nations to ensure that oil pipe lines get built to both the east and west coast could make one wonder how much money he has invested in the oil fields of Alberta. It is tempting to believe that he is just being an idiot so that his ratings on TV will increase

There is little doubt that much of what happens to the south of us eventually migrates north. If negative political advertisements work in the USA, they usually work almost as well in Canada (although not in the past Federal election). If some movie star/president argues that there should be fewer social programs or that all vaccines are bad for us - at least some Canadians will believe it. If some TV reality star suggest that they, with no experience and armed only with a big mouth, are better qualified than anyone else to run the country - one can be reasonably sure that our own version of that person will appear in Canada. But we don't need to follow the lead of the Americans. And in this particular case we shouldn't. Politics is serious business. Running the country takes vision, skill and a willingness to listen to others. We have just spent eight years with a prime minister who lacked at least one of those skills. We don't need to go down that path again.

If I could make a suggestion to all of the serious news media including the CBC, Global, the Globe and Mail and CTV etc. - just stop writing and talking about O'Leary. Imagine if American news organization had ignored Trump 12 months ago. The Americans might actually have some real choices to make about who will be their next president.

Reclaiming Language

In the March issue of The Walrus, there is an extended article on the need for, and the

complexities of, teaching indigenous children their nation's language. The task is made

complicated in part because many of Canada's first languages are structured differently than are

the languages of Europe and therefore an entirely different pedagogical approach is required.   

The reasons why indigenous children need to be taught their grandparent's first language within a

formal school system as opposed to being taught by their parents and other adults in the

community are long standing and well known. There is no doubt that the Canadian government's

policy, enacted by direct and indirect agents was to assimilate the indigenous peoples of Canada

into what was then perceived to be the mainstream of Canadian society. Residential schools were

designed to be the primary tool of cultural assimilation/genocide. If only the government

had waited a hundred years, they would not have needed to do anything at all thereby saving not

only money that could have been better spent but more importantly not causing long term

psychological damage to countless communities.

Languages die. That is a fact. No one speaks Sumerian or Sanskrit anymore. Only academics and

priests use Latin, or the language of Bede or Chaucer.  Languages die out because a more

predominant culture or language supersedes it. I can remember growing up in Quebec and

knowing that some French speaking parents wanted to send their children to the English school

system not only because it was a better education but also because it would prepare their children

to compete in an English  speaking world. The fact that French in Quebec is the dominant

language has as much to do with the language protection laws enacted in the last two or three

decades of the 1900s as it does on its natural resurgence.  The increased numbers of speakers of

Gaelic or Welsh in Great Britain are a point of pride for those individuals but do not reflect

the mainstream. Those languages are not used outside relatively small circles. They frequently

appear to be an affection as opposed to a useful addition to the human dialogue. While no point

was made as to the irony of it, the above article from The Walrus in discussing which Indigenous

languages are most used in Canada, briefly mentioned that "major dialects tend to crush minor

ones". Not because the speakers of Cree are mean or colonialist but because it makes life easier

to communicate when we all speak a common language.  It makes more sense to communicate in

the language of the majority.

There is no doubt that the early disappearance/eradication of Indigenous languages in Canada is

a direct result of the interference of the Canadian government in the natural lives of whole

communities. The harsh, abusive techniques used to punish children who spoke their first

language within the Residential School system as operated by the various churches and the

Canadian government were profoundly inappropriate and more importantly - damaged the

psyche of an entire population. But many of those languages would have evolved and some if not

most would have died a natural death.

I accept that it is critically important that Indigenous communities become strong through and

because of their culture. I think that, because of the impact of how the Canadian government

(and all of those who voted for them in the 149 years since confederation), the best, perhaps the

only way that that can occur is for the children and grandchildren of those who were punished

for speaking their language get to learn it and to celebrate it. It saddens me that our mutual

languages did not evolve together. We could have had a language that instead of a few place

names basterdized into English as the only acknowledgement of there being a culture here before

the Europeans arrived, would have been rich in the best of both languages.

And that affects us all.