It’s When Laws are Passed That Problems Start

It is a strange function of Canadian politics that when bills are passed into law that public discussion seems to stop. This is the case with the recent amendments to the mercy killing and euthanasia bill that was recently passed by the federal government. Unfortunately, in typical fashion, major changes were discussed in a rapid manner with a foregone conclusion. I would like to lay out several points that must be kept to the forefront in the coming months and years.

1) The nature of mental competency. Though it seems odd to even debate this, but the question of when a person is mentally capable to make decisions is extremely unclear. How much knowledge, control or stability is necessary to make serious and indeed life-threatening decisions? Every person reading this knows the result of a confused state of mind that can lead to suicidal thoughts or even suicide itself. Our experience tells us that when people consider ending their lives, they are not generally considered sane. Yet now we are asking that this same predilection not be considered when it comes to mercy killing. This contradiction will be a hard-fought issue in the future. If a person shows that they are not mentally competent by being suicidal, how then can we accept another person’s request for suicide or mercy killing as a sign of competence?

2) No one knows what the future brings. An intelligent person tries to forecast but also realizes that she can never perfectly foresee her future. The new legislation allows for a request to be killed in the future if the person reaches a certain level of non-competence or illness. This is already almost impossible to forecast or to diagnose and it does not allow for both changing circumstances nor the negation of the request if one becomes incompetent or non-communicative.

3) Competence that is based on age is always artificial and we are continuing to see debates as to whether minors can be competent to make decisions even in the face of opposition from their parents or guardians. If minors are not competent to decide about drugs, alcohol, driving, age of sexual partners, why do we assume they have a competence in metaphysical and legal matters?

4) The rights of conscience of medical personnel, health care students and institutions have not been protected and several provinces (Quebec & BC) have already ridden over conscience rights. The forces of the culture of death are never satisfied with the status quo. It is not merely enough to acknowledge mercy killing and euthanasia, but it also must be legalized, promoted and any opposition ground out. I wish to be clear that it is the stated goal of Priests for Life Canada to battle in these areas and others so that even in the face of pro-death government and other social forces, we will continue to work to save lives, support families, supply the clergy with the tools necessary to build up that culture of life and give practical pastoral training in the face of this cultural onslaught.

Father Tom Lynch (PFLC National President)